notomob.co.uk

Council Specific & Schunt Reports => Medway => Topic started by: Web Admin on 13 January, 2013, 07:11:20 PM

Title: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Web Admin on 13 January, 2013, 07:11:20 PM
To all Medway councillors
 
Dear Sir or Madam

As you are aware, there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the signs, lines and road markings at Chatham bus station. You may also be aware that this featured recently in a BBC documentary called "Parking Mad". 

You may also remember that I circulated a No To Mob press release (copy attached) to all councillors following the Traffic Penalty Tribunal's (TPT) decision dated 10 October 2012 in the case of Mr Willson (copy of Adjudicator Mr C J E Nicholls' decision attached), in an attempt to warn you of the consequences of continuing to enforce the bus lane.

In the press release we offered our help in line with the Prime Minister's call for a “Big Society”. To date the council have declined our offer.

I write now to inform you of two further TPT decisions that confirm the position in the case of Mr Willson, i.e. that the signs are inadequate and cannot be enforced. Attached are copies of TPT decisions in the cases of (1) Anthony Child dated 23rd November 2012 and (2) Patricia New dated 2nd December 2012.

In the case of Mr Child, Adjudicator Nicholls declares the signs as being inadequate under law (Regulation 18). Regulation 18 refers to Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. 

The case he refers to (R –v- The Bus Lane Adjudicator and another, ex parte Oxfordshire County Council [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) ) established that the authority “...failed in their duty under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 reasonably to bring the effect of the order to the attention of road users. This was the decision of a senior High Court judge (Beatson J). Adjudicator Nicholls also refers to the fact that he had “previously voiced [his] concerns directly to the council in telephone hearings and other appeals”.

In the case of Patricia New (copy attached), Adjudicator O'Higgins agrees with the conclusions reached by Adjudicator Nicholls, thereby confirming that the signs do not give adequate information to the motorist, and do not therefore satisfy the council's Regulation 18 obligations to road users.

Medway council have not applied for a TPT review of the decisions in Child and New and in the case of Mr Willson, the council's application for a TPT review was refused. When questioned about the Willson decision, an unnamed spokesperson for Medway council announced in the press that the council would apply to the High Court for a Judicial Review. No such application was made and the time limit for such an application expired on 10th January 2013. Consequently, all three decisions are unopposed and are accepted by Medway council as being correct in law.

In light of these decisions, I reiterate the No To Mob's call for Medway council to cease enforcement of the bus lane forthwith and cancel all outstanding PCNs. In addition we call for Medway council to refund all of its unlawfully derived income to motorists it has improperly and unlawfully fined.

Failure to refund will result in an approach to the District Auditor by a local resident, who will request that the District Auditor make an application to the High Court under Section 17 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 for a declaration that all income from PCNs be declared illegally derived.

The council's/taxpayer's potential exposure

Our group first became involved at the bus station in October 2011. This was shortly after it opened and enforcement was being undertaken by way of the CCTV spy car. We first raised our concerns in the press in early February 2012 and if you had taken our own and others concerns into account at that stage by closing down enforcement pending a review of the signs and lines, we estimate that the council would have had to refund approximately £35,000 to wronged motorists.

Instead of listening to us however, in April 2012 Medway council began even more aggressive enforcement (24 hours a day) using static cameras, and according to figures we have obtained from Freedom of Information requests, the total number of PCNs issued up until 18th November 2012 is 19,610. This represents nearly £1.2m in unlawfully issued PCNs. Recent figures indicate that the council continues to issue an average of approximately 450 PCNs per week. We therefore estimate that the council's maximum exposure by way of refunds to motorists has increased to approximately £1.4m. That figure is increasing weekly at a rate of £27,000

In addition to refunds, there will be the resultant administration charges to be added to this figure. These admin charges will be necessarily incurred when organising the refunds. According to Hertfordshire County Council (see below) this was estimated to be £11 per PCN, and if a similar amount was applied in Medway's case, we estimate that the figure for admin charges to date would be approximately £235,000. This will increase weekly at a rate of approximately £5,000 given the current PCN issue rate.

The actions of your council replicate in many ways those of Hertfordshire County Council in relation to a bus lane/gate they began enforcing in Hemel Hempstead in August 2011. We wrote to them with our concerns approximately 4 weeks after they began enforcement. At that point, if Herts CC had taken our advice by stopping enforcement, we estimate they would have had to pay back approximately £40,000 to those they had accepted payment from. 

However, as you can see from the attached No To Mob press release, it ultimately cost Herts CC taxpayers more than £1.25m to repay those wrongly fined. This followed a decision handed down by the Chief Adjudicator at the TPT, Ms Caroline Sheppard.

As in Medway council's case, Herts CC did not apply for a Judicial Review of the Chief Adjudicator's decision which confirmed that the authority/council had failed in their duty under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 reasonably to bring the effect of the order to the attention of road users.
 
A further similarity is that Herts CC took legal advice on whether to apply for a judicial review of the definitive TPT decision, in the same way that Medway council have in the case of Mr Willson (according to an unnamed council spokesperson quoted in the press).  Neither council decided to apply for the Judicial Review, nor did they want to give up their unlawfully derived income. 

However, in the case of Herts CC, when they realised that they had made a mistake, they undertook their duty of care as a local authority by cancelling all outstanding PCNs, instructing their contractor to cease enforcement, and ordered that all monies paid in relation to PCNs be refunded.

Finally, I attach a copy of an email from Herts CC in which the No To Mob are invited to help find a solution to the problems encountered at the Hemel Hempstead bus lane/gate. We hereby offer the same assistance to Medway council in relation to finding a solution to the current problems at the Chatham bus depot.

Yours faithfully

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (No To Mob co-ordinator)
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Kill Switch on 13 January, 2013, 07:39:04 PM
 :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 13 January, 2013, 08:08:55 PM
Happy new year, bitches.

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-level1_don021.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Pat Pending on 13 January, 2013, 08:17:56 PM
Well they were warned and warned but the arrogant bar stewards just carried on and thought we would go away.  Pay it back now as it is only going to get worse as every day goes on!  :-ev-:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Piggy on 13 January, 2013, 08:37:30 PM
It took a while but I got there in the end.

Enjoy. ;D ;D ;D


BLOODY MARVELLOUS - Well done to you and yours! 

Let's watch them wriggle out of that.

Piggy
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Staps on 13 January, 2013, 08:42:18 PM
Perhaps sending a weekly revised "Estimated" update, might make them sit up and hopefully choke on their morning coffee.
What would the estimate be if the NoToMoB hadn't saved so many motorists over the many months the council have been raking it in.
How i would like to be a fly on the wall when he reads that email.
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: EDW2000 on 13 January, 2013, 08:52:44 PM
would apply to the High Court for a Judicial Review?


on what grounds? Sour grapes?

Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: jonesy on 13 January, 2013, 08:54:15 PM
Its clearly a bus lane and people ignore it W:T:F: .......ha ha ha fall of chair :pmsl:.... They can now pay it all back now :dancing: :dancing:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: peperami gsxr on 13 January, 2013, 09:39:20 PM
Yes well done to all who have ever schunted the Bus station or that fig would be much higher  :aplude:

Now there is an issue with this letter/email. As far as I'm aware, to read said email/letter, one has to remove ones head from the sand.   
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: melville-vs-medway on 14 January, 2013, 08:26:55 AM
Hi

So it'll be Black Monday at the council offices today...   :aplude: :aplude:
Or maybe not as Councillor's don't do a 40 hour week...  >:(

Still at least they can read it while munching (choking) on their toast at home..

I wonder if Google Mapping paid their fine....  ::))) >> http://goo.gl/maps/Fqrsk (http://goo.gl/maps/Fqrsk) and if they'll claim / get it refunded..


Oh and I found this the other day... Quote from Robin Cooper.. (Should that be Robbing Cooper) :rotfl:


Quote
The crossings will have a coloured surface with studs on either side. They will not be signposted, as we are trying to get rid of unnecessary signs around Medway. We don't want to distract pedestrians with signs when they should be looking at the road.
   :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Q-amp-Director-regeneration-community-culture/story-13543332-detail/story.html (http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Q-amp-Director-regeneration-community-culture/story-13543332-detail/story.html)


I doubt if everyone will benefit and get refunded.. I helped an Eastern European chap in the summer driving a class II lorry through the bus station. He'd gone through several times trying to make a delivery to New Look in the Pentagon and he said he had been directed by a policeman. He pointed him out and it was a PCSO that had sent him into the Bus Station. I jumped in the cab with him and had to go back through the station to get to The Brook and up behind the Magistrates court to the Pentagon bridge. He was an agency driver so they would have charged him for the fines and I'd doubt if they would notify him if they did get refunded.

Can't wait to read any reply.. ..
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 14 January, 2013, 11:13:48 AM
Got this acknowledgment from the leader of the council, Cllr Chambers.

The faecal matter appears to have made contact with the spinning blades of a certain cooling mechanism. ;D :o :o :o

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxxx
 
I write to acknowledge receipt of your email to Cllr Chambers and your comments and concerns have been noted. Your correspondence has been forwarded to the appropriate department and a full response should be sent shortly.
 
Regards

XXXXXXXXXXXX
 
Assistant to Cllr Rodney Chambers
Leader
Medway Council
Gun Wharf
Dock Road
Chatham
Kent  ME4 4TR
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Printscreen on 14 January, 2013, 12:02:03 PM
I wonder how they will try and get out of this?  I assume that the 10th of Jan is a final date and they would not get special dispensation to put in an application for review late. Hopefully not.

Looks like they will be paying a lot of money back :party:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: melville-vs-medway on 14 January, 2013, 02:05:34 PM

 
I write to acknowledge receipt of your email to Cllr Chambers and your comments and concerns have been noted. Your correspondence has been forwarded to the appropriate department and a full response should be sent shortly.
 



Seeing as the correspondence has been forwarded, will Cllr Chambers O'BS actually get to see the contents of this very important letter...

Or is this just a Council method of denying receipt & therefore knowledge of the council's failure and negligence ie "It was forwarded but the department didn't receive it for some unknown reason".  <_>

The whole point of sending a letter or email to the leader of a council is to ensure those at the top where the buck stops, know exactly what the idiots below them are doing.. .. Like the supposed deputy leader and head of finance @ Medway council who "didn't know about the overspend" on the buzz $tation....


Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 14 January, 2013, 02:19:17 PM
I am confident that by sending it to EVERY councillor (including those in opposition) it will have caused quite a stir by now.

I am equally confident that the threat of the District Auditor will have had it referred not only to the parking department, but also to the legal department who will then be asking some very telling questions about what the parking department has been up to.

However, despite some councillors and officers trying to cover themselves in teflon, we all know that cheaper and more expendable teflon covered implements are not as efficient at ensuring nothing sticks to them.

Like I said, fan + excrement = someone getting covered in poo.
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 24 January, 2013, 12:50:22 PM
I am putting this here for ease of reference in case it comes in useful when they finally get round to replying to our letter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUS LANE PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE XXXXXXXXXX

I refer to your recent appeal regarding the above Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice.

I would advise that in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004 it is the registered keeper of the vehicle who is liable for the penalty charge and not the driver. The onus lies with the owner to pursue the driver for payment.

I can also confirm that the signage in question is fully compliant with the requirements of the road traffic legislation.

I have however noted that you are not from the area and am prepared to allow you a first occasion and am therefore pleased to advise you that the Bus Lane Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled on this occasion only.

If however you receive a further Penalty Charge Notice for the same contravention then I can advise that this will be upheld.

Yours sincerely,




D Gillan
Medway Council


Di Gillan/Appeals Officer/Parking Services

Annexe B/Civic Centre/Strood/Rochester/Kent/ME2 4AU

Tel: 01634-332266/Fax: 01634-331777

Email: parking@medway.gov.uk
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 03 February, 2013, 02:20:24 PM
Three weeks on and I have just had to send this (below). Obviously the council's definition of "shortly" differs from that of everyone else. :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Cllr Chambers

Further to your acknowledgment of 14th January 2013 (below), I am disappointed to note that in the following three weeks I do not appear to have received any further acknowledgment from the "appropriate department", nor is there any sign of the "full response" I was promised "shortly".

Kindly enquire with the appropriate department as to when I can expect to receive the promised reply.

Yours sincerely

VVVVVVVVVVV (No To Mob co-ordinator)

----------------------------------------------------------------

mason, rita

To xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear xxxxxxxxxxx
 
I write to acknowledge receipt of your email to Cllr Chambers and your comments and concerns have been noted. Your correspondence has been forwarded to the appropriate department and a full response should be sent shortly.
 
Regards
Rita Mason
Assistant to Cllr Rodney Chambers
Leader
Medway Council
Gun Wharf
Dock Road
Chatham
Kent  ME4 4TR
01634 332514
rita.mason@medway.gov.uk
www.medway.gov.uk (http://www.medway.gov.uk)
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Tom Tom Str on 05 February, 2013, 02:43:01 PM
They are just expecting it to all die down and disappear  ie just ignore it --it's nothing really !  :-X      <_>
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: melville-vs-medway on 05 February, 2013, 03:16:52 PM
Hi  BE

Well I know Councillor Paul Godwin was recently taken very ill after suffering a heart attack and it seems he's in good spirits and recovering. So after stepping down as leader of Medway Labour Vince Maple is now leader of the Medway Labour group so I guess you start there seeing as the leader is Chatham Central's Councillor. http://democracy.medway.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx?XXR=0&AC=WARD&WID=12855 (http://democracy.medway.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx?XXR=0&AC=WARD&WID=12855)


Funny thing while looking up Chatham central i discovered that cllrs have a record of attendance.. >>
http://democracy.medway.gov.uk/mgAttendance.aspx?UID=131&DR=26%2F05%2F2012%20-%2018%2F11%2F2012 (http://democracy.medway.gov.uk/mgAttendance.aspx?UID=131&DR=26%2F05%2F2012%20-%2018%2F11%2F2012)

Never knew that...  <_> So I looked up the F****R who let me down so bad the smillling twat Rehman Chishti and no surprises there he hasn't got any attendance record... http://democracy.medway.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=122 (http://democracy.medway.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=122)

Only one piece of information I could dig up on the lick  :P arse was a declaration of interest going back in 2010.

Just when my anger subsides I find more reason to hate these lying, cheating no good F****RS.
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 05 February, 2013, 05:09:21 PM
Just got this. I look forward to seeing your comments.

---------------------------------------------
Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your email on the subject of enforcement of traffic regulations in Chatham. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are actually trying to achieve but if it is to allow all traffic through a bus station used by pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents then it does not have the support of myself or others in the Council. I believe bus stations need to be absolutely safe for people using them.

In relation to your claim that we are acting unlawfully that is not a view held by the Adjudicator who has ruled in favour of Medway Council in 18 cases and against in 15. If we were acting as you suggest I have no doubt we would have lost all 33 cases.   The most recent appeal that we won was in January of this year.   You suggest in the KM that this is "smoke and mirrors".  I fail to see how it can be so when we have won more cases than we have lost when independently examined.

We can of course always do better and the comments from the Adjudicator suggest that we could improve advisory signage still further in addition to the lawful signs we have already, of course, erected.  This is work we will be carrying out shortly to make it even clearer that cars, motorbikes, vans and lorries are not invited in nor going to be tolerated driving through a bus station.  To build on that, we are actively looking at the road layout to see if we can make the situation even clearer.  Our aim is to provide a bus station that is safe for its legitimate users not to issue tickets to motorists.

I note that you have referred the matter to the district auditor which you are quite entitled to do.

Yours sincerely

Rodney Chambers

Leader - Medway Council
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 05 February, 2013, 09:37:45 PM
"Perhaps I misunderstand what you are actually trying to achieve." That much is evident. Where do councils get these condescending little pricks from? I see he's added pensioners and the disabled to the long list of people being mown down by reckless drivers on a daily basis. "Our aim is to provide a bus station that is safe for it's legitimate users...." How safe does he think the two 'pedestrian crossings' are (I do use the term very loosely.) Nice that they are looking at a flawless and completely lawful road layout to see if they can make it even clearer. Rodney. Says it all.

Del Boy's Plonker Compilation! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahcuPHVz6aM#)
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 06 February, 2013, 10:29:10 AM
Latest Medway Messenger article attached.

Gloves are off.

Seconds out!

Round two.

Ding!!!
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Boyo on 06 February, 2013, 01:12:02 PM
By his own argument, surely if the signs were as obvious and the design as clear cut as the councillor claims, then they would have won all 33 of their cases with the adjudicator. As it stands, it's 18 - 15 for and against, which is pretty much 50-50 in percentage terms. How much more evidence do they need that it's very confusing there??  :bashy:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 06 February, 2013, 02:07:11 PM
By his own argument, surely if the signs were as obvious and the design as clear cut as the councillor claims, then they would have won all 33 of their cases with the adjudicator. As it stands, it's 18 - 15 for and against, which is pretty much 50-50 in percentage terms. How much more evidence do they need that it's very confusing there??  :bashy:

More importantly Boyo, I know of at least two people who have been let off tickets at the council appeal stage because they have raised the question of dodgy signs. If I know of two, how many more have they let off rather than let them go to the TPT to present their evidence? And why let them off if they are so certain they will win?

That's why I said in the newspaper article that it's all "smoke and mirrors" and a "numbers game". We only get to see what the council want to show us, and they manipulate the system to work in their favour.

We are formulating a reply which may bring forward one or two embarrassing revelations for our Rodney and his mates.

Watch this space... ;)
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Boyo on 06 February, 2013, 03:20:25 PM
Goody goody :-ev-:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 07 February, 2013, 08:50:13 AM
If you're reading this, Rodney, now's a good time to duck.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dX--lNk_BFc/UAOJGyRPLeI/AAAAAAAAHT4/UHmpIKDtkn4/s1600/when_the_shit_hits_the_fan_321595.jpg)
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 11 February, 2013, 02:27:23 PM
Many thanks to all on here for their input on this subject, which I have moulded into what I hope is a pretty strong reminder to Medway council that they are failing in their duties to ensure the safety of those they purport to serve.

Or to put it another way:

'AVE IT!!!!!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was also c.c.'d to every councillor, BBC Radio Kent, BBC southeast news and the Kent Messenger.

Dear Councillor Chambers
 
Thank you for giving this matter your personal attention (I attach a copy of your reply below for ease of reference). You have indeed misunderstood what we are trying to achieve at Chatham bus station and with Medway council. Thank you though, for reminding us that the safety of "pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents" is paramount as far as you and your fellow Medway councillors are concerned.
 
You may rest assured that we also "believe bus stations need to be absolutely safe for people using them", and we are equally passionate about ensuring the safety of "pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents." In fact, we go one stage further than you and your council, because our remit on safety extends to every person who uses the bus station, not just the Medway residents who form your electorate.
 
I do not know if you saw the BBC documentary "Parking Mad", but if you didn't I attach a youtube link for ease of reference. BBC Parking Mad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYb2PIAw_Ps#ws) I believe that the documentary makes it perfectly clear what it is the NoToMob are trying to achieve, which is to stop thousands of motorists from using the bus lane. Once again it would appear the aims of the NoToMob match those of the council in that neither of us want to see motorists putting the safety of "pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents" at risk. Where we differ however, is that we do not agree that motorists are wilfully ignoring the signs/lines/traffic systems you have put in place.
 
We are more than a little puzzled by your statement that "cars, motorbikes, vans and lorries are not invited in nor going to be tolerated driving through a bus station." Cars are regular users of the bus lane and hundreds, if not thousands of them pass through it every day (without penalty) which, according to you and your council compromises "the safety of pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents". These cars are called taxis, and your council has granted them permission to use the bus lanes at will. Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify why you think taxis are any less dangerous than other cars?
 
Thank you for admitting that "We can of course always do better..." and, "that we could improve advisory signage still further in addition to the lawful signs we have already, of course, erected." We take that as your admission that the current signs are inadequate and that you have failed in your duty of care to the public you purport to serve, despite your stated concerns for their safety.
 
We do however have some very serious concerns as to whether you and your council are as committed to achieving the standards of safety that you say you are. Our concerns are as follows:
 
1. Someone at your council made and approved plans for the bus station that did not originally include plans for any pedestrian crossings whatsoever.
 
2. When this was pointed out by an angry public (whose safety had been compromised from the day the bus station opened when people had to cross roads that were teeming with buses and taxis), the council hastily installed road markings that are "illegal and unsafe" according to an expert. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2011/october/21/zebra_crossing.aspx. (http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2011/october/21/zebra_crossing.aspx.) These road markings have the appearance of zebra crossings but do not have the zig-zag lines as prescribed by law. Despite being warned of these inadequacies the “illegal and unsafe” road markings are still there to this day.
 
3. Someone at your council made and approved plans for the bus station that include a sign that is installed at the mouth of Globe Lane indicating a "with flow cycle lane", and then didn't bother to construct the cycle lane itself, thus making the sign redundant at the point of installation and a complete waste of taxpayer money. And because there is no cycle lane, the safety of cyclists is being compromised on a daily basis.
 
4. Similarly, someone at the council made and approved plans whereby cyclists are not allowed to ride in the road through Globe Lane, and then authorised and erected signs that direct cyclists to ride on the pavement, which takes them right through the hordes "of pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents" (approximately 60,000 per week according to Medway council press releases) who are walking to bus stops, or merely passing through the bus station.
 
5. We also have some serious concerns about the council's thinking when it erected signs at all the entrances to the bus station, urging motorists to ignore their satnavs. One has to question the wisdom of this decision on the grounds that some satnavs may have been re-calibrated to correctly take the motorist away from the bus station, whilst others may not be directing the driver through the bus station in the first instance. What is one of these motorists supposed to do when seeing such signs? Should he/she do as the council directs and ignore his/her satnav and drive through the bus station, thereby endangering the safety of "pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents"? Or should they ignore the "ignore your satnav" signs you installed in the same way you suggest they are ignoring the ones installed in the bus lanes? Again we seek your clarification.
 
6. The most disturbing aspect of all however, is that Medway council representatives have repeatedly presented evidence to a legal tribunal (the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT)) that actively encourages motorists to commit a criminal act, thereby risking the safety of "pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents". I will explain.
 
I attach a copy of the TPT decision of Patricia New. I would urge you to read this decision in its entirety and take note of the adjudicator's remark concerning "...the failure of this road system." More particularly however, I refer you to Paragraph 2 on page 2 where it states the council's position that "A vehicle approaching this junction [Medway Street and Globe Lane/Waterfront Way] is permitted to continue straight ahead to enter Military Road..."
 
Medway council has designated Military Road as a pedestrian area and has erected Motor Vehicles Prohibited signs (commonly known as "the flying motorbike" sign) at either side of the entrance to Military Way. As you are probably aware, these signs are enforceable by a police officer and carry a penalty of a fine, with the distinct possibility of points being added to the driver's license.
 
Consequently, not only is the council encouraging motorists to commit a criminal offence as a matter of council policy (incidentally, there are several TPT decisions which demonstrate that similar evidence is presented by the council on a regular basis and as a matter of council policy), but it is also encouraging motorists to enter into a Medway council designated pedestrian zone, thereby risking the safety of "pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents".
 
What are the NoToMob trying to achieve?
 
The answer to your question is simple.
 
We want Medway council to recognise that it has failed in its duty of care to those it purports to serve. We want you to understand and recognise that none of this was the fault of anything the No To Mob have done, nor indeed is it the fault of anyone other than Medway council.
 
We want Medway council to ask itself the question as to why 20,000+ motorists (and rising) have been issued penalties for driving through a bus lane designed and built by Medway council at huge expense to the taxpayer. Do you really believe that motorists are using this as a £60 toll road, or is it more likely that people from outside the Medway area who have come to visit and spend money in Medway, are not seeing the signs (or possibly obeying the don't follow your satnav signs) and are being duped into paying a not insubstantial fine/toll?
 
We want Medway council to understand the damage they are doing to the local economy by issuing £60 penalty charges as a greeting to tourists, some of whom will vow never to visit Medway again when they see a Penalty Charge Notice drop on their doormat a week after they visited.
 
We want Medway council to recognise that the systems/lines/signs designed and put in place by you in an attempt to prevent motorists entering the bus lane have abjectly failed to achieve the council's stated aim of not issuing any tickets whatsoever. This is borne out by the statistic that to date, 20,000+ motorists have entered the bus lanes and received fines, with that number contiuing to rise at an alarming rate.
 
We want Medway council to cease an enforcement process that is clearly failing and to install systems, signs and lines that fulfil the council's statutory duty of care towards those it purports to serve.
 
And finally, when admissions of failure have been made, when the signs are put right and enforcement has recommenced, we want Medway councillors to look to their morals and consider whether it would be right to repay all of the penalty charges it has imposed on motorists who, in the main are innocent.
 
I trust this clears up any ambiguity as to what it is the NoToMob want to achieve, but if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. The NoToMob's offer of help in line with the Prime Minister's (your party leader's) call for a “Big Society” still stands, and we await your call.
 
Yours sincerely
 
xxxxxxxxxxxx (NoToMob co-ordinator)
 
--------------------------------------------------------
 
Subject: RE: Chatham bus lane/station
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:40:29 +0000
From: rita.mason@medway.gov.uk
To: xxxxxxxxxxx
 
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Thank you for your email on the subject of enforcement of traffic regulations in Chatham. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are actually trying to achieve but if it is to allow all traffic through a bus station used by pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents then it does not have the support of myself or others in the Council. I believe bus stations need to be absolutely safe for people using them.
 
In relation to your claim that we are acting unlawfully that is not a view held by the Adjudicator who has ruled in favour of Medway Council in 18 cases and against in 15. If we were acting as you suggest I have no doubt we would have lost all 33 cases. The most recent appeal that we won was in January of this year. You suggest in the KM that this is "smoke and mirrors". I fail to see how it can be so when we have won more cases than we have lost when independently examined.
 
We can of course always do better and the comments from the Adjudicator suggest that we could improve advisory signage still further in addition to the lawful signs we have already, of course, erected. This is work we will be carrying out shortly to make it even clearer that cars, motorbikes, vans and lorries are not invited in nor going to be tolerated driving through a bus station. To build on that, we are actively looking at the road layout to see if we can make the situation even clearer. Our aim is to provide a bus station that is safe for its legitimate users not to issue tickets to motorists.

I note that you have referred the matter to the district auditor which you are quite entitled to do.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Rodney Chambers
 
Leader - Medway Council
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: peperami gsxr on 11 February, 2013, 03:04:58 PM
 :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: judasp on 11 February, 2013, 03:25:15 PM
Nice one mate  :aplude: :aplude:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Tom Tom Str on 11 February, 2013, 05:28:17 PM
An Excellent Letter Mate...Well done !    :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Pat Pending on 11 February, 2013, 06:40:50 PM
Nicely put BE,  :aplude: :aplude:  :aplude: lets see what ridiculous crap they come out with now.  ???
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: jonesy on 11 February, 2013, 06:42:27 PM
Wow what a epic riposte :aplude:, its factual and  humorous, if they don't get it now then they never will. Well done each and everyone involved I will be posting this on all my social media pages and as was said elsewhere



AVE IT
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 11 February, 2013, 07:21:40 PM
Nicely written, sir. If he can't see the logic in that, then he must be a cnut.

(http://www.edochess.ca/batgirl/canute.jpg)
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Staps on 12 February, 2013, 12:46:31 AM
A brilliant read, well, for the NoToMoB anyway.
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Boyo on 13 February, 2013, 11:30:34 AM
Well done BE and to all involved with that letter - I await their reply with bated breath  :aplude:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: melville-vs-medway on 13 February, 2013, 02:53:31 PM
Hi BE..

Thanks for adding the cycle bits..  (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,2615.msg20708.html#msg20708)


Another item I've been watching is a F.O.I request made by a member of the public for CCTV footage. As you probably know anyone can request CCTV footage if the cameras are in a public place or capture images of you or your property like vehicles if they can identify you.  (http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/cctv.aspx)

Quote
When can CCTV images be disclosed?

You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request


Well it seems that Medway council don't like releasing this footage.. One rule for them and another for us it seems if they want to use the images against us...  ::)))

F.O.I request made 12th December 2012 and Medway have acknowledged receipt of the request and even giving a response for the delay but again another month passes and no  release of the footage / data.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_video_surveillance_o#incoming-341553 (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_video_surveillance_o#incoming-341553)


If they can deny us this data then we should deny them the use of our image..  <_>
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: booksearch on 08 March, 2013, 02:12:06 PM
Is there any further news/update about this situation? Rob
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 08 March, 2013, 03:44:34 PM
I sent a reminder to Mr Chambers on 21/2/13 (see below).

We were being ignored by Mr Chambers so I wrote to the Chief Executive (Mr Neil Davies) to complain (see below).

This (below) is what I got back. Notice that Mr Davies didn't write back, but got Mr Chambers' PA to do it instead.

Also notice that Mr Chambers has conveniently batted away the awkward questions we have asked. :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:

Watch this space...

---------------------------------------------------------------
Sent 21/2/13

Dear Councillor Chambers
 
I write further to my email below and am disappointed to note that I do not appear to have received the courtesy of a reply, or an acknowledgment.
 
We (the NoToMob) are particularly worried concerning Medway council's policy of advising members of the public to commit a criminal act (see 6 below), and we seek your assurance that you have taken immediate steps to ensure this does not happen in the future.
 
Please be kind enough to acknowledge receipt and please provide a time frame within which you will reply to the various issues raised.
 
Yours sincerely
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (NoToMob co-ordinator)

-------------------------------------------------------

Sent 3/3/13

Dear Mr Davies

In view of Mr Chambers' failure to even acknowledge my recent emails to him (see email string below), I am writing to ask for details of the council's formal complaints procedure. I do not particularly want to go down this route, but unless Mr Chambers acknowledges that our concerns are being addressed, I see no alternative.

Kindly acknowledge safe receipt of this email.

Yours sincerely

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (NoToMob co-ordinator)


 ----------------------------------------------

Sent 4/3/13

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Firstly, may I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your e-mail. Cllr Chambers is currently on annual leave and in his absence I have passed a copy of your email to the Director, Regeneration, Community and Culture who will respond to your questions shortly.
 
Regards

Rita Mason
 
Assistant to Cllr Rodney Chambers
Leader
Medway Council
 
Gun Wharf
Dock Road
Chatham
Kent  ME4 4TR
 
01634 332514
rita.mason@medway.gov.uk
www.medway.gov.uk (http://www.medway.gov.uk)
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 08 March, 2013, 10:12:00 PM
A stark difference to how quickly they write to you after you have inadvertently found yourself in the lobster pot.

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Just_Cuz_06.gif)
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: uk on 13 March, 2013, 09:59:16 AM
I have just received the result of an FOI request to Medway Council regarding Chatham Bus Station. You may not be surprised to learn that:-

Medway Councils response is as follows -
 
1)  The cost of the signs in total was £453.28
2) The cost of the purchase and installation of the ANPR cameras are as follows;

    2 x cameras, processors and mounting, £23,160
    Software, £7,200
    Services (including project management, installation, commissioning, testing, etc), £3,280
    Column and electrical connections, £2,581
    Support and maintenance, Year 1, £3,550
    Support and maintenance, Year 2, £6,934 (same price per annum for each successive year) 
    TOTAL, £46,705

Between October 2011 and November 2012, Medway Council spent approximately £183,446.04 on acquiring, purchase of lease, CCTV surveillance equipment utilised to monitor vehicular enforcement of Chatham Bus Station as per your question.
 
The data storage came at a cost of £18,000 which takes the total to £201446.04

Therefore the disclosed cost of the only tangible preventative measure claimed by Medway council, which cannot be connected to the bus station by motorists, was £453.28. However the total cost for the same period for enforcement measures was £201446.04. Therefore the council spent 444 times more on enforcement than on prevention. Rather a large disparity, when had they spent a couple of thousand on adequate and clear signing the problem would have been solved.

I have been engaged in complaints to Medway Council over this scam for some time and have accumulated rather a lot of evidence, both documentary and photographic. Should NOTOMOB wish to use my evidence in conjunction with a complaint to the District Auditor I shall be happy to provide it.
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 13 March, 2013, 04:49:39 PM
I have just received the result of an FOI request to Medway Council regarding Chatham Bus Station. You may not be surprised to learn that:-

Medway Councils response is as follows -
 
1)  The cost of the signs in total was £453.28
2) The cost of the purchase and installation of the ANPR cameras are as follows;

    2 x cameras, processors and mounting, £23,160
    Software, £7,200
    Services (including project management, installation, commissioning, testing, etc), £3,280
    Column and electrical connections, £2,581
    Support and maintenance, Year 1, £3,550
    Support and maintenance, Year 2, £6,934 (same price per annum for each successive year) 
    TOTAL, £46,705

Between October 2011 and November 2012, Medway Council spent approximately £183,446.04 on acquiring, purchase of lease, CCTV surveillance equipment utilised to monitor vehicular enforcement of Chatham Bus Station as per your question.
 
The data storage came at a cost of £18,000 which takes the total to £201446.04

Therefore the disclosed cost of the only tangible preventative measure claimed by Medway council, which cannot be connected to the bus station by motorists, was £453.28. However the total cost for the same period for enforcement measures was £201446.04. Therefore the council spent 444 times more on enforcement than on prevention. Rather a large disparity, when had they spent a couple of thousand on adequate and clear signing the problem would have been solved.

I have been engaged in complaints to Medway Council over this scam for some time and have accumulated rather a lot of evidence, both documentary and photographic. Should NOTOMOB wish to use my evidence in conjunction with a complaint to the District Auditor I shall be happy to provide it.

Thanks for the offer UK. We may very well take you up on it.

First though, let's see what reply we get to our latest letter.
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 17 March, 2013, 05:57:03 PM
Finally got my reply, but not from the person I wrote to. As expected, they have not addressed the issues and have merely restated that everything in the garden is rosy, so there's nothing to worry about.

A reply will be formulated and will be winging its way to the desktops of all the councilors and Mr Cooper (council officer and PUBLIC SERVANT) soon.

For ease of reference I have put my original comments 1 to 6 first, and it is these that Mr Cooper (council officer and PUBLIC SERVANT) has replied to. I look forward to seeing your comments, some of which may be incorporated into my reply to Mr Cooper's r (council officer and PUBLIC SERVANT) (dis)missive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Someone at your council made and approved plans for the bus station that did not originally include plans for any pedestrian crossings whatsoever.
 
2. When this was pointed out by an angry public (whose safety had been compromised from the day the bus station opened when people had to cross roads that were teeming with buses and taxis), the council hastily installed road markings that are "illegal and unsafe" according to an expert. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2011/october/21/zebra_crossing.aspx. (http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2011/october/21/zebra_crossing.aspx.) These road markings have the appearance of zebra crossings but do not have the zig-zag lines as prescribed by law. Despite being warned of these inadequacies the “illegal and unsafe” road markings are still there to this day.
 
3. Someone at your council made and approved plans for the bus station that include a sign that is installed at the mouth of Globe Lane indicating a "with flow cycle lane", and then didn't bother to construct the cycle lane itself, thus making the sign redundant at the point of installation and a complete waste of taxpayer money. And because there is no cycle lane, the safety of cyclists is being compromised on a daily basis.
 
4. Similarly, someone at the council made and approved plans whereby cyclists are not allowed to ride in the road through Globe Lane, and then authorised and erected signs that direct cyclists to ride on the pavement, which takes them right through the hordes "of pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents" (approximately 60,000 per week according to Medway council press releases) who are walking to bus stops, or merely passing through the bus station.
 
5. We also have some serious concerns about the council's thinking when it erected signs at all the entrances to the bus station, urging motorists to ignore their satnavs. One has to question the wisdom of this decision on the grounds that some satnavs may have been re-calibrated to correctly take the motorist away from the bus station, whilst others may not be directing the driver through the bus station in the first instance. What is one of these motorists supposed to do when seeing such signs? Should he/she do as the council directs and ignore his/her satnav and drive through the bus station, thereby endangering the safety of "pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents"? Or should they ignore the "ignore your satnav" signs you installed in the same way you suggest they are ignoring the ones installed in the bus lanes? Again we seek your clarification.
 
6. The most disturbing aspect of all however, is that Medway council representatives have repeatedly presented evidence to a legal tribunal (the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT)) that actively encourages motorists to commit a criminal act, thereby risking the safety of "pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents". I will explain.
 
I attach a copy of the TPT decision of Patricia New. I would urge you to read this decision in its entirety and take note of the adjudicator's remark concerning "...the failure of this road system." More particularly however, I refer you to Paragraph 2 on page 2 where it states the council's position that "A vehicle approaching this junction [Medway Street and Globe Lane/Waterfront Way] is permitted to continue straight ahead to enter Military Road..."
 
Medway council has designated Military Road as a pedestrian area and has erected Motor Vehicles Prohibited signs (commonly known as "the flying motorbike" sign) at either side of the entrance to Military Way. As you are probably aware, these signs are enforceable by a police officer and carry a penalty of a fine, with the distinct possibility of points being added to the driver's license.
 
Consequently, not only is the council encouraging motorists to commit a criminal offence as a matter of council policy (incidentally, there are several TPT decisions which demonstrate that similar evidence is presented by the council on a regular basis and as a matter of council policy), but it is also encouraging motorists to enter into a Medway council designated pedestrian zone, thereby risking the safety of "pensioners, school children, shoppers, the disabled and other Medway residents".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I refer to your recent emails send to the Leader and the Chief Executive of Medway Council which have been passed to me for response.

I specifically refer below to your email dated 11 February 2013, in the same number order:-

1/2.  The bus station was designed to be a low speed environment and, following recent guidance as to the layout of public realm in urban areas, to try to reduce barriers and clutter.  As soon as it became apparent that it was not comfortable for pedestrians to use confidently, road markings were put down in order to guide and inform everyone as to the most appropriate places to cross.  The Council is unaware as to the identity of the “expert” but the crossings points are neither illegal nor unsafe and, from our continual monitoring, are working extremely effectively for all parties.

3.  Cyclists share roads and bus lanes throughout the country and problems only arise through the carelessness or error of either a driver or a cyclist.

4.   Cyclists are directed to use the shared use cycle lane around the back of the bus station.  Such shared facilities are common and there have been no recorded incidents or problems.   Whilst there are a lot of people who use the new bus station, there are never large crowds or hordes in the area and there is ample room for cyclists to safely pass any waiting pedestrians.

5.   The signs referring to Sat Navs were erected following complaints from drivers that they were only following their Sat Navs which led them through the bus station and, instead of being criticised, this should be interpreted as being an example of how the Council has responded to comments from motorists.  Drivers have a duty to drive safely according to the conditions.  It is for drivers to take note of warning and directions signs and to comply with legal restrictions.  Following a Sat Nav is no excuse for negligent behaviour as they include many errors and drivers must take responsibility for their own actions.  Most Sat Navs have a disclaimer regarding transgressions of traffic laws and directions.  It would be interesting to see a response from one of the companies that provides such equipment, if asked to reimburse a driver who followed its directions past clearly displayed restrictions and consequently received a penalty.

6 .    In this Case the adjudicator makes mention of the fact that Medway Street is an unacknowledged dead end.  What is not stated is the fact that there is signage at the junction of Medway Street with the High Street, showing to motorists that it is a no through route which every driver entering Medway Street will have driven past. The direction signs on the main roads also show the correct route, using the A2.

Military Road has signs indicating that it can be used by permitted vehicles during the specified hours.  This is obviously not an invitation to the public to use it and, equally obviously, it is not a pedestrianised area outside the restricted hours.   

The view of the Council remains the same that the signs around the bus lane comply with Department for Transport requirements.

Your sincerely

Robin Cooper
Director of Regeneration, Community & Culture
Medway Council
Gun Wharf
Dock Road
Chatham
Kent ME4 4TR
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: uk on 18 March, 2013, 07:43:32 AM
I am not surprised at your response from Medway Council, you may be surprised to learn that the employees in the complaints department do not receive any training and do not operate with the assistance of a 'Policy and Procedure' manual, although the council say that they are now considering introducing one.

So where are we, a bunch of amateurs who make it up as they go along, I would suggest? My complaints including photographs [Traffic regulation and pedestrian crossing defects] were 'investigated' from the warmth of the office, they have admitted to not even carrying out a visual inspection.

Investigation of complaints is not really on the councils agenda, waffle, complacency and fobbing off is. I say this with some expertise as I am a retired investigator of some 30 years experience.

UK
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: DastardlyDick on 18 March, 2013, 08:43:22 AM
For clarity, I shall leave my comments in the same way as the original letter/email and the reply.

1/2. It should have been blatantly obvious to whoever drew up the original plans for this Bus Station that pedestrians would be using it, so appropriate measures should have been taken to make it "comfortable" (and safe) for them. I am not an expert in this field, so I will not comment on the Legality or otherwise of these 'pedestrian crossings', but anyone knows that you can always find one 'expert' to disagree with another 'expert'.

3. I would have thought that if there isn't a cycle lane marked on the road or pavement then legally it doesn't exist, but I guess that this would depend on what the TMO says.

4. It's an Offence to cycle on the Footpath (which is why most places mark out cycle paths where this is likely to happen). According to the Councils own figures just over 8700 people per day use this bus station. How do they know this? Has someone from the Council been down there and measured 'footfall' at various times of day? Because I'd say that the vast majority of this 8700 people are getting to/from work/school which to my mind would be quite a large crowd or horde.

5. As far as I know, there is nothing in the TSRGD about signs regarding use (or non use) of Sat-Nav equipment, so the Council cannot use them. I'd have to agree with Mr Cooper about the responsibility of drivers etc.


Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Belplasca on 18 March, 2013, 06:19:33 PM
Isn't it interesting that the numbers of pedestrians are not significant when the council seeks to mix cyclists (some, possibly, traveling at 20MPH...) with the pedestrians, and yet there are significant numbers of pedestrians when they seek to apply swingeing fines on motorists misled by their signage...

Bob
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: Pat Pending on 18 March, 2013, 07:06:11 PM
And small children Bob! don't forget the school children.  :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:
Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 13 August, 2013, 09:55:19 AM
They can't say we didn't warn them. This is what was sent yesterday. It is the first stage of the process of trying to get motorists their money back.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12th August 2013

By Email
Mr Robert Grant
District Auditor
55 Baker Street
London
W1U 7EU

Objections to the accounts of Medway Borough Council for the financial year 2012/13

Dear Mr Robert Grant

I write to you as the representative (please find attached letter of authorisation) of Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx a resident of Medway Borough Council (MBC) in respect of possible objections to the accounts of MBC for the year financial year 2012/13 for your consideration in accordance with section 16 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.

Item 1 Unlawfully derived income from PCNs issued

i) I request a public interest notice as per section 8 of the Audit Commission act 1998 that MBC has unlawfully derived income from 22,279 PCNs issued at the locations of Waterfront Way and North Western Arm of Globe Lane Chatham with an issue value of £1,336,740 for the financial year 2012/13.

ii) I request you apply to the courts under section 17 of the Audit commission act 1998 to have the income derived from the 22,279 PCNs issued at the locations of Waterfront Way and North Western Arm of Globe Lane Chatham with an issue value of £1,336,740 for the financial year 2012/13 declared illegally derived income.

Please find attached documentary evidence in support of the above.

I reserve the right to bring further objections to your attention which I am currently investigating.

Kind regards

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Title: Re: Letter/email sent 13/01/2013 to all Medway councillors re Chatham bus lane
Post by: 2b1ask1 on 13 August, 2013, 09:39:34 PM
Good on ya Mr BE  :dancing: