Legal Uncertainty.TRO speed reduction A4040

dennis fallon made this Freedom of Information request to Birmingham City Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Birmingham City Council,
Please excuse the preamble, it is just to summarise the situation to date, the actual New FOI is posted at the end.

This request is a direct followup to the responses received from you on 28th September to my FOI 7586.
The original request is at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/st...

I have made extensive enquiries about this speed limit reduction and there may have been corruption of the process which may render the Traffic Regulation Order(TRO) invalid, unless you can prove otherwise.
There is no proof that the required temporary signage was put in place, as identified in the TRO plans,and there is no proof that the accident record justified the TRO at all.

It has already been established that local Councillors and the M.P John Hemming were DECEIVED into providing agreement to the reduction on the basis of false information issued by Highways department, under the pursuasive influence of local police who had no experience of dealing with traffic issues.

For some STRANGE reason there was no advice sought from p.c Mick Hartill, the Scheme Manager of the Road Safety Partnership who knows about road safety,but he has subsequently been pleased to supply the route with mobile camera enforcement.

For some STRANGE reason it was decided that road accidents would be reduced by removing all signage,and by ONLY identifying the Stockfield Road part of the A4040 as an enforcement area on the police disclosure of sites map(which is effectively deception).
Any ordinary person thinking about these facts could reasonably judge the police and council to be well out of order in terms of integrity.

THE EVIDENCE INDICATING A POLICE SCAM IN PROGRESS.

All the available evidence indicates that the speed limit reduction on the A4040 is inappropriate,bears no relevance to the accident record,has been implemented by deception, and has made matters WORSE as the removal of signage causes GENUINE confusion about the limit applicable on the wide dual carriageway and causes frustration and conflict between different drivers`speeds.

Only a CRAZY person would believe that removal of signage improves road safety, it causes confusion to ordinary motorists, and the `boy racers`,who ignore all signage anyway, still cause the accidents by travelling well above the sensible limit which should be 40mph.
This is NOT a typical 30mph residential area with schools or kiddies playing around, it is a wide dual carriageway connecting main roads.

We know that,sadly,the Jusice system is very short of cash at the moment but it brings the System into DISREPUTE when the Magistrates are being tricked into believing that Traffic Regulation Orders have been implemented lawfully and for a good reason.

Magistrates have to be CERTAIN a real offence has been committed before they find anyone guilty,NOT just blindly following the advice of the Clerk of the Court, and at the moment the ethical and legal implementation of the TRO and the police activities are very UNCERTAIN.

I have serious doubts about the substance of the replies received previously.
You advise me that some of the `temporary signage`was in place but was removed by unpaid persons unknown who, if true, must have used a lorry to do so as they are well above normal ladder height.
I am not convinced about that story, nor the story about the people being consulted, so I request a new FOI for clarification of the facts.

Reference your reply to my Q2,dated 28 September,you advise me, in very vague terms, that Tim Huxtable arranged further consultation,
QUOTE"The decision to proceed with the consultation was made by the Cabinet Member for Transportation, Environment and Regeneration. Consultation was then carried out with the following organisations :-

West Midlands Police, West Midlands Ambulance Service, West Midlands Fire Service, NHS, Abnormal loads - West Midlands Police, Amey, Royal Mail, ICC,
BCC Highways, BCC Development Strategy, Arriva, Traffic Link, Navteq, Colmore business district, Connect Traffic, Ring and Ride, BT Connect, Birmingham Law Society, DSA, Centro, National Express, Astons Coaches, thsh, First Group, RHA (Midlands Western), Taxi Association, Traffic Master, TOA Taxis, FTA Rotala andTraffic Master

In addition notices were posted on street and explanatory letters circulated to frontagers of the affected streets"

NEW FOI Q1.
A consultation is a two way process presumeably initiated by a standard letter sent by post.
For all of the organisations listed above please identify the person within each organisation to who the letter was addressed.
If the letter was a standard letter please confirm the text of the consultation letter to establish the nature of the consultation.
If any letters were not of a standard consultatory nature, such as possibly to the Birminham Law Society,please provide copies of such unique letters.
There seems to have been consultation with apparently irrelevant organisations.

NEW FOI Q2.
There is rarely a high response as the result of consulations so,without going into detail at this stage, please confirm which of the organisations provided a response to the consultation letter.
Please provide an actual copy of the reply from the Birmingham Law Soceity.

NEW FOI Q3.
If,as advised,notices were posted on the affected streets, please confirm the text of the notices, the size of the notices,how many notices were put up, and who put them up.

NEW FOI Q4.
I was surprised to be advised that,"explanatory letters were circulated to frontagers of the affected streets" but nothing was notified in the local public library for general information.
The A4040 is a very long road with many houses and shops providing frontages.
Please confirm the text of these explanatory letters,the date they were circulated, the number of premises to which they were delivered, and who was entrusted to ensure delivery.

NEW FOI Q5.
Please confirm how many letters of comment were received back from the these frontages as a result of the explanatory letter distribution, and how many letters were received from the general public in total as a result of the TRO consultation process.

I am sorry to burden you further with this FOI request, which is not vexatious, but I have been in contact with the M.P John Hemming and he is also concerned about why the public appear to be confused and why enforcement is being carried out without good reason,when he was told there was a good reason.

This is a very serious matter because people may be being threatened with fines when they are trying to drive safely and causing no harm.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon

Birmingham City Council

Dear Mr Fallon

Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Request for Information

Thank you for your request which was received on 14 November 2012 for
information held by the Council under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, we
will let you know.  A fees notice will be issued to you, and you will be
required to pay before we will proceed to deal with your request.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact a
member of our team on 0121 303 4303 or 0121 303 4404.

Yours sincerely

Lynda Parchment
Compliance Assistant
Data Protection / Freedom of Information
Performance & Support Services

Tel:        0121 303 4638
Fax:        0121 303 4943

Data Protection Act 1998
The information you have provided within your Freedom of Information
request will be held on our database and may also be held within manual
records for a period of 2 years from the date Birmingham City Council
received your request. Any personal data that you provide to Birmingham
City Council will be held in line with the requirements set out within the
Data Protection Act 1998.

Re Use of Public Sector Information
Where Birmingham City Council is the copyright holder of any information
that may be released, re-use for personal, educational or non-commercial
purposes is permitted without further reference to the City Council. Where
the re-use is for other purposes, such as commercial re-use, the applicant
should notify the City Council in writing to seek approval or agree terms
for re-use.

show quoted sections

Birmingham City Council

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Fallon

Please see the attached response to your recent request for information.

(See attached file: FOI 7858 Fallon Final response.doc)(See attached file:
FOI 7858 Fallon Attach 1.doc)(See attached file: FOI 7858 Fallon Attach
2.doc)(See attached file: FOI 7858 Fallon Attach 3.doc)

Val Llewellyn
Compliance Officer
Local Services Directorate

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Llewellyn,
Thank you for your reply dated 7th December which you have provided in good faith.
Unfortunately it is unacceptable as it appears to be incomplete and misleading,and therefore I require further clarification.

My question 1 requested information about the alleged `consultation process` but not only have you failed to identify the alleged people `consulted` the attachment 2(Stockfield rd pdf)which was forwarded to the alleged `consultees`gave absolutely no indication of the extent or the reasons for the `scheme`, so it actually was not a `consultation` but an `option for a consultation`.
The `consultation process` seems to be a fake P.R exercise where the `consultees`are invited to visit the office of Chris Young if they really want to know anything.
It is DISHONEST to say that people have been `consulted`when they have NOT actually been told what is going on,when they have merely been invited to travel miles to look at the plans.
There is no evidence that ANYONE bothered to travel into town to see the plans,which explains why no local people knew what was going on and why no one objected.
I am very unhappy to realise that the TRO was implemented without any `consultees` really knowing what was going on, and to know that the M.P John Hemming was deceived into believing that there was a speed related accident history.
These TRO`s are NOT a game,there are people now getting speeding points,maybe losing their licences and jobs, as a result of this deception.

RESPONSE TO Q1.

QUOTE"Details of organisation individuals are not kept on file. In the formal consultation process under the statutory procedure relating to Traffic Regulation Orders, notices of intent are sent electronically to the assigned ‘inbox’ of the organisation in question. A copy of the email sent out is attached – See Attach 1. The attachment referred to in that email is a copy of the Notice as posted on street. (See Q3)".

CLARIFICATION REF Q1.
The response to Q1 seems to indicate that you do not know,or care,who receives the `consultation`request, and this may explain the virtually nil response.
In each case,SURELY,the consultation must be addressed to an individual,or a job description of individual, within an organisation and I require disclosure of their identities or,if not known,disclosure of the assigned inbox description for each of the consulted parties.

RESPONSE TO Q3
QUOTE "A copy of the notice posted on street is attached displaying the layout and size. 10 notices were erected on May13th 2011 and subsequently removed on 2nd June 2011. Notices were erected by Transport Surveyors, Development Strategy, Birmingham City Council. See Attach 2".

CLARIFICATION REF Q3.
I am shocked to see that,contrary to the public interest, the Council seems to have provided the absolutely MINIMUM legal display time for the street notices(not even making an allowance for the Bank Holiday closure on Monday 30th May.)
For the purpose of clarification,please confirm the time of day recorded for the putting up and the taking down of the notices, by Transport Surveyors,on the two days advised to me.

RESPONSE TO Q4.
QUOTE"A copy of the letter delivered to frontages is attached. 154 letters were delivered on May13th 2011. Delivery was undertaken by Transport Surveyors, Development Strategy, Birmingham City Council. See Attach 3"

CLARIFICATION REF Q4.
The letters delivered to frontages told the residents NOTHING about the proposed changes, only inviting them to take a day out of their lives to visit the Highways department to see the plans and the reasons.
In my humble opinion this lack of providing information in a convenient format,such as by displaying in the local library or on a website,is a really stupid oversight, unless non-participation was the intention.
This,of course,is my humble opinion, but for clarification purposes please provide a copy of the `reasons for the TRO`which they might have seen if they had bothered to visit town, and please advise if 154 frontages,or any of the `consultees`were subsequently informed of the actual IMPLEMENTATION date of the TRO,especially identifying the various sat-nav databases,as virtually no one seems to have become aware of the changes being introduced.

I have had several motorists contacting me who are convinced that the council and the police have been colluding in an unethical manner which is contrary to the public interest.

Thanking you in anticipation of these clarifications, and I do appreciate the FOI department is only relaying what is being generated to complete the request.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Birmingham City Council

I acknowledge your email below and have referred to Highways to see if we
can respond to your queries.

Val Llewellyn
Compliance Officer
Local Services Directorate
303 4404


dennis fallon
<request-138293-1
6b85cbf@whatdothe To
yknow.com> [email address]
cc
23/12/2012 01:00
Subject
Re: Request for information under
the FOI Act





Dear Ms Llewellyn,
Thank you for your reply dated 7th December which you have provided
in good faith.
Unfortunately it is unacceptable as it appears to be incomplete and
misleading,and therefore I require further clarification.

My question 1 requested information about the alleged `consultation
process` but not only have you failed to identify the alleged
people `consulted` the attachment 2(Stockfield rd pdf)which was
forwarded to the alleged `consultees`gave absolutely no indication
of the extent or the reasons for the `scheme`, so it actually was
not a `consultation` but an `option for a consultation`.
The `consultation process` seems to be a fake P.R exercise where
the `consultees`are invited to visit the office of Chris Young if
they really want to know anything.
It is DISHONEST to say that people have been `consulted`when they
have NOT actually been told what is going on,when they have merely
been invited to travel miles to look at the plans.
There is no evidence that ANYONE bothered to travel into town to
see the plans,which explains why no local people knew what was
going on and why no one objected.
I am very unhappy to realise that the TRO was implemented without
any `consultees` really knowing what was going on, and to know that
the M.P John Hemming was deceived into believing that there was a
speed related accident history.
These TRO`s are NOT a game,there are people now getting speeding
points,maybe losing their licences and jobs, as a result of this
deception.

RESPONSE TO Q1.

QUOTE"Details of organisation individuals are not kept on file. In
the formal consultation process under the statutory procedure
relating to Traffic Regulation Orders, notices of intent are sent
electronically to the assigned ‘inbox’ of the organisation in
question. A copy of the email sent out is attached – See Attach 1.
The attachment referred to in that email is a copy of the Notice as
posted on street. (See Q3)".

CLARIFICATION REF Q1.
The response to Q1 seems to indicate that you do not know,or
care,who receives the `consultation`request, and this may explain
the virtually nil response.
In each case,SURELY,the consultation must be addressed to an
individual,or a job description of individual, within an
organisation and I require disclosure of their identities or,if not
known,disclosure of the assigned inbox description for each of the
consulted parties.

RESPONSE TO Q3
QUOTE "A copy of the notice posted on street is attached displaying
the layout and size. 10 notices were erected on May13th 2011 and
subsequently removed on 2nd June 2011. Notices were erected by
Transport Surveyors, Development Strategy, Birmingham City Council.
See Attach 2".

CLARIFICATION REF Q3.
I am shocked to see that,contrary to the public interest, the
Council seems to have provided the absolutely MINIMUM legal display
time for the street notices(not even making an allowance for the
Bank Holiday closure on Monday 30th May.)
For the purpose of clarification,please confirm the time of day
recorded for the putting up and the taking down of the notices, by
Transport Surveyors,on the two days advised to me.

RESPONSE TO Q4.
QUOTE"A copy of the letter delivered to frontages is attached. 154
letters were delivered on May13th 2011. Delivery was undertaken by
Transport Surveyors, Development Strategy, Birmingham City Council.
See Attach 3"

CLARIFICATION REF Q4.
The letters delivered to frontages told the residents NOTHING about
the proposed changes, only inviting them to take a day out of their
lives to visit the Highways department to see the plans and the
reasons.
In my humble opinion this lack of providing information in a
convenient format,such as by displaying in the local library or on
a website,is a really stupid oversight, unless non-participation
was the intention.
This,of course,is my humble opinion, but for clarification purposes
please provide a copy of the `reasons for the TRO`which they might
have seen if they had bothered to visit town, and please advise if
154 frontages,or any of the `consultees`were subsequently informed
of the actual IMPLEMENTATION date of the TRO,especially identifying
the various sat-nav databases,as virtually no one seems to have
become aware of the changes being introduced.

I have had several motorists contacting me who are convinced that
the council and the police have been colluding in an unethical
manner which is contrary to the public interest.

Thanking you in anticipation of these clarifications, and I do
appreciate the FOI department is only relaying what is being
generated to complete the request.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Llewellyn,
Thank you for your prompt acknowledgement on this Christmas eve.
I hope you and your information team have an enjoyable Christmas break,you are providing a quality service and it is appreciated.

I do have serious concerns about the integrity of service being provided by other departments,which is resulting in life changing prosecutions for people who,in commonsensical reality,are doing no harm and my moral compass requires me to discover what is going on.

The information releasaed so far has been really helpful and,as long as no information is concealed,these essential clarifications will explain the legality(not morality)of the police actions.

Thanking you in anticipation,and best wishes to your team.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Dear Ms Llewellyn,
I need to progress these queries and now that the party season is over I can see no good reason for further delay.

I have asked detailed questions to establish the integrity of the Council and Police partnership,and I know the standard excuses deployable, such as vexatiousness or cost grounds,but it is genuinely in the public interest to know what is going on and why ordinary motorists are being dragged into the legal process.

I have witnessed the unfortunate police guy peeking out of the rear window of the mobile camera van and in his heart he must know his activities are shameful and in no way contributes to road safety.

Please advise me WHO is the named person at Highways dealing with my enquiries and please advise me WHEN the response ispected to be completed.

I do require a definate timescale even though I am very patient.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

Birmingham City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Fallon,

STOCKFIELD ROAD SPEED LIMIT- FOI REQUEST 7858 FOLLOW ON RESPONSE

Thank you for your further email dated 23rd December 2012 concerning the
above. I am sorry for the delay in coming back to you with a response.

Please see the following responses to the requests for follow up
information in your email below -

CLARIFICATION REF Q1.
The response to Q1 seems to indicate that you do not know,or
care,who receives the `consultation`request, and this may explain
the virtually nil response.
In each case,SURELY,the consultation must be addressed to an
individual,or a job description of individual, within an
organisation and I require disclosure of their identities or,if
not
known,disclosure of the assigned inbox description for each of the
consulted parties.

Follow on Response to FOI Q1
The document identified a ‘group’ email address TRAA Perm TRO Distribution
List, this document was submitted to provide evidence consultation was
carried out on a given date to the organisations listed in a previous FOI
request (F0I7586).
I understand that the email is sent to the organisations via their generic
incoming mailboxes and is then disseminated within the organisations to the
relevant individual officers.

CLARIFICATION REF Q3.
I am shocked to see that,contrary to the public interest, the
Council seems to have provided the absolutely MINIMUM legal
display
time for the street notices(not even making an allowance for the
Bank Holiday closure on Monday 30th May.)
For the purpose of clarification,please confirm the time of day
recorded for the putting up and the taking down of the notices, by
Transport Surveyors,on the two days advised to me.

Follow on Response to FOI Q3
Precise timings for notice erection and removal are not known.

CLARIFICATION REF Q4.
The letters delivered to frontages told the residents NOTHING
about
the proposed changes, only inviting them to take a day out of
their
lives to visit the Highways department to see the plans and the
reasons.
In my humble opinion this lack of providing information in a
convenient format,such as by displaying in the local library or on
a website,is a really stupid oversight, unless non-participation
was the intention.
This,of course,is my humble opinion, but for clarification
purposes
please provide a copy of the `reasons for the TRO`which they might
have seen if they had bothered to visit town, and please advise if
154 frontages,or any of the `consultees`were subsequently informed
of the actual IMPLEMENTATION date of the TRO,especially
identifying
the various sat-nav databases,as virtually no one seems to have
become aware of the changes being introduced.

Follow on Response to FOI Q4

A copy of the Statement of Reasons is attached.
(See attached file: FOI 7858 Fallon Supplementary Attach 1.doc)

No information was deposited at the local library, however, information was
on display at the Yardley Constituency Office, 1st Floor Fox Hollies
Leisure Centre, Shirley Road, Acocks Green B27 7NS, where officers were
briefed and available to answer any queries. In addition, the letter
clearly displayed a telephone number and email address of the Project
Officer who was available to discuss any concerns and queries relating to
the proposals.

Notification is given to consultees and frontagers of the decision to
proceed by press advertisement, street notices and delivery of the Notice
of making.

I trust that this now responds to all the clarification issues in your
email.

Val Llewellyn
Compliance Officer
Local Services
0121 303 4404


dennis fallon
<request-138293-1
6b85cbf@whatdothe To
yknow.com> [email address]
cc
14/01/2013 10:40
Subject
Re: Request for information under
the FOI Act





Dear Ms Llewellyn,
I need to progress these queries and now that the party season is
over I can see no good reason for further delay.

I have asked detailed questions to establish the integrity of the
Council and Police partnership,and I know the standard excuses
deployable, such as vexatiousness or cost grounds,but it is
genuinely in the public interest to know what is going on and why
ordinary motorists are being dragged into the legal process.

I have witnessed the unfortunate police guy peeking out of the rear
window of the mobile camera van and in his heart he must know his
activities are shameful and in no way contributes to road safety.

Please advise me WHO is the named person at Highways dealing with
my enquiries and please advise me WHEN the response ispected to be
completed.

I do require a definate timescale even though I am very patient.

Yours faithfully,

dennis fallon

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,
THIS IS SIMPLY MY SUMMARY OF THE FINAL COUNCIL RESPONSE IN ORDER TO CLOSE THE REQUEST.

In my opinion Birmingham City Council and West Midlands Police have acted against the Public Interest for self centred Commercial reasons and are a disgrace to their organisations.
They try to deceive the Public that lowering speed limits to unrealistic levels will help road safety when,in reality,this just encorages the small minority of idiot drivers to perform dangerous overtaking far more often.

I consider the motives of the Council and the Police are misguided and purely financial, with no consideration of the reputational damage they cause to careful drivers doing their best to drive safely.

It is a truely shameful time for the City of Birmingham and the Birmingham Law Society,and I am exceptionally disappointed to learn that the John Hemming M.P was deceived into granting his approval regarding the limit changes on the basis of false information.

I conclude this request with an extract from your last disclosure to me,QUOTE "If a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries".

I will let the Public decide the sincerity of your actions, thank you for completing this request and the fascinating disclosures.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon

Val Llewellyn, Birmingham City Council

Dear Mr Fallon
I have noted your email below and have forwarded it to the Traffic Manager , Highways.

Val Llewellyn
Governance and Compliance Officer
Place Directorate

show quoted sections

g.matthews left an annotation ()

Thank you Mr Fallon for all your hard work on this subject,having just recieved a penalty notice for doing 37mph on the A4040 which I thought was a 40mph limit I to can confirm that as a non resident of the area I was unaware of any changes to the speed limit on that rd.Having driven on that road over the years on a few occasions I can honestly say I thought I was driving to the speed limit,this appears to me to be an easy way to criminalize normal people as well as making easy monies for the police force,ANOTHER CRIME SOLVED I THINK.At lest thats what the public records will show,once again than you for your time and efforts in the public interests yours sincerely
George Matthews

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

George,thank you for your annotation.The Corrupt System involves sending out Notices of Prosecution(invoices)giving choice to send `them`money for `fines` or give `them` money for `speed awareness courses`.It is all about corruption and money, that is why I diligently have investigated in the public interestThe Magistrates are merely puppets `enforcing the system` and they use tactics to make it `not worth your while`to defend yourself by wasting your times with `official looking`threatening documents and making you spend your time attending court.They know the cost of official legal defense is normally prohibitative.It is a bullying scam and I feel sorry for the PUPPET MAGISTRATES.Feel free to print off all this evidence,and circulate the link to this FOI,I live in hope that Justice will prevail and people will fight back with determination and pro bono legal advisors with integrity.There is so much evidence of corruption but people are not prepared to fight or circulate bad PUBLICITY( which they hate).They are creatures of the dark.Best wishes,and good luck.

Matthew Partlett left an annotation ()

Dear Dennis,
I would like to further George's thanks to you for your continued perserverence with this FOI. I was a victim of a fine and 3 points on my licence for driving 'over the speed limit' on this road. A road I had driven 40mph along since I had passed my driving test in 1999. I too must have missed the signs stating it was now 30mph. Although your FOI has proved no such signs existed.