Comments

• "Driver Lucio Milisci, who was fined three times for using the bay, said: "The signs are not clear enough.""

  The signs might not be that clear, but surely Lucio didn't need to see them the second and third times??

  tomhemmant on 2009-02-13 09:27:01 +0000

• I live locally and have often been inconvenienced by lorries parked here. On my way back home in December I stopped the car to read the sign (without leaving the vehicle) at about 6.15 pm, then drove around the corner and parked, and got sent a ticket just before Christmas. I appealed the fine and have not heard since. How long does this process take?

  Now let's see...20 months at £1400 per day, that's getting towards £1m. Give it to the local schools!

  Ben Driver on 2009-02-13 17:55:42 +0000

• This council does not empathise with residents. The sole purpose of councillors is to extract as much money as possible from unsuspecting residents and visitors I am ashamed to live in such a devious and dishonest borough.I read this evening that Richmond is increasing coucil tax when other boroughs more attuned to the needs of residents are reducing local tax to help during the recession . Parking fines will continue to be punitive in Richmond to raise revenue . Jill Taunton

  Jill Taunton on 2009-02-13 22:00:37 +0000

• Richmond Council is not just making money from parking fines but from so called driving in a bus lane. I was fined for driving diagonally across the bus lane from a parking bay in Heath Road in order to ease into a congested line of traffic (two cars widths) and ended up paying it despite being told by two policemen that this did not constitute driving in a bus lane. It was the considered opinion of one of them who had studied the traffic law that this fine was an abuse of the legislation brought about to stop motorists driving along the bus lane.

  McCreddie M (Mac) on 2009-02-14 16:43:15 +0000

• Hi Everyone,

  If anyone wants to help me doing a peition to the council please get in touch with me by email:

  richmondparking@yahoo.co.uk

  Thanks, Lucio

  Lucio Milisci on 2009-02-20 18:38:46 +0000

• Why do motorists think they should not be fined because they choose to pull up to use Tescos in a clearly-marked (read the signs, people) loading bay, next to a bus stop, on the brow of a hill on account of not being willing to park legally and walk 20 yards?

  Keep on fining 'em; keeps my council tax down.

  David bertram on 2009-02-23 05:49:53 +0000

• I agree completely with David's comments. When cars park inappropriately and illegally, then it is the fault of the driver in being careless and parking without due care and attention.

  Stick to the rules and there will be no problem.

  Dave on 2009-02-24 13:19:07 +0000

• I do not agree with David, he has the geography wrong and in addition, the fines collected are not used to keep council tax down. The loading bay is not on the brow of a hill and I have yet to find parking spaces free when ever I travel along St Margarets Road within 20 yards of the loading bay. I was caught on camera about 5.30pm shortly after the controversial use of the camera started. I went to Regal House and watched the video evidence----1 Minute 55 Seconds from stopping to driving off. I paid the fine of £ 40, I believe it was at the time. How did I, a resident of St Margarets, get caught in this `trap`??? Many Month before the time of control of parking in local CPZ area was reduced from 6.30pm to 4.30pm. On the day I was caught I had visited Morley Road in East Twickenham just after 4.30pm and parked there legally on a single yellow line. On my way home I stopped at the northern end of the loading bay o/s Tesco. The 3 signs with seperate instructions re. the loading bay am to pm, loading/unloading restrictions start and finish am, loading/unloading restrictions start and finish pm and single yellow line restriction start/finish am, single yellow line restriction start/finish pm are displayed facing the Roadway, fixed at high level to a post that is planted less than 1ft from the kerb. To read the sign I would had to step well out on to the Roadway. I think a risk asessment might be in order?!!

  The signs could of course be displayed so that drivers can read them on approach from the north and the south, preferably at both ends of the loading bay.

  Personally I can not see why private and light goods vehicles can not be allowed to park in the area of the loading bay after 4.30 pm in line with the rest of St Margarets Road.

  I do agree, those drivers parking on double yellow lines, in the bus stop etc. deserve to be fined.

  Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-03-03 03:13:54 +0000

• Correction to my post of 3^rd March, the penultimate paragraph should end in ...`with the rest of St Margarets with the exception of St Margarets Road`.

  Gerhard Schellberg on 2009-03-05 13:09:04 +0000

• jeez what an idiot who gets fined that much money oh yeah he does :P

  anonymous on 2009-05-04 19:56:06 +0000

• Agree that if you park illegally you should expect to pay penalties however some of the signage is not clear enough.

  hgvlgvtraining on 2009-11-13 11:28:26 +0000

• The sign is Illegal it must say LOADING ONLY and the same LOADING ONLY must be printed on the road in accordance with the Traffic Signs & Regulations regulations 2002.

  have a look at www.ticketfighter.co.uk

  Good Luck

  Frank on 2010-02-09 23:43:07 +0000

• Hi, I just thought that i would point out the following. The bay in question is incorrectly marked out. It is therefore unlawful.

  The bay road markings are 'hybrids'..... a cross between the 1028 (Loading Bays) series and the 1032 series and as such do not exist in the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002.

  The double termination marks used on this bay 1028.3 instead of single marks are wrong as per TSRG 2002. These double markings can only be used on a loading bay that has a maximum length of 13.2 metres and only where two bays have been combined (1032). The bay in question is some 15.2 meters long. Loading Bays should have a single termination mark (1028.3). A recent email to me from the DofT confirms this and says that the bay is UNLAWFUL. You can contact me on 07909 334974 for more information. Anyone who has been fined in this bay will be entitled to a refund from the council. It has been wrongly marked since 2005 so this at £1400 a day will cripple the council !

  Nigel Wise on 2010-07-01 17:14:54 +0000

• Smart, rather than wise...you must be very proud of yourself.

  David bertram on 2010-07-02 12:47:56 +0000

• And those of us who use local schools, streets, parks and refuse collection would want the council crippled because.....?

  David bertram on 2010-07-02 12:49:42 +0000

• This is about people who have been tricked into parking in a bay that was wrongly marked out as a Parking Bay. The trick was completed by a camera that is permanently focused on this bay. People later received unlawful tickets issued by this camera that was installed under the guise that it would be used for the purpose of detecting of crime etc. This camera is being used almost exclusively for "enforcement". For "enforcement", read unlawful revenue gathering. The council did NOT contest my appeal because they knew that they stood no chance of winning it. They also did not want to have a court rule against them as this would have made their task of retaining this already illegally obtained money, harder. Instead they used a councilor to issue a statement to the effect of. 'We have your money illegally obtained by us and we are keeping it'. They are refusing to refund people who have already paid illegal tickets under this unlawful restriction. This illegally obtained revenue is ring fenced and will only be used to finance more unlawful restrictions. It will not reduce any Council Tax. The council thinks, quite wrongly, that it is morally and or legally correct to retain money that they have illegally obtained through an unlawful restriction. That amounts to an admission that they subscribe to unlawfulness and illegality. The council are living in cloud cuckoo land in believing that any court will uphold this preposterous situation. This is born out by the fact, that despite the council wasting time and money in a failed attempt at making the bay comply with legislation, the bay is still unlawful. Watch this space.

  Nigel Wise on 2010-07-25 23:22:34 +0000

• This is NOT about people who park in Bus Stops or on Zig-Zag lines. It is about people who have been tricked into parking in a bay that was wrongly marked out as a Parking Bay. The trick was completed by a camera that is permanently focused on this bay. People later received unlawful tickets issued by this camera that was installed under the guise that it would be used for the purpose of detecting of crime etc. This camera is being used almost exclusively for "enforcement". For "enforcement", read unlawful revenue gathering. The council did NOT contest my appeal because they knew that they stood no chance of winning it. They also did not want to have a court rule against them as this would have made their task of retaining this already illegally obtained money, harder. Instead they used a councilor to issue a statement to the effect of. 'We have your money illegally obtained by us and we are keeping it'. They are refusing to refund people who have already paid illegal tickets under this unlawful restriction. This illegally obtained revenue is ring fenced and will only be used to finance more unlawful restrictions. It will not reduce any Council Tax. The council thinks, quite wrongly, that it is morally and or legally correct to retain money that they have illegally obtained through an unlawful restriction. That amounts to an admission that they subscribe to unlawfulness and illegality. The council are living in cloud cuckoo land in believing that any court will uphold this preposterous situation. This is born out by the fact, that despite the council wasting time and money in a failed attempt at making the bay comply with legislation, the bay is still unlawful. Watch this space.

  Nigel Wise on 2010-07-26 10:37:31 +0000

• There has now been lodged a formal objection to the Councils Accounts against the unlawful funds held in their account. This is the first part of the process in getting the council to face up to their failings and to refund everyone that has been unlawfully penalized in this "Bay of Plenty".

  Nigel Wise on 2010-07-30 07:37:09 +0000

• I had a meeting with Andrew Darvill The Assistant Director for Traffic and Transport at Richmond this morning. This was at the unlawful loading bay in St Margarets. See RTT 8/7/10 & 23/7/10 Also in attendance was Felicity Smart Independent Candidate for St Margarets. The continuing illegality of this bay after being remarked was discussed. The Council are looking into this. The 'Cash Cow' Principal was also raised. Also discussed was the fact that unlawful bays litter the borough. The Council are currently conducting a review of all bays. This is after I have pointed out these bays some of which have now been repainted.

  Nigel Wise on 2010-08-18 13:00:45 +0000

• This is great news! Well done to you all and especially Nigel. Here is Freedom of Information request I did in 2007 when I investigated the issue. It took me nearly 2 years to fight these penalties. Initially my penalties were cancelled by PATAS then Richmond appealed and the decision was overturned. Without admission of liability I paid the fines. The council will not go bankrupt, just look at the information they gave me in 2009, they make huge amount of money out of parking fines!

  Dear Mr Milisci, Your request for information has now been considered. Please find below the information you requested regarding the loading bay in St Margarets Road in front of Tesco:

  1. Since when the parking restrictions were put in place? The loading bay was first introduced in March 2003.
  2. How much money you have collected from penalties to do with that parking bay? From the 1^st of May 2007, there has been £47,110.00 collected from penalties to do with the loading bay.
  3. How many people have appealed against their penalties? We do not hold the data for the specific loading bay.
  4. How many people have had their appeals allowed? We do not hold the data for the specific loading bay.
  5. How many people had their penalties cancelled? 687 cancelled after representations were accepted, e.g.: due to loading and unloading.
  6. How many cases are still open (unpaid)? 1170 cases open.
  7. How many people have paid up? 8293 paid and closed.
  8. Funding you receive from third parties towards the upkeep, maintenance of that parking bay? None.
  9. Details of applications made by third parties to have that loading bay, name of companies and any money raised from businesses.? The bay was created via a planning application process in terms of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and £1500 was paid in terms of Section 106 of that Act.
  10. Has the council received any opposition from the residents against that loading bay? Please see the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking decision and report available on the Council's web-site, dated 12 September 2005. The link to report is: www.richmond.gov.uk/view_member_decisions?mgl=ieDecisionDetails.asp&ID=774&q=1
  11. Why has the council rejected opposition from the residents? Please see the link provided in response to Question 10.
  12. Is there a yellow line? Yes.
  13. Is there a loading bay road marking?

  Yes.

  1. Is there a double yellow line? Yes.
  2. Is the loading bay compliant with regulation 1017 that states that no variants are permitted to yellow lines? see this link: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113ba.gif Yes, it is. The loading bay is marked as per the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002. No variant is allowed for a single yellow line, and the single yellow line as marked on site within the loading bay complies with the requirements of that Statutory Instrument. In addition to Diagram 1017, there are "no loading" markings on the footway edge, in accordance with Diagram 1019.
  3. Who and what company manages and operates the CCTV camera? The equipment is owned and managed by the Council and is operated by our Parking Enforcement Contractor, NCP. This is to do with the general costs unrelated to the loading bay:
  1. How much money does NCP charge to run the contract on parking penalties?
  2. How much does the council spend to pay contractors to deal with parking fines? We are unable to provide the information you have request in questions 17 and 18. The exemption applied is :Prejudice to commercial interests s. 43 The exemption applies because the Council has reached favourable terms and conditions with the service provider which could be prejudiced if the requested information is released. The public interest favours withholding the information. Release of the requested information could result in the Council having those favourable terms and conditions withdrawn thereby incurring additional costs to the Council. This could affect its commercial interests thereby impacting on residents of the borough by a possible rise in local taxation levels and increase in charges to the public for services provided by the Council or loss of public services. I therefore concluded that it was not in the public interest to release that information. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice. You have the right of appeal against the decision using the Council's Corporate Complaints procedure which is attached at the following link :

  www.richmond.gov.uk/home/council_government_and_democracy/council/councilprocedures/complaints_procedure.htm If you wish to appeal please set out in writing your grounds of appeal and send to the Information Lawyer, Civic Centre, 44 York Street, Twickenham, TW1 3BZ. Tel: 020 8891 7948. E-mail: m.ginn@richmond.gov.uk. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal appeal you may appeal further to the information Commissioner's Office at :

  Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF # Are employees in NCP and/or Parking services rewarded financially for "customer service" or/and "revenue raised" No. 20 What are the details of the financial incentives employees receive? N/A # Please provide a detailed breakdown of costs and revenues related to parking fines and parking charges (including normal charges) Please see attached account submitted to the Mayor of London. <> # As they are public servants, what is the annual salary of Mr. Powell, Mr. Johnson and how much of this is based on financial incentives? Salaries of specific employees is personal information and is therefore exempt under S.40 of the Freedom of Information Act. There are no financial incentives. # How much money has been raised by parking fines in the last 10 years? The total amount received for parking fines in the last five years (08/09 figures are up to January 2009). (2008/09)£3,237,467 (2007/08)£3,877,857 (2006/07)£3,682,026 (2005/06)£3,422,626 (2004/05)£3,426,471 Figures prior to 2004 are not available. # Please provide details of the names of the adjudicators or former Richmond employees who now work at PATAS or adjudicators that Richmond has nominated to work at PATAS. Information on the names of adjudicators or former Richmond employees who now work at PATAS is not held by Richmond, please contact the independent adjudication service, PATAS. Richmond does not nominate adjudicators to work at PATAS.

  Lucio Milisci on 2010-09-03 20:41:53 +0000

• Our Ref: L/BO/e10121

  Below is a more up to date FOI answer.

  Dear Nigel Wise,

  Your request for information which was received on 25 June 2010 has been considered. Please find below the information we hold relevant to the request.

  You requested:

  Under the Freedom of Information Act. Can you please supply me with the following information. The number of PCN notices that have been issued by Richmond (Camera Enforcement) by the camera situated outside St. Margerets Station in St. Margerets Road. How many of these have been for a loading bay contravention.

  Can you also supply me with information on how many crimes this camera has discovered and or dealt with. Can you please supply this information for the last 12 months

  4,592 Penalty Charge Notices have been issued for contravention 023J (Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle - Camera Enforcement) between 01 May 2007 and 30 June 2010. Please note this camera would have been used to issue PCN's for other contraventions such as footway parking, general loading/unloading contraventions, etc.

  In the last 12 months camera 12 has been involved in 26 incidents and 7 arrests. That is the extent of the information we capture.

  I understand the that the attached letter has also been sent to you,

  "the that!" Letter below.

  Contact name: Mr H Hopkins Mr N Wise

  Our Ref: ENV/RT9549378A Date: 16/07/2010 Dear Mr Wise, Parking Appeals Service Case 2100326952 in Relation to Penalty Charge Notice RT9549378A I refer to your appeal notification in connection with the above mentioned Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). I understand that you have been in communication recently with Andrew Darvill, Assistant Director for Traffic & Transport, regarding the above penalty charge notice. Following that exchange of emails I can confirm that the notice has been cancelled and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service has been notified of the Council's intention to withdraw from the appeals process for this case. Further confirmation of this withdrawal will be sent to you direct by officers at PaTAS. I note that you requested a personal hearing you will therefore no longer need to attend. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience you may have been caused. Yours sincerely, Mr H Hopkins Senior Appeals Officer

  Nigel Wise on 2010-09-15 09:10:24 +0000

• More FOI Information below and spurious reasons for not providing information. Nigel Wise userwi551@aol.com 08 September 2010 Our Ref: L/BO/e10340 Your Ref:

  Dear Mr Wise,

  RE: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 200

  Your request for information which was received on 9 August 2010 has been considered. In accordance with recent Information Commissioner's Office decisions, I am treating this as an Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request as the information requested relates to measures and activities affecting or likely to affect land.

  You requested:

  Please supply me with the total no. of PCNs issued and the total sum for all of the penalties paid at this bay between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010.

  Between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010 1,945 PCN's have been issued and the total sum of all the penalties paid is £115,860

  Please also provide a copy of the works order request that the Council provided to the Department or external contractor requesting the initial painting of the Loading Bay road markings, showing the specification to which the work was to be carried out. This information will be after the current TMO came into force in 2005. Please also provide information which shows the date that the completed work was inspected by the Council preparatory to approving payment for the work done and indication of who it was who approved the completed work. Please also supply me with the same information for when the bay was remarked on or around 13th July 2010.

  Please find attached a copy of the work order that was completed by the contractors instructed to carry out the markings in July 2010. Verbal instructions were given to the contractors. We have been unable to date to locate the work order for the previous markings carried out.

  Please provide copies of all email and other correspondence within and without the Council, including any relevant Council minutes or agendas, that relate to the road marking of this parking place, commencing from the Council's first awareness of the defectiveness of the road marking to the present date.

  There are no Council minutes or agendas held relating to the marking of the parking bay. We are unable to provide you with the internal e-mails held regarding the marking of the parking bay as exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 apply to it and this letter acts as a Public Interest Refusal Notice.

  It is considered that the public interest in withholding the internal e-mails outweigh the public interest in disclosing it.

  The exceptions applied are Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(b).The regulation 12(5)(b) exception applies because release of the information could prejudice the course of justice.

  Regulation 12(4)(e) provides that a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request involves the disclosure of internal communications. As a class based exception, it is not necessary to show that a disclosure would cause prejudice or harm in order for the exception to be engaged. The Council merely needs to show that the request would involve the disclosure of internal communications.

  The e-mail correspondence falling within the scope of your request are exchanges between Council officers about the marked bay.

  Under regulation 12(1)(b) a public authority may only refuse to disclose environmental information if an exception applies and, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Therefore the Council has carried out a public interest test in respect of the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(e).

  The Council acknowledges that the EIR, by virtue of regulation 12(2), apply a presumption in favour of disclosure and that there is a public interest in having a transparent and accountable decision making process so that it may be understood why a particular decision has been reached.

  However, the Council believes that the decision making process of what action to take following notification of the incorrect marking bay depended on the high quality, free and frank advice being provided by the Council's Traffic and Transport Officers as well as the Council's Legal advisers. If internal communications were routinely made available there would be a deterrent effect on the frankness of the advice leading to the closing off of discussion and the development of options. This would critically affect the robustness of any advice or recommendation to the detriment of the quality of decision making and therefore the public interest. It considered that there was a strong public interest in preserving the thinking space around Council Officers and avoiding inhibiting future discussions between Officers.

  In essence the disclosure would affect the frankness with which officials provide advice and this would inhibit discussions and consequently undermine the decision making process.

  Council Officers should be able to discuss strategy and tactics in confidence in order that they might seek to achieve the best results for their particular area. In order to do this, senior members of the council need to be informed about, and be able to contribute to strategy as matters move forward. Disclosure may lead council staff not to record their discussions on such matters, or to write to each other discussing controversial issues.

  The Council also draws on the decision in the case of Eastleigh Borough Council Reference: FS50261661 www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50261661.pdf where at paragraph 33 the Commissioner notes:

  "The Commissioner also recognises that there is a public interest in officers and members being able to "think the unthinkable" and put forward and consider suggestions which would not otherwise be entertained. This is the "safe space" argument - that individuals should be provided with a degree of space in which to put forward suggestions for discussion, free from the public eye, in order that they may discuss such matters openly, frankly and without fear of repercussions."

  It is the Council's view that in general information of this nature would be withheld in order that the overall decision would be disclosed. When final decisions are reached the reasons for those decisions would, in general be disclosed along with the decision. Therefore a degree of explanation would be provided at that time that the decision is unveiled. At that time the decision of the Council can properly be questioned.

  Information that constitutes the legal advice provided by the Council's legal department to officers in the Traffic & Transport team is also withheld under regulation12(5)(b) because legal advice was received in the course of the decision making process and it is necessary to withhold this information so as maintain confidentiality of legal professional privilege.

  I therefore concluded that it is not in the public interest to release this information.

  You have the right of appeal against the decision. If you wish to appeal please set out in writing your grounds of appeal and send to the Information Lawyer, Civic Centre, 44 York Street, Twickenham, TW1 3BZ. Tel: 020 8891 7948. E-mail: foi@richmond.gov.uk

  If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal appeal you may appeal further to the information Commissioner's Office at:

  Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF

  fax: 01625 524 510 DX 20819

  www.ico.gov.uk

  Yours sincerely

  Miss Bunmi Ogunseye For Interim Head of Legal and Electoral Services

  Nigel Wise on 2010-09-15 09:15:57 +0000

• Please also see this posting.

  www.stmgrts.org.uk/archives/2010/07/protest_over_illegal_parking_bay_in_st_margarets_r.html

  Nigel Wise on 2010-09-15 09:19:23 +0000

Add a comment