Parking Charge Notices - Green Lanes

The council have done thier internal review and have modified the FOI request with my agreement.

I am awaiting the answer

Chris Turner

They say it would cost £40,000 to answer my question.

Apparently they would have to look up each PCN manually - ain't they heard of databases and searches.

Not very good is it

Dear Mr Turner

As a Haringey councillor, I am surprised the Council appears to have issued 19,461 PCNs in Green Lanes since the Adamou Case. And that the Parking Service databases are unable to generate a list of those which related to yellow box junction offences in Green Lanes - which is what I assume you want to know.

The email below may be helpful. As you'll see, it was sent to me on 9 May 2009 by Beverley Taylor then an Assistant Director in Haringey Urban Environment Department and the council officer whose remit included the Parking Service. (Ms Taylor has since left Haringey.)

I found it both candid and helpful. Ms Taylor assured me that the Parking Service was then "reviewing all yellow box junctions to confirm that they comply with the regulations and ensuring that works are checked by an engineer".

She also explained that the issue of a PCN without identifying the *specific* yellow box junction had been "due to our IT system"; but that: "we have put this right".

I note that in their reply to you on 14 May 2010 our F.o.I. team wrote that: “We need the precise location and time of the incident”.

As you have noted, this is precisely the point made in the Joint Annual Report of the Parking Adjudicators 2006-2007 about the Adamou case – but applied to *drivers* who receive a PCN. Haringey did not tell Ms Adamou “where the alleged contravention . . . was said to have occurred”. Therefore: “No valid PCN was served on Mrs Adamou, and so the Council could not enforce the penalty”.

I am disappointed that you have not received a more positive response from Haringey – and more in tune with Ms Taylor’s email. If our IT system is (or was) still sending out PCNs without specifying the location of a contravention, clearly we need to know about and correct this !

Alan Stanton
Tottenham Hale ward councillor

----- Original Message -----
From: Taylor Beverley
To: Cllr Alan Stanton
Cc: Cllr Brian Haley ; Cllr George Meehan (Leader of the Council) ; Niall Bolger; Ita O'Donovan; Streetscene Members
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 6:39 PM
Subject: PARKING APPEAL - MARIA GAVRIEL v HARINGEY

Dear Councillor Stanton,

I am responding on Niall Bolger’s behalf to your e-mails of 21 and 27 April 2008 regarding the yellow box marking which was the subject of the appeal case of Maria Gavriel v Haringey. Please accept my apologies for the delay in my reply.

I confirm that the yellow box marking in question is located at the junction of Green Lanes and Warham Road. The adjudicators have highlighted to us that the yellow box junctions on Green Lanes were not identifiable by a specific location and we have put this right. The problem was due to our IT system.

My investigation of this issue has shown that:

During a routine check of our yellow box junctions in February 2007 it came to light that this one did not comply with requirements. We therefore ceased to enforce it and instructed our contractor to amend the yellow box marking. Although amendments were made that same month, removing sections of the box at the junctions of Warham Road and Salisbury Road, the contractor did not remove the relevant sections on Green Lanes. This meant that the box marking was still non-compliant. Unfortunately, the engineer who checked the work did not identify this and reported that the work was completed.

In relation to the Poulton appeal, this ticket was issued in November 2006 and appealed initially in December 2006 on the basis of mitigating circumstances, not the legality of the junction. In light of the above review, when we received this appeal in March 2007, we should have cancelled the ticket. However as there were reasons to challenge the grounds of the appeal, we did not. As you are aware, when the adjudicator heard the appeal it was allowed as the junction was non-compliant. However, when we received this decision in May 2007, the assumption was unfortunately made that the work in February 2007 had already resolved the problem.

In relation to Maria Gavriel’s appeal on 19th March, the contravention was that she had stopped within the Green Lanes/Warham Road box junction and she admitted this. However, the adjudicator, referring to the previous decision, said that the box junction was not legal because it did not go to the corners of the junction but went beyond them. When we received this decision we realised the earlier error made (ie in February 2007). We then suspended enforcement and instructed our contractor to amend the box marking. The new marking was implemented on 1 May 2008.

I hope that this addresses your concerns on these matters. I would like to reassure you we have now put procedures in place to address all these issues. We are again reviewing all yellow box junctions to confirm that they comply with the regulations and ensuring that works are checked by an engineer. We systematically log and review all remedial action to be taken arising from adjudicator decisions and we have provided additional training for all staff in how to deal with representations.

Yours sincerely,

Beverley

Beverley Taylor| Assistant Director
Frontline Services | Urban Environment Directorate
London Borough of Haringey
225 High Road | Wood Green | London N22 8HQ

FYI

PCN EF2257623A issued 22/06/2010 was for allededly 'Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited in: Green Lanes N13 - Cctv Camera Static'.

So Enfield clearly have the same unfixed problem.
S. Jerrard

Copy of an email sent to Niall Bolger, Director of Haringey Urban Environment Department.

----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Stanton, Tottenham Hale ward councillor
To: Niall Bolger
Cc: Council Leader and Cabinet members, Christopher Turner, Martin Wood, Chief Parking Adjudicator PATAS (Parking & Traffic Appeals Service)
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:22 PM
Subject: Possibility that Haringey is still issuing PCNs for yellow junction boxes without specifying the location.

Dear Mr Bolger,

It appears [... ] that the Parking Service is continuing to issue PCNs for yellow junction box 'offences' in Green Lanes which describe the location simply as "in Green Lanes".

I do not criticise [the officer concerned] as I am sure he is doing his utmost to present the Parking Service's practice in the best possible light. However, as you would imagine, I do not accept his view that while this information: "is useful, it does not help those motorists who are less familiar with the local area and also do not know of junction intersections".

It is, for example, open to a driver to visit and check a particular junction to see if the lines and signs are compliant.

Nor do I accept that it is sufficient for motorists to be able "to recount where they were by a process of elimination".

He previously assured me that the Parking Service had "responded positively to the Adjudicator's decision". However, I do not see how issuing PCNs which do not comply with the Chief Adjudicator's view can be described as positive.

Above all, the point is not what I accept or think, but what Martin Wood, Chief Parking Adjudicator wrote in his Annual Report 2006-2007. While - as [the officer concerned] points out - PATAS decisions are not "statutory", the PATAS system is the one we as a local authority have agreed to abide by. And it is important if we are to show we are acting reasonably and in good faith.

Can I therefore please request that you issue instructions to your staff that:

(1) All PCNs for yellow junction boxes must contain sufficient details to identify the specific junction.

(2) In the event of an I.T. problem temporarily preventing this - as mentioned by Ms Beverley Taylor on 9 May 2008 - can I please have a reassurance that this will be speedily corrected.

(3) If and when drivers show that a PCN does not identify the specific location, these should be cancelled.

Can I please clarify that I am not trying to prevent the issue of PCNs for yellow junction box 'offences'. Nor am I ignoring the need to achieve compliance with the rules by the use of financial penalties. My concern is that Haringey's lines and signs comply with the statutory regulations; that our procedures follow good practice including PATAS decisions; and that we seek to 'get it right first time", rather than give grounds for representations and appeals.