As I am working on Bexley at the moment, I looked for their Annual Report earlier this week. They have published one. It is the only one that I can find. It was for the year 2007/2008!
www.bexley.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1369&p=0The words given in the first line of your post are a clue to the reason for this. It is "STATUTORY GUIDANCE." Some of us know that this means that they have no obligation to adhere to it.
There is a great deal of Secretary of States Statutory Guidance surrounding decriminalised parking enforcement. Local authorities
MUST have regard to all of the Guidance.
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmap...
Now here is the racket that they conduct with the blessing of The Tribunal (PaTAS):
As it is only Guidance they do not have to conform to
any of it. That is providing they can show that they have regard to it!
So in short EA's can say that they have regard to the Guidance but that as it is only Guidance (albeit Statutory Guidance) there is no requirement for them to abide by it.
One of the main parts of the Guidance that is regularly ignored is the Guidance that states:
"The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical". Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act states that local authorities must give regard to this guidance.
The examples given in a radio interview by Rosie Winterton former Minister of State for transport are where for example you have a dual carriageway with no pavements which would be dangerous for a traffic warden.
PaTAS do not agree with this adjudication at the TPT. - WL 05219F
This Appeal was allowed: The adjudicators reasons included: "The Council have not supplied evidence that: adequate signs were in place on the contravention date warning motorists of camera enforcement."
PaTAS say that camera enforcement signs are not necessary!
PaTAS Adjudicator: "In my ruling the penalty charge is not invalidated for any lack of cctv camera warning sign."
