Parking ticket overturned after "overt failure" of Kingston Council

Guildhall: Criticised by the appeal adjudicator

Guildhall: Criticised by the appeal adjudicator

First published in News Surrey Comet: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter - 020 8722 6313

A tribunal has criticised Kingston Council for an "overt failure" to respond to a driver's appeal over her parking ticket.

Last October the driver was slapped with a £110 ticket in Kingston Hill for parking on the pavement.

CCTV images showed her car partly off the road at a doctor's surgery near Kingston Hospital, a decision notice from the Parking and Traffic Appeals service said.

But in fact the driver was waiting for a parking space to open up before she reversed into it.

Adjudicator Belinda Pearce said: "During these proceedings the appellant submitted full and detailed written and telephone representations, and produced confirmatory documentation in support. The points raised by the appellant in those representations deserved proper consideration.

"I observe an overt failure to adequately identify/rebut or retort to the appellant's issues."

The council committed a "procedural impropriety" by not doing so, she said.

The driver's appeal was allowed.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:23am Tue 10 Jun 14

Nigel Wise says...

The Adjudicator has put Kingston Parking Department firmly in their place. There was a downright refusal by Kingston to see common sense and to properly administer the law by cancelling the penalty.

The person responsible for rejecting the motorists representations ought, at the very least, be disciplined and retrained. This assumes that this person received any appropriate training in the first place. From what has happened it seems unlikely.

The penalty ought never to have been issued in the first instance. The driver of the CCTV car and whoever reviewed the footage ought to also receive censure. This is categorical proof that CCTV cars cruising about are and never will be a satisfactory replacement for CEO's on foot.

These vehicles simply drive past and snap without capturing the full picture. They then move off as quickly as possible to capture the next innocent motorist on their rounds. Roll on the day that the Government ban these CCTV cars entirely after the forthcoming announcement into CCTV enforcement.

What about the appellant's costs though? The motorist and her witness have had to go up to PaTAS in Islington to attend a hearing. Both of them possibly missing a days work in the process. This is scandalous enforcement of the most dreadful kind. It proves beyond all doubt that enforcement in Kingston is entirely revenue driven. All the time that Kingston have dinosaur directors at the helm this will continue.

There needs to be a proven fair minded Parking Manager in total command in Kingston who is given a free hand without a director breathing down his neck and demanding more penalty money.

Until the old Parking Manager in the neighbouring Borough of Richmond on Thames was replaced by Stephen Hardy this type of enforcement was going on there. After Mr Hardy's arrival a fair parking enforcement policy was introduced. Richmond now has the fairest enforcement in London. Lord True Richmond Council's Leader also deserves a lot of credit for this. Local high streets that previously were seeing shop closures due to draconian enforcement tactics have since been reinvigorated with shops reopening.
The Adjudicator has put Kingston Parking Department firmly in their place. There was a downright refusal by Kingston to see common sense and to properly administer the law by cancelling the penalty. The person responsible for rejecting the motorists representations ought, at the very least, be disciplined and retrained. This assumes that this person received any appropriate training in the first place. From what has happened it seems unlikely. The penalty ought never to have been issued in the first instance. The driver of the CCTV car and whoever reviewed the footage ought to also receive censure. This is categorical proof that CCTV cars cruising about are and never will be a satisfactory replacement for CEO's on foot. These vehicles simply drive past and snap without capturing the full picture. They then move off as quickly as possible to capture the next innocent motorist on their rounds. Roll on the day that the Government ban these CCTV cars entirely after the forthcoming announcement into CCTV enforcement. What about the appellant's costs though? The motorist and her witness have had to go up to PaTAS in Islington to attend a hearing. Both of them possibly missing a days work in the process. This is scandalous enforcement of the most dreadful kind. It proves beyond all doubt that enforcement in Kingston is entirely revenue driven. All the time that Kingston have dinosaur directors at the helm this will continue. There needs to be a proven fair minded Parking Manager in total command in Kingston who is given a free hand without a director breathing down his neck and demanding more penalty money. Until the old Parking Manager in the neighbouring Borough of Richmond on Thames was replaced by Stephen Hardy this type of enforcement was going on there. After Mr Hardy's arrival a fair parking enforcement policy was introduced. Richmond now has the fairest enforcement in London. Lord True Richmond Council's Leader also deserves a lot of credit for this. Local high streets that previously were seeing shop closures due to draconian enforcement tactics have since been reinvigorated with shops reopening. Nigel Wise
  • Score: 4

9:30am Tue 10 Jun 14

alphabeti says...

According to Home Office guidelines CCTV should only be used where CEO enforcement would be impractical or dangerous. Monitoring of parking violations would not appear to meet either criteria.
According to Home Office guidelines CCTV should only be used where CEO enforcement would be impractical or dangerous. Monitoring of parking violations would not appear to meet either criteria. alphabeti
  • Score: 1

1:21pm Tue 10 Jun 14

kingstonpaul says...

Yet another example of the enforcement industry's inclination to simply fine people for the offence of 'being human'. Oh to live in a world where the population was so compliant and enamoured with micro-regulation controlling every aspect of their lives. It's not a world I want to be part of.
Yet another example of the enforcement industry's inclination to simply fine people for the offence of 'being human'. Oh to live in a world where the population was so compliant and enamoured with micro-regulation controlling every aspect of their lives. It's not a world I want to be part of. kingstonpaul
  • Score: 3

2:03pm Tue 10 Jun 14

alphabeti says...

alphabeti wrote:
According to Home Office guidelines CCTV should only be used where CEO enforcement would be impractical or dangerous. Monitoring of parking violations would not appear to meet either criteria.
And the down votes are because....?

This is from the CCTV code of practice.

"The primary purpose of any surveillance camera system used as part of civil enforcement arrangements must be the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from contravening parking or road traffic restrictions. Motorists may regard enforcement by cameras as over-zealous
and relevant authorities should use them sparingly. Such systems should,therefore, only be deployed where other means of enforcement are not practical and their effectiveness in achieving this purpose is subject to regular review."

Enforcement of parking can be done very easily by a CEO. There is no need for spy cameras.

http://www.penaltych
argenotice.co.uk/cct
v-enforcement/
[quote][p][bold]alphabeti[/bold] wrote: According to Home Office guidelines CCTV should only be used where CEO enforcement would be impractical or dangerous. Monitoring of parking violations would not appear to meet either criteria.[/p][/quote]And the down votes are because....? This is from the CCTV code of practice. "The primary purpose of any surveillance camera system used as part of civil enforcement arrangements must be the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from contravening parking or road traffic restrictions. Motorists may regard enforcement by cameras as over-zealous and relevant authorities should use them sparingly. Such systems should,therefore, only be deployed where other means of enforcement are not practical and their effectiveness in achieving this purpose is subject to regular review." Enforcement of parking can be done very easily by a CEO. There is no need for spy cameras. http://www.penaltych argenotice.co.uk/cct v-enforcement/ alphabeti
  • Score: 2

2:22pm Tue 10 Jun 14

helen59 says...

On another note Kingston Council make so much money out of parking fines and the famous yellow box fines when are they going to start mending the potholes in the borough ???
On another note Kingston Council make so much money out of parking fines and the famous yellow box fines when are they going to start mending the potholes in the borough ??? helen59
  • Score: 2

2:34pm Tue 10 Jun 14

FSD2013 says...

The real irony with this Council is that they appear to issue tickets willy nilly to people who are not clearly breaking any regulations, whether it be through insufficient or unclear signage on the Council's part or a human error in overstaying a ticket by a short period of time, but since they consented to the Sainsbury Local on Ewell Road there is an influx of cars parked on a clearly signed single yellow line and parking on double yellow lines on a dangerous corner at the top of Red Lion Road and there has not been one CEO to be seen.....are they trying to keep Sainsburys sweet or do they really not care about illegal and dangerous parking and prefer to operate in an area whether there are more cars to ticket for small misdemeanours!?
The real irony with this Council is that they appear to issue tickets willy nilly to people who are not clearly breaking any regulations, whether it be through insufficient or unclear signage on the Council's part or a human error in overstaying a ticket by a short period of time, but since they consented to the Sainsbury Local on Ewell Road there is an influx of cars parked on a clearly signed single yellow line and parking on double yellow lines on a dangerous corner at the top of Red Lion Road and there has not been one CEO to be seen.....are they trying to keep Sainsburys sweet or do they really not care about illegal and dangerous parking and prefer to operate in an area whether there are more cars to ticket for small misdemeanours!? FSD2013
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree