Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: Hippocrates on August 06, 2025, 10:47:21 am
-
Barred from attending council meetings.
-
Their contractor carries out a weekly sweep of all CCTV enforcement sites!
https://youtu.be/SVQ1g1hq6gU
-
Gesture of goodwill. ;D
-
JK15616144/HV12FFL now closed. Awaiting the reasons why. Throughout the process, their website was in a shambolic state as ever. For example, threatening to rise to £240 even before the service of the Enforcement Notice.
They retreated. Pertains to the site filmed in the ITN News. Sadly, I shall not have my day in the lower court.
To be continued...................... ;)
-
Correct. But I thought it interesting to see the FOIR too. My point: why do they not reveal the contract? This will clearly show who is responsible. I smell a rat.
-
De nada. Story should be in the press tomorrow. If one divides the figure to be paid back by the number of rate payers, I reckon it works out at £1.58 per household, not including the cost of sending out fake PCNs and fake notices of rejection.
485,220.00 divided by 306,400.
According to the Sunday Telegraph article it's Southwark's contractors who are on the hook for this money not Southwark's council tax payers.
Contractors to pay back fines
Speaking of the latest error, James McAsh, a local councillor, said: “Between February and June this year, an administrative error by one of our contractors led to some bus lane penalty notices being issued incorrectly. We are very sorry for the inconvenience this has caused.
“All affected motorists will receive refunds, and any unpaid notices will be cancelled. We have reviewed all other notices and found no further issues. We are also strengthening our checks with contractors to make sure this does not happen again.
“The council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors.”
https://archive.ph/F6E5l
-
Q. Who is your contractor involved with the attached story?
R. APCOA and Polaris software
Q. Who is ultimately responsible for this error? The parking manager or the contractor?
R. The contractor
They refused to provide the contract.
Bolleaux in my view.
-
Now cancelled - under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (Part 6). ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Dear Sir or Madam
Re: JK15161554
I note that, despite your assurances in the Press, this PCN remains to be cancelled. Please confirm that this will be resolved forthwith as well as the other 10,421.
Finally, considering the time I have spent literally educating your parking department regarding this error, and your wholly unreasonable response to me stating that I was incorrect, I request that you reimburse me £95 for my time (CPR rate is £19 per hour for litigants in person) and donate it to The Princess Alice Hospice, West End Lane, Esher, KT10 8NA. Link here:
https://www.pah.org.uk/donate/
Yours faithfully
James Bond
-
Perhaps BBC picked up from ITV?
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2025-08-19/council-refunds-485000-for-wrongly-fining-drivers-in-the-bus-lane
These were the videos from which the snippets were taken:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny8WWLNe3gw&list=LL&index=40&pp=gAQBiAQB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBL8VLaXDCc&list=LL&index=38&pp=gAQBiAQB
Cameraman for both: The Laird Tyler of Surbiton Studios. 8) Action Man!
One of the adjudicators has read the story. 8)
-
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2025-08-19/council-refunds-485000-for-wrongly-fining-drivers-in-the-bus-lane
Ole torero, muchos cohones
(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji109.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji122.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji123.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji109.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji122.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji123.png)
-
I am going through Tribunal decisions at present.
-
just watched it.
well done Philip glad they gave you reasonable time and support.
couldn't quite make out what was on your T shirt tho 🤔 😂
-
I certainly was not approached by the BBC and acted correctly. Paper first then ITV who would have done the initial story last year about the faulty wording even then. More to follow...........
-
Perhaps BBC picked up from ITV?
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2025-08-19/council-refunds-485000-for-wrongly-fining-drivers-in-the-bus-lane
-
Made the BBC News website this afternoon :-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdy9z0pxnmo
-
I asked @astralite to put it up yesterday as I had no internet; but, they changed it due to an Old Bailey story. It is definitely going out tonight. With the FTLA shirt!
-
@astralite
a blast from the past.
hello again.
ill be watching.
-
@astralite apologies. Now tomorrow at 18.00 hrs I TV 1
-
Latest news from Hippo. ITV News at 6pm today (18 August) will have a report on this story filmed in Southwark this morning with you know who! :)
-
Great work mr Hippo 👏
Thanks. @mrmustard has done a wonderful blog on this for which I am most grateful - he and I go back a few years.
I wanted to use more "sexy" language and, to bastardise Aristotle's syllogism i.e. if A=B and B=C then A=C, I suggested this:
Fake tickets=Fake Notices of Rejections=Real money. 8)
The buck stops with the Parking Manager and not APCOA. Whoever it is should resign. I will be suing them, if necessary, for my costs in terms of educating them, having had the effrontery to write that I was incorrect.
It is wholly unacceptable that an unpaid parking campaigner and representative at the London Tribunals should have to educate such incompetent staff who hold positions of power in that they issue defective documents, including notices of rejection, which threaten people to pay the council. Following the story of last year in which I won a case against them (2240143117), they changed the wording to its correct version and then, for some reason, changed it again to the wrong Act! So, from June 12th, they have now produced four versions! This is an utter disgrace and heads should roll.
More to follow: this is just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Great work mr Hippo 👏
-
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20250817/281569476818695
-
De nada. Story should be in the press tomorrow. If one divides the figure to be paid back by the number of rate payers, I reckon it works out at £1.58 per household, not including the cost of sending out fake PCNs and fake notices of rejection.
485,220.00 divided by 306,400.
-
(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji123.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji122.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji123.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji122.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji123.png)(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji122.png)
We are very proud to have you on this group helping altruistically to ayone in need. CONGRATULATIONS
-
Thanks mrm! More to follow...............The dearly departed Nigel Wise is looking down favourably, I hope, on my humble efforts I am sure. I miss him. 8) He got Richmond to refund a million and the parking manager sacked. The guy who took over, Stephen Hardy, was a model parking manager who actually listened and applied common sense. I formed a good friendship with him and he subsequently moved to Epsom - but I made it quite clear that I was a "poacher" and not a "gamekeeper" as Nigel would say.
-
A fabulous bit of work.
-
Having threatened them with Judicial Review, they have now stated this:
1. How many code 34 j PCNs have been issued under the London Local Authorities
and Transport for London Act 2003 Act?
10,422 have been issued on an incorrect template
2. How much revenue has been raised?
None - they are all to be cancelled and refunded or £485,220.00 which is to be
refunded
3. When was this wording introduced?
The incorrect template was copied over the bus lane template on 12 February
2025, the correct bus lane template was put back in place on 12 June 2025.
**************
I have written confirmation from one officer that their PCNs were correct! If I went into the classroom and described Beethoven as a Baroque composer, I would be given my P45:
Southwark Parking Services Admail 4197 London SE1 1ZW T: 0344 800 2736 E: parking@southwark.gov.uk
Notice of Rejection of Representations - Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended) London Local Authorities Acts 1996 (as amended) CCTV - Bus Lane Contravention
Dear (Mr Bond)
Thank you for your recent representations made in connection with the issue of the above penalty charge notice (PCN).
We have carefully considered what you say but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
We sent you a PCN because our camera evidence shows your vehicle in a bus lane at a time when only buses are allowed there.
The bus lane is enforced at all times.
You stated that the contents of the payment website is unhinged.
We are satisfied that the payment website is satisfactory and provides all required information.
Whilst we acknowledge you stated that the notice was issued under the wrong act; this is incorrect.
I have contacted one newspaper already.