Carmarthenshire council spent almost £100,000 on private detectives in the last three years including one to check whether a 14-year-old boy had fathered a child.

It turned out it was a case of mistaken identity and the investigators apologised to his family.

Local MP Simon Hart has questioned the use of funds.

The council said it only used private detectives occasionally to trace people who owed it large sums of money.

Mr Hart, MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, was contacted by a woman from Devon after a private investigator visited her house to see if her teenage son had fathered a child in Carmarthenshire.

The MP said it transpired the detective firm had been given the incorrect spelling of the father’s name.

Mr Hart said the woman was “extremely surprise and upset” although the detective apologised.

‘Little bit extreme’

He submitted a Freedom of Information request to the council and discovered it had spent almost £100,000 in the last three years hiring detectives.

He said he has been assured the council is reviewing its use of their services as the sums “seemed a little bit extreme”.

“I don’t want to suggest that there’s not any occasion where they should not be used, but I do want to be reasonably satisfied that this is not something that is used frivolously,” he told BBC Wales.

“They should only be used where there is no other option and there’s an assessment to ensure it’s in the rate payers interest.”

Carmarthenshire assistant chief executive Chris Burns said they could not comment on individual cases.

But he confirmed they do employ external companies to trace people who owe money, including unpaid council tax.

“This is taxpayer’s money and we take our responsibility to ensure that debts are paid very seriously as otherwise the burden falls unfairly on those remaining taxpayers – the vast majority of whom have paid,” he said.

“We generally only use such companies where the amount of money reclaimed is greater than the cost of employing the agency and where we would, otherwise, be unlikely to be able to recover the unpaid amounts.”

Source: bbc.co.uk

FRAUD against councils costs the taxpayer upwards of £2 billion annually, with many cash-strapped authorities fleeced by criminals using information put online under transparency drives.

Spending watchdogs have unveiled new figures showing a 37% leap in fraud detected against local authorities and other bodies to £185 million last year. But this is suspected to be a small fraction of what they lose in total to scams.

An Audit Commission UK-wide survey showed procurement suffered the biggest rise in cases – up four-and-a-half times on the previous year to £14.6m.

Fraud involving staff rocketed from £6.6m to £19.5m, and now accounts for more than £1 in every £10 of uncovered rip-offs.

The survey also raised concerns about the growing abuse of care budgets that are increasingly paid directly to users, making them more vulnerable to fraudsters.

Glasgow City Council has become one of the first Scottish councils to attempt to implement the “personalisation” of care to all 10,000-plus clients, a scheme which is also a Scottish Government plan.

However, one of the biggest concerns is mounting efforts by fraudsters to con the public sector into diverting legitimate cash into false bank accounts.

Last year officials at South Lanarkshire Council lost the authority more than £100,000 after being duped by a west African crime gang. The local authority’s finance department received forged documents from fraudsters claiming to be a supplier who needed their bank details changed.

An employee at the council’s headquarters in Hamilton approved the new details and the money was stolen.

It is understood £102,000 had to be paid to the genuine supplier and the council was not insured against the theft as it was an external fraud.

North Ayrshire Council was also conned out of £270,000 after falling for a sophisticated scam where the fraudsters wrote to the council pretending to be contractors and asking for payments to be sent to a new bank account, pocketing cash that should have gone to the real contractors.

It is understood the fraudsters cited secret contractor identifier codes. North Ayrshire discovered it had lost £270,000 when a building contractor complained it had not received payments.

In total, at least £7m was successfully siphoned off by criminals using legitimate-looking letters based on creditor information available on local authority websites to persuade officials to change the bank account details of building firms and other contractors.

Another £20m-worth of such scams were discovered before payments were made.

Audit Commission chairman Michael O’Higgins said: “Councils are certainly acting on fraud, and it is now firmly on the Government agenda.

“But our latest survey of detection rates shows that we may be seeing just the tip of a very large iceberg.

“Huge amounts of public money are still being diverted from the public purse into fraudsters’ pockets. Our report shows fraudsters will exploit any system weaknesses, from an individual’s care budget to a multi-million pound building contract. In these tough times councils need to maintain the strongest possible anti-fraud defences to safeguard jobs and services.”

The commission’s report said increasingly sophisticated methods are being employed to get around checks – including temporarily diverting the firms’ own phone lines to fool staff who check original records.

Housing associations and colleges are believed to be among others targeted.

More than half (£110m) of the detected fraud highlighted by the survey, completed by 99% of councils and other bodies such as police and fire services, was in housing and council tax benefit.

Source: heraldscotland.com

TOWN Hall staff could be found guilty of ‘maladministration’ after an official inquiry into a planning department blunder.

East Staffordshire Borough Council was a day late telling a mobile phone company it could not build a 40ft mast in the middle of a residential area.

Planning chiefs therefore had no option but to allow what residents claim is ‘an eyesore’ to be put up yards from their homes because the phone companies had not received the refusal notice in time.

As previously reported in the Mail, the pole is located on the corner of Harper Avenue and Church View in Horninglow.

Julian Mott, the Horninglow ward councillor who uncovered the blunder, said it was likely the authority would be investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman as a result of the blunder and the consequences for council tax payers.

The ombudsman has a range of powers at its disposal and in serious cases can tell a council guilty of administration causing injustice to pay compensation to those affected by its error.

He told Horninglow and Eton Parish Council: “This is a maladministration and the chief executive of the borough council has said the same to me.”

Councillor Mott said the planning officials’ ‘last-minute approach’ to sending out notices was comparable to ‘kids doing their homework’ shortly before it was due to be handed in.

Parish council chairman Sonia Andjelkovic said: “They have maladministrated and they have failed the people living there.

“The parish council did object to this mast.” Paul Wain added: “The people in Harper Avenue are very unhappy about this.

“This same error would not have happened in other places.” The parish council discussed sending a formal letter of complaint.

The borough’s planning officers had intended to refuse planning permission for the unsightly pole, but are now powerless because the applicant did not receive the refusal notice within the required 56-day refusal period.

Instead the notice went out on the 57th day.

A council spokesman previously told the Mail an internal investigation had found an employee in the planning office was to blame, after initially believing it to be a computer error.

The spokesman said there was nothing which could now be done to appeal the decision and take down the mast.

The council has apologised to any residents affected by the blunder.

Source: burtonmail.co.uk

AN obese worker was awarded £1,750 compensation from a hard-up council – because a toilet seat buckled under the sheer weight.

The overweight employee was hurt while working for Birmingham City Council when the loo collapsed.

But instead of covering up the embarrassing incident, the worker successfully sued the local authority over the accident.

It is just one of hundreds of staff compensation claims brought against the council.

The authority has made 274 compensation payments in the last five years at a cost of £4.9 million, the highest of any UK council.

The news comes as local authorities face brutal funding cuts by the Government.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance, which campaigns against unnecessary public spending, has hit out at the claim-happy workers.

“While some may have legitimate claims, there’s a worrying rise in compensation culture in local government offices,” said campaign director Emma Boon.

“It’s outrageous that people who are obese can sue a council for not having toilet seats which can support their weight.”

The figures were released under the Freedom of Information Act.

They show eight Birmingham workers received compensation totalling £1,030,000 after being exposed to deadly asbestos.

Tripping

But many staff claimed for trivial injuries.

One received £1,100 after a falling table broke a big toe, while another got £3,250 after tripping on a ‘defective pathway’. A third was awarded £5,200 because a chair collapsed.

A Birmingham City Council spokesman defended the payouts and said: “Birmingham is the biggest local authority in the UK.

“Over the period concerned the council employed between 48,000 and 55,000 individuals.

“The claims brought against the council represent between 0.5 and 0.3 percent of our workforce.

“We maintain high standards of safety and take our responsibility seriously.

“The health, safety and welfare of the council’s employees is a paramount consideration and the council prides itself on the way that safety is actively managed.

“There is, of course, always room for improvements and when accidents do occur, appropriate reviews are undertaken, safety policy is revised as required and lessons learned to ensure that we continue to maintain high standards of safety.”

Birmingham was just one of 13 councils who paid out more than £1 million in compensation to staff in the last five years.

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council handed over £3 million to 152 injured staff, while Manchester City Council paid out £250,000.

Source: sundaymercury.net

JUSTICE, a law reform and human rights organisation, has today published a significant and wide-ranging critique of state surveillance powers contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

The report – Freedom from Suspicion – Surveillance Reform for a Digital Age – is by Eric Metcalfe, former director of JUSTICE and recently returned to practise as a barrister. It reveals some pretty stunning statistics: for example, in total, there have been close to three million decisions taken by public bodies under RIPA in the last decade.

The report is highly critical of the legislation, which it argues is ”neither forward-looking nor human rights compliant“. Its “poor drafting has allowed councils to snoop, phone hacking to flourish, privileged conversations to be illegally recorded, and CCTV to spread.” Metcalf recommends, unsurprisingly, “root-and-branch” reform.

The history of RIPA is interesting from a human rights perspective, as it was passed in direct response to a European Court of Human Rights ruling as well as the Human Rights Act itself. For more on the history of the act, as well as its central role in the phone hacking scandal, see my post: Was it human rights wot won the phone hacking scandal?

The Executive Summary and a Scribd version of the report are reproduced below:

• In 2000, Parliament enacted RIPA. At the time, it was acclaimed by government ministers as human rights-compliant, forward-looking legislation.

• Since RIPA came into force in 2000, there have been:

– more than 20,000 warrants for the interception of phone calls, emails, and Internet use;

– at least 2.7 million requests for communications data, including phone bills and location data;

– more than 4,000 authorisations for intrusive surveillance, eg, planting bugs in someone’s house

or car;

– at least 30,000 authorisations for directed surveillance, eg, following someone’s movements in

public, or watching their house.

• In total, there have been close to three million decisions taken by public bodies under RIPA in the last decade.

• This does not even begin to include the number of warrants and authorisations on behalf of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, which have never been made public.

• Of the decisions we do know about, fewer than 5,000 (about 0.16 per cent) were approved by a judge.

• The main complaints body under RIPA, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, has dealt with only 1,100 cases in the last decade.

• In the last decade, it has upheld only ten complaints.

• Surveillance is a necessary activity in the fight against serious crime. It is a vital part of our national security. It has saved countless lives and helped convict hundreds of thousands of criminals.

• Unnecessary and excessive surveillance, however, destroys our privacy and blights our freedoms.

• RIPA has not only failed to check a great deal of plainly excessive surveillance by public bodies over the last decade but, in many cases, inadvertently encouraged it. Its poor drafting has allowed councils to snoop, phone hacking to flourish, privileged conversations to be illegally recorded, and CCTV to spread. It is also badly out of date.

• RIPA is neither forward-looking nor human rights compliant. Piecemeal amendments are no longer enough for what is already a piecemeal Act. Root-and-branch reform of the law on surveillance is needed to provide freedom from unreasonable suspicion, and put in place truly effective safeguards against the abuse of what are necessary powers.

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

A DISABLED man who claimed he was being forced to move house to use his bath has won his battle against Northampton Borough Council, a report reveals today.

The Local Government Ombudsman’s judgement says the man, referred to under the alias of ‘Mr Beech’ had lived with his wife at their private rented Northampton home for more than 20 years.

Disabled Mr Beech needed an extension to the house so he could wash downstairs in a bathroom.

But Northampton Borough Council refused a grant, saying it was not prepared to pay £30,000 for work to a home the couple may not live in for a long time to come, even though the landlord was happy to guarantee a longer period, and suggested the couple move house.

Mrs Beech complained to the ombudsman the council failed to comply with its statutory duty to make the alterations to enable her husband, who has a degenerative medical condition, to continue to live in the property.

Dr Jane Martin, the ombudsman, said today the council was guilty of “maladministration causing injustice” and Mr and Mrs Beech should be given an ex gratia payment of £5,000 by the council to compensate them for their “distress and inconvenience” and £250 for inconvenience in bringing the complaint.

Dr Martin said a delay in providing the extension had “given rise to considerable stress and anxiety and left them living in very difficult conditions, particularly for Mrs Beech in her role as carer. This is a considerable injustice”.

Dr Martin said the council should fund any provision for Mr Beech identified by an occupational therapist and respite care for the couple while works are completed.

It must also provide training to ensure staff are aware of what is appropriate for considering applications for disabled facilities grants.

Source: northamptoncron.co.uk

Thousands of disabled people entitled to a blue badge parking permit will have to pay a £10 charge for the privilege from next year.

National changes to reduce fraud and abuse of the current blue badge system means more work for administration staff at local government level, according to the Government.

To pay for this changes to the Blue Badge Disabled Parking Permit Scheme will be introduced from January as part of the Government’s national reform programme.

Assessments will now take place by occupational health specialists to determine eligibility for the passes.

Phil Gleeson, of Holbeck, suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome and is registered disabled,

He said it was not the new charge that people were upset about but the speed at which it was being introduced.

The 52-year-old added: “We are also concerned about changes which mean that GPs are no longer responsible for confirming someone’s entitlement to a parking permit.

“We think some people with conditions which vary from week to week could lose out.”

It is estimated that around 14,000 people will apply for permits in Leeds next year.

All local authorities will be obliged to use a new national service for the production and despatch of permits, resulting in increased costs. Local councils will continue to assess and process all applications to the scheme.

Tim McSharry, of disability campaign group Access Committee for Leeds, said: “The £10 charge is a red herring.

“The real problem is that it’s going to be chaotic and the process difficult for those who genuinely need a permit.”

The Department of Transport (DfT) say the reforms will cost more to administer and are proposing that councils charge up to £10 per permit.

Leeds City Council does not currently charge for blue badge permits.

Council chiefs are to be asked to approve the introduction of a £10 administration charge for each permit issued at a meeting of its executive board next week.

It is proposed that there will be no charge for permits for children, those with terminal illness, war pensioners or armed forces personnel. Lost or stolen blue badges can be replaced for £5.

Coun Lucinda Yeadon, executive board member with responsibility for adult health and social care, said: “The council is being forced to follow the national reform programme, as we will no longer produce Blue Badge permits locally.

“Whilst we acknowledge that it is to reduce fraud and abuse, it means more work and cost to administer.

“As we struggle with a £90 million funding gap, we are reluctantly recommending the charge. It won’t cover the full cost, but will help.”

Leeds City Council says it has consulted with 70 disabled people and their carers, through a focus group, plus a postal survey of 2,000 current permit holders.

Source: yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk

A DISGRACED former council boss and three business pals have been told they will be jailed after pocketing more than £100,000 of taxpayers’ cash in an elaborate building scam.

Police have also vowed to claw back their ill-gotten gains after the quartet were found guilty of the con in which bogus invoices were put through council coffers.

Hartlepool man Michael Skirving, 50, who was head of Darlington Borough Council’s asbestos department, conspired with Martin Dougherty, 45, and James Burns 43, to create bogus invoices totalling £109,494.

A fourth man, Graeme Storey, 38, was convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice after he lied to police that he had carried out work as part of the scam.

A jury took just hours to unanimously convict the shamed men.

The fraud saw Skirving put 15 invoices through the local authority for £75,754 which was paid to

Dougherty’s one-man firm MBN Roofing and Builders.

It was for labour said to have been done by the firm on jobs in Hartlepool, Billingham and Middlesbrough.

Burns, was paid £33,740 after submitting invoices for the hire of a cherry picker platform in connection with asbestos removal contracts in Owton Manor, Hartlepool, overseen by Skirving.

But the prosecution said the cherry picker was not necessary for asbestos removal and the platform and labour was not carried out to the extent the trio claimed.

Skirving, Dougherty and Burns were found guilty of conspiracy to defraud Darlington Borough Council between October 2007 and April 2009 after a five-week trial at Teesside Crown Court.

Judge Peter Armstrong said: “You have been convicted by the jury for fraud involving public money, as far as Darlington Borough Council is concerned, and you Storey of telling lies to the police to bolster that fraud.

“The amounts involved are serious and you can expect, I’m afraid, custodial sentences.”

The jury of eight women and four men returned unanimous guilty verdicts on all charges after around five hours of deliberation.

Skirving’s department had been awarded numerous contracts to remove asbestos as part of wider housing regeneration schemes across Teesside.

The trial heard how he told Burns and Dougherty what to invoice the council for in connection with lucrative contracts.

The prosecution said the fraud was conceived between the friends in the pub and on the golf course.

Prosecutor, Rosalind Scott Bell, said the money will attempt to be clawed back under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Skirving, of Grange Road, Burns, of Wansbeck Gardens, Dougherty, Westbrooke Avenue and Storey, of Hart Lane, all Hartlepool, will be sentenced in around three weeks time.

All four men were released on bail.

A spokesman for Darlington Borough Council said: “I can confirm that Michael Skirving worked for us and that he left of his own accord in 2009. It would be inappropriate to comment further.”

Durham Constabulary, which investigated the fraud, said it would not comment on the outcome of the trial until after the men had been sentenced.

Source: peterleemail.co.uk

Around half the staff working in Edinburgh City Council’s property conservation department have been suspended amid allegations of wrong-doing and corruption involving statutory repairs notices.

Council officials have confirmed that some 15 staff in the department have been suspended in a move described as “precautionary” while a full investigation is carried out by Lothian and Borders Police. The authority has also called in external auditors Deloitte to produce a separate report into the claims .

The claims of wrong-doing – uncovered by BBC Scotland – centre on the statutory notice system, which allows the council to order repairs to private homes as part of its responsibility to protect Edinburgh’s architectural heritage

Under the system, the council can intervene to organise repair work when the owners cannot reach agreement.

Council surveyors arrange the work through approved contractors and then recoup the cash from owners. The local authority also receives 15 per cent of the final bill.

But there have been claims of bribes being offered by contractors, overcharging, unnecessary and poor quality work.

Experts commissioned by the BBC to examine buildings where work had been carried out under the statutory notice system found that residents had been over-charged and that some of the repairs were unnecessary, of poor quality and may actually have made the buildings worse.

The BBC also found evidence that the council was using firms not in their list of framework contractors, such as Action Building Contracts.

It picked up nearly £2m of work from the council over a two-year period. The firm, which later went into administration, has refused to comment.

The power to issue repair orders to private homeowners is unique to Edinburgh. But there has been an increasing number of complaints from residents and businesses affected by them including spiralling costs when further repairs are carried out without owners being consulted, leaving them with bills totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The value of statutory notices issued by council surveyors has increased dramatically in recent years, from £9.2m in 2005 to more than £30m in 2010.

Councillor Ewan Aitken, former leader of Edinburgh City Council, told the BBC he is contacted at least once a day by concerned constituents over statutory notices.

He said: “I am of the view that some things have gone on that have broken the law.

“I have seen what appear to be strange decisions, unexplained decisions about who gets work, and that worries me deeply. And I’ve been asking questions, public questions, about that, and have not got answers.”

A council report says about 3,000 notices are issued each year, but all non-emergency cases have now been put on hold while the police and Deloitte investigations are carried out.

Mark Turley, director of the council’s Services for Communities, said: “The fact that we commissioned Deloitte to carry out a very thorough investigation is a sign of how seriously we take the complaints and concerns that have been raised and our commitment to addressing them.

“We fully recognise that the public should know the results of these investigations and they will be reported to a meeting of the council once we are in a position to do this.”

Source: publicservice.co.uk

The council has made a dramatic u-turn over its uncertified CCTV cars blunder and announced it will write to all wrongly-fined drivers and invite them to appeal.

Lord True, leader of Richmond Council, said it would spend up to £700,000 contacting motorists affected by more than 18,500 parking penalties it unlawfully issued between April 2009 and April 2011.

The authority, which said in July it would only refund drivers who responded to adverts, changed its mind amid pressure from campaigners, who accused it of trying to minimise payouts from a £1m reimbursement fund.

Councillor Chris Harrison, cabinet member for highways at Richmond Council, cited at a meeting on Tuesday, September 13, a Richmond and Twickenham Times poll in which 87 per cent of respondents said the council should repay all unlawful parking fines automatically.

Campaigner Nigel Wise, whose landmark appeal against an invalid ticket in Whitton opened the door for thousands of other drivers, said: “This is a grand slam victory in Richmond for common sense.” A tribunal at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service overturned Mr Wise’s £100 fine after he proved the council had not properly registered its CCTV cars.

It forced the authority to launch an investigation which led to an apology, removal of vehicles and offering to refund all affected motorists.

Lord True said on Tuesday he “deplored” campaigners’ claims the council would be guilty of theft if it did not pay back all of the £1m, but he had decided writing to wrongly fined drivers was the “right thing to do”.

He said: “This administration has always wanted to repay as much of the wrongly paid money as we could and we judge this action to be proportionate to the public wrong done.”

Councillor Stephen Knight, leader of Richmond’s Liberal Democrat group, argued the potential £700,000 cost of contacting all the motorists was not a good use of taxpayers’ money.

But Councillor Geoffrey Samuel, deputy leader of Richmond Council, said many affected drivers would not see newspaper adverts about the refunds and the authority had a “moral obligation” to pay them back.

Coun Harrison added: “A central policy of this administration is fair parking and if we take money off people in a process that was fatally flawed, we should offer to pay it back.”

Thirty-one councillors voted in favour of refunding drivers, 17 abstained and none opposed.

Comments(25)

Nigel Wise says…
8:21am Sat 17 Sep 11

The Full Council Meeting was attended by other Members of The NoToMob including myself and a representative from The London Motorists Action Group (LMAG). Lord True praised me as follows: “I pay tribute to the motorist who pointed out the problem. His good old British doggedness has ultimately led the Council to this decision.”

This was a Major Victory for The NoToMob, LMAG and for common sense. We had all campaigned long and hard to see that this latest refund process was adopted. The Victory concluded a Grand Slam of Victories for Myself, LMAG and The NoToMob. See: http://notomob.co.uk
/discussions/index.p
hp?action=search2

The Victories include:
1/. PaTAS Appeal establishes unlawful enforcement.
2/. After the successful Appeal a Press Release by Council is accepted by The Council to have been “Inaccurate, inadequate too defensive and misleading.” This after Lord True instigated an investigation after complaints by us. This Press release could be summed up with one word – false.
3/. Unlicensed CCTV Smart Cars taken off the road. They have been off the road for the last 5 months in Richmond.
4/. Council agrees to refund £1.05M in unlawful fines by press advertising asking people to apply. This would mean that few people received refunds.
5/. Unceasing requests for him to resign causes Parking Enforcement Manager to do just that.
6/. Pressure from The NoToMob causes the British Parking Association to remove the ex parking Manager from the Board of Directors at The British Parking Association. He was previously a “fellow” of The Institute of Parking Professionals.
7/. A NoToMob Member was prevented from filming at the last Cabinet Meeting. Another Member then writes to Lord True and gets him to agree to Webcast the Full Council Meeting. This was in accordance with Bob Neil’s letter to all Council Leaders dated February 2011. See:

http://www.parliamen

t.uk/deposits/deposi
tedpapers/2011/DEP20
11-0549.pdf
8/. After relentless pressure from The NoToMob Richmond Council finally give in, do a u turn and offer refunds proactively. They will now write to everyone that they unlawfully fined.

I place no blame whatsoever on any elected member for this debacle. The episode was brought about by a highly paid Council Officer who as a result of the disaster is now longer employed by The Council. The previously proposed unsatisfactory method of Press Advertising for providing refunds was as a result of extremely expensive and unnecessary legal advice obtained by another Council Officer. This was used in a now failed attempt at tying the hands of elected members. The Press Releases that the Press Office prepare that they then expect elected members to trot out are also the fault of Council Officers.

The Leader of The Liberal Democrats Councillor Knight in his speech claimed that they had a ‘fiscal responsibility.’ He was booed and jeered for this stance. This went against the R&TT online vote that recorded a figure of 89% in approval of proactive refunds only 11% were against this. The Lib Dems. mostly abstained in the vote with the exception of 3 of them who did not tow the party line and voted in for the amendment. What is the point in entering politics to then abstain?

I fail to see how the cost of the administration of these refunds will be greater than the previously proposed Press Advertising method that was agreed to by The Lib Dems. There is now no need for any expensive advertising on top of the expense of dealing with invalid claims of which there would have been many. The “potential £700,000 cost of contacting” 18,500 as stated by Councillor Knight works out at £37.83p per letter!! I was not aware that The Royal Mail had hiked their charges so high.

A mail shot consisting of 18,500 letters printed from a computer program containing the names and addresses that the council already have should cost no more than £1 each letter. When the replies are received another 18,500 letters sending cheques would be no greater. Add to this staff time and if the total figure is in excess of £50,000 there is something radically wrong. This sum alone would need need to be spent on national exposure advertising to give people an opportunity to see the adverts. Even then there is no guarantee that those people affected would even see the advertisements.

It will doubtless be the case that the overall cost to the council will be greater. This is because they will refund more people. It appears that Councillor Knight was previously in agreement only because he knew that very little money would be refunded. Do not lose sight of the fact that the money is the property of those who it was unlawfully obtained from. The Council’s enforcement needs to set an example to those that it perceives to have broken the law. Previously the Lib Dem’s. Draconian Parking Machine issued tickets on a relentless basis for unlawful restrictions without any regard to any laws surrounding their issue.

The Council have also earned interest on the unlawfully derived income that will go to offset the cost of providing the refunds. There are bound to be some people that are not contacted. People who have moved with no forwarding address and even people who have died. I have no doubt that the remaining money will more than cover the costs.

See the entire footage from this item on the Agenda at:

http://www.youtube.c

om/v/fLTOhrEVqP0&rel
=0&hl=en_US&feature=
player_embedded&vers
ion=3″>

Nigel Wise says…
8:58am Sat 17 Sep 11

You may need to copy and paste any links in the above post into your browser.

Nigel Wise says…
9:16am Sat 17 Sep 11

The link to the NoToMob thread above is wrong. It should be:

http://notomob.co.uk

/discussions/index.p
hp/topic,1281.15.htm
l

All Richmond threads can be found here:

http://notomob.co.uk

/discussions/index.p
hp/board,35.0.html

lucullus says…
1:05pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Wooo. A large number of motorists who were parked illegally and then snapped by a CCTV car with bad paperwork will get back the fine they paid for parking illegally and a few who were wrongly fined will get their money back.

And there’ll probably still be loads who don’t reply, can’t be contacted, etc.

Mr Wise is indeed right, however, that a basic mailshot to a list of people they should already have can hardly cost more than a pound or two. However, I presume Mr Knight was including the repaid fines …

Still, overall? A grandstanding waste of council money and time.

Gareth Roberts says…
1:43pm Sat 17 Sep 11

On a point of information, the £700,000 costs alluded to by Mr Wise was a figure originally raised by Cllr True in his speech. See video footage on the council’s website at 01:29:50

Cllr True’s speech was quite revealing – it would appear that the Conservatives considered scrapping the camera cars but they were dazzled by the amount of money they could rake in by keeping them. So much for ending ‘The War On The Motorist’!

Speaking for myself I hope that those people who receive a letter will think long and hard before claiming any refunds and I hope the wording of the letter will seek to encourage people to consider their course of action. The refund may be technically valid, but is it morally valid? Was the car illegally parked or not? I honestly can’t recall if I received a camera car fine in the last two years; if I receive a letter, however, I would not accept the refund.

Nigel Wise says…
4:17pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Gareth,
I assume that you are Councillor Gareth Roberts of Hampton one of the Lib Dems. who failed to vote with any decisiveness.

On your ‘point of information.’ Lord True did not refer to the ‘potential costs of contacting’ anyone. Lord True referred to the ‘extra costs’ in providing the refunds (that would be given to more people). This should have been obvious to anyone listening. Apparently the Lib Dems were not listening or this was not understood by Councillor Knight or by many of the other Liberals present including yourself. How could the ‘cost of contacting’ 18,500 motorists by sending a letter be up to £700,000? Simple arithmetic, that any elected Councillor ought to be capable of in their heads would inform that it could not refer to the cost of contacting a mere 18,500 motorists.

If you are informing the electorate that the reason for The Lib Dems. failing to vote in a decisive manner was because they thought it would cost an extra £700,000 to ‘contact people’ then please say so.

Alternatively, did your party only wish to vote for refunds if hardly anyone received them?

It would seem that it can only be one of the two options above.

Perhaps you would care to explain what the difference was in voting for newspaper advertising (your party agreed to this earlier) or the cheaper targeted (letter writing) advertising.

Some answers are required to the above points. Failure to respond will confirm the worst.

You are correct. Councillor True’s speech was very revealing. It revealed that the ‘dazzling’ of the drivers in your camera cars with tinted windows did not occur. Lord True made it perfectly clear why his party retained the vehicles. More Council Officer involvement. He also made it clear that his party unlike yours intended to use the vehicles humanely and proportionately.

You ‘honestly can’t recall’ if you received a camera car fine in the last two years! You will be only matched by others who are suffering from memory loss.

ChrisSquire says…
4:19pm Sat 17 Sep 11

‘ . . The Leader of The Liberal Democrats Councillor Knight in his speech claimed that they had a ‘fiscal responsibility.’ He was booed and jeered for this stance.’

Tells you all you need to know about the NoTo Mob – mob indeed.

Gareth Roberts says…
5:35pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Your assumption is partially correct, Mr Wise.

I really do think you should rewatch the debate as Cllr True is quite clear on this matter. 1hr 29 mins 50 seconds approx

“The cabinet had decided that we too can legitimately and proportionately write to those affected inviting them to seek repayment. The extra cost will be considerable, Madam Mayor perhaps half a million pounds, perhaps £700,000 and I do not hide that from the council”

Now I think most people would understand that to mean an EXTRA cost on top of the £1 Million fund set aside already to reimburse motorists.

Lets not forget that if every person claimed a refund and they had only incurred the £40 fine that would still come to £740,000.

As for using the cars for humane and proportionate use – they intend to extend their remit to cover issues other than parking.

Nigel Wise says…
5:52pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Chris,
You have obviously read into my post above the wrong information. You obviously have not seen the relevant footage either. After Councillor Knight received the condemnation of his stance he said after an interjection by the Lady Mayor “Clearly the members opposite have not listened to Councillor Samuel opposite who said that it is not an evening for point scoring” He did this whilst gesturing at the party opposite. The public gallery was behind him. The relevant footage can be viewed at 21 mins. 15 seconds in, here:

http://www.youtube.c

om/v/fLTOhrEVqP0&rel

=0&hl=en_US&feature=

player_embedded&vers

ion=3″>

P.S. The Lib Dems also conducted their own interruptions to speeches by The Conservatives. This included shouts of NO!

The Bald Eagle says…
6:29pm Sat 17 Sep 11

@lucullus

You said: “Wooo. A large number of motorists who were parked illegally and then snapped by a CCTV car with bad paperwork will get back the fine they paid for parking illegally and a few who were wrongly fined will get their money back.”

Where is the evidence that any one of those motorists was illegally parked?

As far as I know, anyone accused of breaking the law in this country is innocent until proven guilty, yet you are convicting people without being able to produce any evidence whatsoever.

Heaven help anyone in the dock if you are ever called for jury duty.

Nigel Wise says…
6:29pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Gareth,
It appears from your reply that the Lib. Dems. did indeed wrongly think that it was going to cost an extra £.7M ‘to contact’ a mere 18,500 motorists.

Why did none of your number not calculate by simple arithmetic that this would mean that it would cost an extra £37.83p to ‘contact’ each one. If you had established that, why was this not questioned by any of your number?

Why did you allow this incorrect error (by your wrong assumption of the facts) to go unchallenged?

It ought to have been obvious from the above basic calculation that the “extra cost” referred to by Lord True related to the extra number of refund payments that would be made not the cost of contacting the motorists
concerned. If this was not obvious as you now confirm to be the case why did you not question the cost of ‘contacting’ the motorists?

The figures you give are hypothetical some people pay more than £40 Some incur bailiffs fees. It is not known how many people will receive refunds.

To answer your last point. Why do you think the ‘spy cars’ (Lord True’s words) have remained off the roads for the last 5 months despite having been certificated for use for the last 4 months.

Gareth Roberts says…
7:15pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Mr Wise, extra costs are extra costs. Whether they are the costs of the stamps, the costs of the envelopes, the increased costs of officer time to deal with the process of sending out individual letters, the increased officer time involved in dealing with larger amounts of claims, the costs of taking legal advice over the precise wording of the letter itself, the bank charges involved with repatriation of the monies or many other considerations. They have all been identified by Nick True as EXTRA costs.

As for the other correspondent who asks ‘How do we know these people were parked illegally’ – the camera never lies. It may be wrongly certified but it my book parking on double yellow lines, parking on the pavement, parking in loading bays without permission, parking in residents’ bays without the correct certificate are all contravene local bye-laws and therefore subject to penalty if the offender is caught.

Gareth Roberts says…
7:34pm Sat 17 Sep 11

I should add in my list I should have included ‘additional reimbursements’

Nigel Wise says…
8:08pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Mr Roberts,

Your inadequate reply that has still not answered simple questions does not let you off the hook.

Please answer the simple question: Why did none of your number question the wrong assumption by them that it would cost an EXTRA £.7M to send a letter to 18,500 motorists at a simply calculated cost of £37.83p each?

I repeat: The EXTRA costs referred to by Lord True OBVIOUSLY related to the extra number of refunds that would be necessary. They could not possibly relate to anything else.

There are OBVIOUSLY no EXTRA costs involved. ALL of the items to which you refer to above apply to BOTH methods of refunding.

Your answer to the ‘other correspondent’ completely misses his point.

Parliament passed the “Approved Device Legislation” for a very good reason. This was to give the public (your potential electors) confidence in the footage supplied. Footage can be manipulated and modified.

It is not just the camera that requires certification but all of the recording equipment. The legislation was passed to supply the necessary non-repudiation. None of the ‘spy cars’ had any approval for use. It was the spy cars that were ‘without the correct certificate’ as you put it.

Without this legally required certification no evidence is admissible. Therefore there is no proof whatsoever.

You are saying that it is perfectly alright to book someone for not having the ‘correct certificate’ when the authority that is doing the booking does not even have the ‘correct certificate’ themselves. If that is not double standards I do not know what is.

Enforcement Authorities ought to set an example to those that it often wrongly perceives to be in contravention.

It is apparent from your response that you do not think that it should be a requirement for Local Authorities to comply with the laws of the land.

Please start your reply with an answer to the question above.

Nigel Wise says…
8:41pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Mr Roberts,

Your post above timed at 7:34 was posted whilst I was composing my last post.

In this post you are now backtracking and attempting to cover your tracks. I quote from your first post:

“Now I think most people would understand that to mean an EXTRA cost on top of the £1 Million fund set aside already to reimburse motorists.”

Now you state:

“I should add in my list I should have included ‘additional reimbursements”

You are a Councillor. Please explain this obvious disparity. I am sure that your electorate will be as interested as I am to hear your responses.

The Bald Eagle says…
8:54pm Sat 17 Sep 11

So the camera never lies does it Mr Roberts? Never?

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=lkwh4ZaxH
IA

Gareth Roberts says…
9:15pm Sat 17 Sep 11

It is somewhat curious, Mr Wise, that everybody else is wrong and you’re always right; at least according to your posts. Take this business of the additional, extra, surplus, £700,000. The council has always maintained that this episode would cost £1 MILLION. That money which wasn’t claimed would go on road repairs.

The full council was then informed by no less a person than the leader of the council that the new course of action would cost between £500,000 and £700,000 more. Extra. Additional. Surplus.

Even the journalists writing this story understand this to be the case

“Lord True, leader of Richmond Council, said it would spend up to £700,000 contacting motorists affected by more than 18,500 parking penalties it unlawfully issued between April 2009 and April 2011.” Contacting.

A simple question. I would imagine that somewhere within those pictures of 18,500 traffic offences there is one of a car parked on the zig-zag lines outside a school – zigzags which are clearly designed for the protection of children. Would you say that the driver of that car was parked illegally? Would you claim it a moral victory if that person claimed a refund? I wouldn’t.

Nigel Wise says…
9:33pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Mr Roberts ought to also see these:

Politicians:

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=NcOXkcGUF
kI&feature=player_de
tailpage#t=45s

Maybe Councillor Roberts would book this chap for letting a dog drive his car!!:

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=Qp5DkqAxv
AI&feature=player_de
tailpage

Before Councillor Roberts says that Council Employees would not falsify evidence see:

http://www.thisisexe

ter.co.uk/Parking-of
ficer-faces-map-misc
onduct-trial/story-1
1741080-detail/story
.html

This Council employee was convicted of doing just that. He falsified evidence in a parking appeal. This is another reason why certification is required.

It will be necessary to copy and paste the links above into your browser.

The Bald Eagle says…
9:49pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Ok. Here we go with the “it’s for the kids’ protection” argument again.

The poor bloke who got 6 tickets in a row before the first one dropped on his mat is a prime example of all that is wrong with the way these $cars operate. He simply stopped for a maximum 7 seconds to drop off his kids at the school gate.

If parking on a zig zag line outside the school is such a hideously dangerous and morally repugnant crime, why not have a CEO posted there for a couple of weeks to warn parents that if they continue to do this, tickets will be issued?

Where is the morality of having a $car sit there day after day issuing tickets and allowing motorists to continue to endanger the safety of the kids?

Please don’t lecture us about morality. We (the NoToMob) regularly assist $cars in various boroughs around the country and regularly see them hiding in order to maximise revenue income from PCNs.

Pray tell what is moral about allowing motorists to commit an offence – thus endangering public safety – rather than being a truly visible deterrent?

Surely prevention is better than cure, albeit not as profitable.

Nigel Wise says…
10:28pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Councillor Roberts,

You are simply digging yourself into a deeper hole.

You have still failed miserably to answer my simple question:

Why did none of your number do the simple sum 700,000 divided by 18.500 = 37.83 and then question this instead of sitting there like deaf mutes?

Please make up your mind. First you state:

“Now I think most people would understand that to mean an EXTRA cost on top of the £1 Million fund set aside already to reimburse motorists.”

Then you state:

“I should add in my list (of EXTRA costs) I should have included ‘additional reimbursements” you were referring to your list of EXTRA costs

Then you return to your original stance:

“that the new course of action would cost between £500,000 and £700,000 more. Extra. Additional. Surplus.”

Work it out it cannot be right that it would be EXTRA (on top of the refunds) it’s simple. If you thought this why did you not question it.

I will refer you to a posting regarding school zig-zags that was alluded to by The Bald Eagle.

http://notomob.co.uk

/discussions/index.p
hp/topic,1202.msg100
06/topicseen.html#ms
g10006

Needless to say I did not receive any reply to this mail. Perhaps you would care to comment after you have answered the question put to you already several times.

Gareth Roberts says…
10:39pm Sat 17 Sep 11

Out of interest, Mr Wise, do you know if the driver ever parked on the zigzags again?

The Bald Eagle says…
11:09pm Sat 17 Sep 11

A typical politician’s answer Mr Roberts.

Pick your own battlegrounds and answer questions with questions.

Such a wonderfully moral standpoint.

The Bald Eagle says…
2:25am Sun 18 Sep 11

Have a look at this Mr Roberts. Footage not tampered with.

http://www.youtube.c

omwatch?v=Tve7yeQqJm
g&feature=player_emb
edded

WE ARE WATCHING YOU

The Bald Eagle says…
2:50am Sun 18 Sep 11

Sorry if the link doesn’t work, Try this.

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=Tve7yeQqJ
mg&feature=player_em
bedded

Nigel Wise says…
9:01am Sun 18 Sep 11

Mr Roberts,

The very deep hole that you dug yourself into is now starting to fill with water.

Yet again you have failed to answer a simple question. I am afraid to have to inform you that Jeremy Paxman has nothing on me. I repeat:

QUESTION 1. Why did none of your number calculate by simple arithmetic that this would mean it would cost an extra £37.83p to ‘contact’ each one of the motorists. If they had established that, why was this figure not questioned by any of them?

Given an opportunity to speak on the subject at The Full Council Meeting all of your number declined the invitation, sat on their hands like tongueless dummies and waived their right to respond. Even your leader did not refer to this grossly disproportionate ‘EXTRA COSTS’ figure of £700,000. Why not?

The Lib. Dems. then voted by abstaining with the exception of 3 of them who voted in favour.

I have answered all if your relevant questions. I pose one and you do not answer it.

Let me try another as well. I do realise that two questions at once may be beyond you.

QUESTION 2: Do the Lib Dems. now accept that the figure of £700,000 does NOT refer to EXTRA expenses?

I will again answer your short one line repost. This is because unlike you, I have nothing to hide. You already know the answer to this posed question or ought to know it if you had read the local press or listened to recent radio broadcasts. Of course you do have problems with your memory as elucidated by you with your declared inability to recall events over the last two years.

It is obvious that the driver in question did not wait there again. He would not have waited like it on a further 5 occasions either if he had been warned or ticketed by a CEO on the first occasion.

Furthermore he would not have waited there if he had realised that he would receive a ticket for doing so. The entire operation was a ‘sting operation’ by YOUR VEHICLES who had been parked there previously for weeks without issuing any tickets to Mr Gillman for doing the same thing day in and day out in front of them.

The ‘sting’ was organised so that other parents would follow suit after seeing parents like Mr Gillman doing it for weeks on end in front of the camera car.

The sting continued by the car then quietly issuing a weeks worth of tickets through the post to all of the drivers who fell into the trap. All of the tickets arrived at once. Mr Gillman was not the only target.

The above is reminiscent of private car parking firms who park ‘decoy cars’ in their car parks without pay and display tickets on them. They do this so that others will see that these vehicles have not received any parking tickets day after day. These unsuspecting motorists then try it themselves and immediately receive a ticket. This practice has rightly been outlawed.

It was YOUR ADMINISTRATION that was guilty of the ‘school sting’ practice at this location and several others. The Lib Dems were also guilty of countless other unlawful enforcements of unlawful restrictions under their watch.

FYI. The position that Mr Gillman stopped in did NOT endanger any children. no vehicles were able to pass him in either direction. I would point out that if he had dropped his children off anywhere else up the road this would have ADDED to the dangers that they were exposed to.

If a driver comes up behind another vehicle in the road at this location due to traffic congestion caused by parents who have to park down the road this does not mean that the driver should get a ticket. The situation Mr Gillman was in is no different. The same applies if you stop in traffic in a clearway bus stop.

I refer you to one of the very aptly titled press articles at the time regarding this case:

http://www.hounslowc

hronicle.co.uk/west-
london-news/local-ho
unslow-news/2010/07/
15/council-s-cctv-ca
rs-milk-motorists-fo
r-cash-109642-268612
57/

Also another link to an article regarding a ticket issued by one of YOUR CARS to a mother whilst she SAVING the life of a child:

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/news/uknews/r
oad-and-rail-transpo
rt/5028721/Mother-gi
ven-parking-ticket-f
or-reviving-her-seve
rely-disabled-son.ht
ml

Do not exhort about the ‘protection of children.’ Your administration was clearly responsible for endangering children to maximise income.

There are many many more examples.

Mr Roberts. Answers are still required. The questions will not go away. Your electors need to hear the same answers from you. Please answer them in a detailed manner as I have done several times already in answer to your questions. They are QUESTION 1 and QUESTION 2 above.

Everyone is awaiting your answers. Please pose more questions if you wish. They will all be dealt with as robustly as your previous questions have been. The answers provided will simply cause the water to flow faster.

I like answering questions about your indefensible parking regime. I have all of the required ammunition. The Lib. Dems. provided it for me.