If there is nothing to Hide Leicester City Council, then just release the documents UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request. It's SIMPLE
Response From Rt. Hon Patricia Hewitt MP
This is the response, I got from my local MP after she wrote to Leicester City Council on my behalf. Leicester City Council Head of Traffic responded to her, see the attached scanned letter.
If there is nothing to Hide Leicester City Council, then just release the documents UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request. It's SIMPLE
If there is nothing to Hide Leicester City Council, then just release the documents UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION request. It's SIMPLE
Freedom of Information Appeal
I made an appeal to Leicester City Council over there refusal to release certain information I requested.
See previous posts
Spoke to Goverance to today , they said I should have a response by the end of next week. 16th October 2009
-- Posted from my iPhone
Vaughan
See previous posts
Spoke to Goverance to today , they said I should have a response by the end of next week. 16th October 2009
-- Posted from my iPhone
Vaughan
Letter to Mr Broster
I wrote a letter to Mr Broster who originally dealt with my stage 2 complaint, and I got a response not from Mr Broster as apparently he was on holiday, so Mr Thomas wrote to me.
Interesting
Dear Mr. Broster
Re: Stage 2 Complaint Response
I am emailing you in relation to the letter you sent me on 27th July
of
which you responded to my informal Appeal against parking tickets
enforced
on Granby Street after a recent Newspaper Article in the Leicester
Mercury,
this was a stage 2 complaint.
In your letter you have responded after speaking to Andrew Thomas the
following and I quote ³ The City Council had already decided to renew
the
lining of parking bays around the city prior to recent publicity
concerning
and incorrectly lined bay on Belvoir Street. ³
If that is the case why was a bay on Granby Street , Leicester, with
Double
Yellow lines and faded not part of the renew, this bay is situated in
between two parking bays that were renewed.
After obtaining a recent Freedom of Information request that came
through
today, they said the bay was last maintained in 2006. This shows to me
that
the Double Yellow Bay was Legal and therefore did not need renewing
like the
said parking bays. I would point the following out:
The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales)
Regulations 1996 Regulation 18(1) states:
Where an order relating to a road has been made, the order making
authority
shall take such steps as are necessary to secure:
(a) Before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road
of
such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may
consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the
effect
of the order is made available to persons using the road².
(b) The maintenance of such signs for as long as the order remains in
force.
© In a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application
of a
previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as
the
authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by
signs
being left in the wrong positions.
Does this bay not need renewing, after all it has been 3 years
It appears to me that your colleague may have misinformed you on this
matter
to shy away from the fact that they have been proved wrong via the
newspaper
and general public and it appears that the Council is UNFAIR, INJUST
and
above all likes to mislead the public and is FRAUD in my book and maybe
the
eyes of the Law.
I look forward to your comments
You responded to me
Vaughan Cartwright
Dear Mr Cartwright
I'm emailing a reply to you because it seems Mike Broster is away. This
afternoon I've been consulting Paul Commons who works for me - I think
you have met a number of times.
As a preliminary note after Stage 2 you have the right to go to the
Ombudsman if you remain dissatisfied and nothing in this email should be
taken as trying to deny you that right.
I am sending you this note to clear up your evident confusion.
If you were to stand at the foot of Calais Hill and look straight ahead
across Granby Street you will see an area covered by double yellow
lines. This area is designed to allow lorries to turn, I understand
it's for beer deliveries. The street was designed and built long before
parking enforcement came under the jurisdiction of the City Council and
I agree that considered in the direction of traffic flow along Granby
Street the design does look like three parking bays, with the area in
front of Calais Hill looking like a parking bay.
However parking is not permitted in that turning area there at all, so
we do not consider it as a parking bay. Therefore it wasn't included in
my instructions.
As a Council we do need to renew double yellow lines and do have a
programme to do that so don't be surprised if a team re-lines the double
yellows along Granby Street- it is not related to your circumstances.
All areas of the carriageway which are marked with double yellow lines
have two exemptions with associated rules, that is, for
loading/unloading and parking with a disabled sticker. This area of the
carriageway is no exception. But that does not make it a parking bay,
any more than any other part of the carriageway is a parking bay.
I have not misinformed anyone, do not do so, and as a matter of
professional courtesy I am sure you will accept that assurance from me.
I hope that has cleared up your confusion. I look forward to your
paying the fines and charges outstanding and then the matter will be
closed.
Yours sincerely
Andy Thomas
Traffic Manager
(Head of City Development)
Let's hope that your internal communications between departments which I have requested via The Freedom of Information Act, that the City Council is trying there dam best not to allow public the documents show that you was not misleading
Interesting
My email to Mr Broster below
Dear Mr. Broster
Re: Stage 2 Complaint Response
I am emailing you in relation to the letter you sent me on 27th July
of
which you responded to my informal Appeal against parking tickets
enforced
on Granby Street after a recent Newspaper Article in the Leicester
Mercury,
this was a stage 2 complaint.
In your letter you have responded after speaking to Andrew Thomas the
following and I quote ³ The City Council had already decided to renew
the
lining of parking bays around the city prior to recent publicity
concerning
and incorrectly lined bay on Belvoir Street. ³
If that is the case why was a bay on Granby Street , Leicester, with
Double
Yellow lines and faded not part of the renew, this bay is situated in
between two parking bays that were renewed.
After obtaining a recent Freedom of Information request that came
through
today, they said the bay was last maintained in 2006. This shows to me
that
the Double Yellow Bay was Legal and therefore did not need renewing
like the
said parking bays. I would point the following out:
The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales)
Regulations 1996 Regulation 18(1) states:
Where an order relating to a road has been made, the order making
authority
shall take such steps as are necessary to secure:
(a) Before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road
of
such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may
consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the
effect
of the order is made available to persons using the road².
(b) The maintenance of such signs for as long as the order remains in
force.
© In a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application
of a
previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as
the
authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by
signs
being left in the wrong positions.
Does this bay not need renewing, after all it has been 3 years
It appears to me that your colleague may have misinformed you on this
matter
to shy away from the fact that they have been proved wrong via the
newspaper
and general public and it appears that the Council is UNFAIR, INJUST
and
above all likes to mislead the public and is FRAUD in my book and maybe
the
eyes of the Law.
I look forward to your comments
You responded to me
Vaughan Cartwright
Response from Mr Thomas
Dear Mr Cartwright
I'm emailing a reply to you because it seems Mike Broster is away. This
afternoon I've been consulting Paul Commons who works for me - I think
you have met a number of times.
As a preliminary note after Stage 2 you have the right to go to the
Ombudsman if you remain dissatisfied and nothing in this email should be
taken as trying to deny you that right.
I am sending you this note to clear up your evident confusion.
If you were to stand at the foot of Calais Hill and look straight ahead
across Granby Street you will see an area covered by double yellow
lines. This area is designed to allow lorries to turn, I understand
it's for beer deliveries. The street was designed and built long before
parking enforcement came under the jurisdiction of the City Council and
I agree that considered in the direction of traffic flow along Granby
Street the design does look like three parking bays, with the area in
front of Calais Hill looking like a parking bay.
However parking is not permitted in that turning area there at all, so
we do not consider it as a parking bay. Therefore it wasn't included in
my instructions.
As a Council we do need to renew double yellow lines and do have a
programme to do that so don't be surprised if a team re-lines the double
yellows along Granby Street- it is not related to your circumstances.
All areas of the carriageway which are marked with double yellow lines
have two exemptions with associated rules, that is, for
loading/unloading and parking with a disabled sticker. This area of the
carriageway is no exception. But that does not make it a parking bay,
any more than any other part of the carriageway is a parking bay.
I have not misinformed anyone, do not do so, and as a matter of
professional courtesy I am sure you will accept that assurance from me.
I hope that has cleared up your confusion. I look forward to your
paying the fines and charges outstanding and then the matter will be
closed.
Yours sincerely
Andy Thomas
Traffic Manager
(Head of City Development)
My Thoughts
Let's hope that your internal communications between departments which I have requested via The Freedom of Information Act, that the City Council is trying there dam best not to allow public the documents show that you was not misleading
Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP Write's Letter
On the 24th September 2009 i received a letter from Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP who has now confirmed to me that she has written a letter to the Director of Development, Regeneration and Culture in Leicester City Centre.
Be interesting to see what they have to say on the matter
Be interesting to see what they have to say on the matter
Legal Advice Given To Bolton Council Matches My Case
I have today received some papers that was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act against Bolton Council, where they have seeked legal advice.
Most of the advice is redacted which shows possibly harmful further advice to the Council concerned, however, this advice is relevant to my case.
Most of the advice is redacted which shows possibly harmful further advice to the Council concerned, however, this advice is relevant to my case.
Leicester Mercury Newspaper Story - Not In Public Interest
Leicester Mercury Newspaper today have followed part of my story please see link below, very good story, however there is one mistake, I am NOT the owner of Bossa Bar, i merely work from there, as they have free wifi.
Leicester Mercury News Story
Leicester Mercury News Story
Letter to District Auditor
Today I have started to draft my letter to the District Auditor for Leicester City Councils Accounts, where I will show the District Auditor that Leicester Council has obtained monies from Non Prescribed Parking Bays.
By doing this the Council is breaking rules and regulations.
More info to follow soon, with a copy of Letter to Auditor
By doing this the Council is breaking rules and regulations.
More info to follow soon, with a copy of Letter to Auditor
Out of Time Witness Statement Sent To Traffic Enforcement Centre
As you may have read that my Appeal to the Civil Enforcement Team at Leicester City Council was rejected as I was unable to Appeal out of time.
The time limit for this is 28 days.
As a bailiff has been instructed I sent a letter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court where tickets are dealt with when unpaid.
They sent my appeal back saying that I was out of time to Appeal, and would have to fill TE9 form in and send back with my TE7 forms.
I have now done this, and what happens next is as follows:-
1 The Court will Notify the City Council and all enforcement will be stopped
2 The Council is given 19 working days to decide if they wish top to accept or reject the application
3 If the Council accepts my application within the time limit, the Court Registration will be revoked
and ticket sent back to its original status.
4 If the Council reject , the case will be passed to a Court Officer who will make an impartial
decision.
5 If I do not agree with the decision it can be sent to a District Judge at Leicester County Court who
will look at the case.
The time limit for this is 28 days.
As a bailiff has been instructed I sent a letter to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court where tickets are dealt with when unpaid.
They sent my appeal back saying that I was out of time to Appeal, and would have to fill TE9 form in and send back with my TE7 forms.
I have now done this, and what happens next is as follows:-
1 The Court will Notify the City Council and all enforcement will be stopped
2 The Council is given 19 working days to decide if they wish top to accept or reject the application
3 If the Council accepts my application within the time limit, the Court Registration will be revoked
and ticket sent back to its original status.
4 If the Council reject , the case will be passed to a Court Officer who will make an impartial
decision.
5 If I do not agree with the decision it can be sent to a District Judge at Leicester County Court who
will look at the case.
Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP
Today I went to see Patricia Hewittt MP, and managed to get a meeting with one of her team at there office on Frog Island Leicester.
One of her colleagues thought it was an interesting case, and there would be 3 points to raise with Leicester City Council, and would consult Patricia Hewitt MP for further advice and then write to the Council.
Look forward to hearing from her and her team in due course.
One of her colleagues thought it was an interesting case, and there would be 3 points to raise with Leicester City Council, and would consult Patricia Hewitt MP for further advice and then write to the Council.
Look forward to hearing from her and her team in due course.
Leicester City Council Remark 240 Parking Bays
Neil Herron comments on the Parking Bays in Leicester, with very useful links and letter templates
http://neilherron.blogspot.com/2009/06/more-refunds-to-come-this-time.html
http://neilherron.blogspot.com/2009/06/more-refunds-to-come-this-time.html
Andy Sharman's www.udjamaflip.com
This is the website that gave me inspiration so I decided to do the same, after reading it in the Leicester Mercury Newspaper.
Link Below
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Leicester-holidaymaker-wins-refund-terrible-trip-blog-web-hit/article-1339338-detail/article.html
Link Below
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Leicester-holidaymaker-wins-refund-terrible-trip-blog-web-hit/article-1339338-detail/article.html
The Story So Far
Ok from the top then.
Over the last few years outside my business in the City Centre of Leicester i have incurred parking penalties in pay and display bays, where I have brought a ticket, its ran out, and I have forgot about the time.
Some of these tickets I have paid and some I have not. At the moment in relation to one particular bay in question on Granby Street Leicester outside the chip shop I am contesting 3 tickets at the moment that are not paid.
These tickets are now with Bailiffs, and I just do not let them in. At the time of the contravention I did not know that the bay is question is non prescribed and thus possibly unenforceable. This only came to light after a Leicester Mercury Newspaper Article, see link below.
http://www.thisisleicestershire. co.uk/news...il/article.html
After reading the article I wrote a letter to the Council, took some photos of which you can clearly see the old markings they have now removed, took my own measurements and compared them to the drawings held by the Department of Transport on Prescribed Bays asking for a refund and my other tickets to be cancelled, I got a reply back from the Council see below.
This is a bay outside Granby Fisheries on Granby Street, Leicester.
You can just see the old lines which have been worn away, the actual size of the bay from kerb to inside of Old White Line is 1700mm, the min the bay must be is 1800mm as laid out by the Department of Transport.
Breach number 1
This is a further picture , where you can see the old lines away from the new ones.
This picture shows the old dashed lines, the length of this line is 840mm and a width of 72mm.
The actual sizes as laid down my the Department of Transport is 600mm in length.
Breach 2
After seeing this i then sent an informal letter to Leicester City Council, stating the Leicester Mercury Newspaper Article, and not mentioning that I had measure the bays myself.
This is the reply I got back from the Council, allowing me to go to a stage 2 complaint if I do wish.
As you can see a straight forward denial , and that I can go to Stage 2 Complaint if I so wish
I then sent a further letter taking my complaint to a stage two complaint where it would be allocated to a Council Officer within the Council and they would investigate and get back to me.
Below is there response
This was then past to a Council Officer. It also appears that other people, who complained at Stage 2, got the same letter from the same Council Officer and with my details in it. 
I have complained to the LGO who have taken my case on and I am awaiting a response from them, I also sent a letter to the TEC asking if I can submit an Appeal Out of Time, they sent me forms, and I have now done this. I am told if this is rejected by a Council, a judge will take a look at it, based on evidence, and possibly revert the ticket back to its original status.
At the same time I submitted two Freedom of Information requests to the Council, and I have had a response in relation to one of them, and that is below. My second request is still waiting to be dealt with, and is based on the following questions see below also.
According to figures in 2007-2008 Leicester City Council issued 62,927 of which the percentage of fines appealed was at 0.23% which works out to around 144 notices appealed. Of those 144 Leicester City Council decided not to appeal 67% of the case ( percentage of Appeals NOT contested )
Therefore I would like to know under the FOI Act, of those 67% Not Contested where were they situated, and what type of Penalty was being Appealed and the date of the Penalty being issued.
Response From Leicester Council To First FOIA Request
As you can see the Council are dragging there feet on this my arguments are as follows:-
1
The Council remarked the bays in a totally different way to the original markings, moving in some cases or changing the size of the lines. Therefore knew these were wrong.
2
In the first instance I would expect my Council, as would the Police and Court for them to use the correct prescribed markings, and therefore I did not contest the tickets at the time.
3
I believe my FOIA request will show this, and that in 2007 - 2008 the Council knew about these and did not contest some of the appeals, if this is the case, they have been enforcing bays that are unlawful and taken monies.
I have found a few interesting points in relation to the FOIA Response I got from the Council, see link below
http://www.panopticonblog.com/tag/section-42-foia/
Under this link, it clearly shows, with my case, and the Council’s response to me that there is an argument about public interest, exactly the opposite to what the Council is saying to me.
In addition I would like to point the following cases
********************************************************************************
Over the last few years outside my business in the City Centre of Leicester i have incurred parking penalties in pay and display bays, where I have brought a ticket, its ran out, and I have forgot about the time.
Some of these tickets I have paid and some I have not. At the moment in relation to one particular bay in question on Granby Street Leicester outside the chip shop I am contesting 3 tickets at the moment that are not paid.
These tickets are now with Bailiffs, and I just do not let them in. At the time of the contravention I did not know that the bay is question is non prescribed and thus possibly unenforceable. This only came to light after a Leicester Mercury Newspaper Article, see link below.
http://www.thisisleicestershire. co.uk/news...il/article.html
After reading the article I wrote a letter to the Council, took some photos of which you can clearly see the old markings they have now removed, took my own measurements and compared them to the drawings held by the Department of Transport on Prescribed Bays asking for a refund and my other tickets to be cancelled, I got a reply back from the Council see below.
You can just see the old lines which have been worn away, the actual size of the bay from kerb to inside of Old White Line is 1700mm, the min the bay must be is 1800mm as laid out by the Department of Transport.
Breach number 1
This is a further picture , where you can see the old lines away from the new ones.
The actual sizes as laid down my the Department of Transport is 600mm in length.
Breach 2
After seeing this i then sent an informal letter to Leicester City Council, stating the Leicester Mercury Newspaper Article, and not mentioning that I had measure the bays myself.
This is the reply I got back from the Council, allowing me to go to a stage 2 complaint if I do wish.
As you can see a straight forward denial , and that I can go to Stage 2 Complaint if I so wish
I then sent a further letter taking my complaint to a stage two complaint where it would be allocated to a Council Officer within the Council and they would investigate and get back to me.
Below is there response
This was then past to a Council Officer. It also appears that other people, who complained at Stage 2, got the same letter from the same Council Officer and with my details in it. 
After the article in the Newpaper it appears other people took complaints up, and took there complaint to a stage 2 complaint, I know this , as these people have contacted me, as a letter went out to them exactly the same letter from the same officer, but with my details in it.... not happy, this is now being taken up by the Leicester Mercury Newspaper.
I have complained to the LGO who have taken my case on and I am awaiting a response from them, I also sent a letter to the TEC asking if I can submit an Appeal Out of Time, they sent me forms, and I have now done this. I am told if this is rejected by a Council, a judge will take a look at it, based on evidence, and possibly revert the ticket back to its original status.
At the same time I submitted two Freedom of Information requests to the Council, and I have had a response in relation to one of them, and that is below. My second request is still waiting to be dealt with, and is based on the following questions see below also.
2nd FOIA Request Sent to Council
According to figures in 2007-2008 Leicester City Council issued 62,927 of which the percentage of fines appealed was at 0.23% which works out to around 144 notices appealed. Of those 144 Leicester City Council decided not to appeal 67% of the case ( percentage of Appeals NOT contested )
Therefore I would like to know under the FOI Act, of those 67% Not Contested where were they situated, and what type of Penalty was being Appealed and the date of the Penalty being issued.
Response From Leicester Council To First FOIA Request
As you can see the Council are dragging there feet on this my arguments are as follows:-
1
The Council remarked the bays in a totally different way to the original markings, moving in some cases or changing the size of the lines. Therefore knew these were wrong.
2
In the first instance I would expect my Council, as would the Police and Court for them to use the correct prescribed markings, and therefore I did not contest the tickets at the time.
3
I believe my FOIA request will show this, and that in 2007 - 2008 the Council knew about these and did not contest some of the appeals, if this is the case, they have been enforcing bays that are unlawful and taken monies.
I have found a few interesting points in relation to the FOIA Response I got from the Council, see link below
http://www.panopticonblog.com/tag/section-42-foia/
Under this link, it clearly shows, with my case, and the Council’s response to me that there is an argument about public interest, exactly the opposite to what the Council is saying to me.
In addition I would like to point the following cases
********************************************************************************
A suspicion of misrepresentation or unlawful behaviour. Where there is sound evidence that the public authority is misleading the public about advice it has received, ignoring advice or acting unlawfully, this may be a significant factor in favour of disclosure. This factor was discussed by the Tribunal in FCO v Information Commissioner and Boddy v Information Commissioner and North Norfolk DC (EA/2007/0074; 23 June 2008). The ICO considers that the more evidence that can be provided, the more weight will attach to this factor.
********************************************************************************
A significant group of people are affected by the advice or resulting decision, there would be significant people affected as they should be aware that they have paid unlawful parking penalties in the bays in question.
In the Merseytravel case, the fact that the decision based on the advice affected the toll charged to 80,000 drivers every weekday and could also affect around 1.5 million residents of local councils was a factor in favour of disclosure. In Pugh 19,500 people were affected by the relevant pension fund. Conversely, in Gillingham v Information Commissioner (EA/2007/0028; 26 September 2007) the number of people using a public footpath was too small to be a significant factor.
My main point here, is that should my Appeal to you be unsuccessful, then I will appeal to the Information Commission, and if this fails then I will take further to a Tribunal and to the High Court where this case will be more public than ever.
********************************************************************************
A significant group of people are affected by the advice or resulting decision, there would be significant people affected as they should be aware that they have paid unlawful parking penalties in the bays in question.
In the Merseytravel case, the fact that the decision based on the advice affected the toll charged to 80,000 drivers every weekday and could also affect around 1.5 million residents of local councils was a factor in favour of disclosure. In Pugh 19,500 people were affected by the relevant pension fund. Conversely, in Gillingham v Information Commissioner (EA/2007/0028; 26 September 2007) the number of people using a public footpath was too small to be a significant factor.
My main point here, is that should my Appeal to you be unsuccessful, then I will appeal to the Information Commission, and if this fails then I will take further to a Tribunal and to the High Court where this case will be more public than ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
