Author Topic: Bexley and Bromley's parking advice - pay up cos you'll lose your appeal anyway  (Read 5366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
This is outrageous! If you ever wondered where the private wea$els got their ideas on how to $cam, bully and hoodwink their victims, then you need wonder no more.

 <Swearyangry> <Swearyrant> <Swearyangry> <Swearyrant> <Swearyangry> <Swearyrant> <Swearyangry> <Swearyrant> <Swearyangry> <Swearyrant> <Swearyangry> <Swearyrant> <Swearyangry> <Swearyrant> <Swearyangry> <Swearyrant> <Swearyangry> <Swearyrant>


===================================

https://www.bromley.gov.uk/press/article/1019/online_first_-_parking_advice_for_appeals

Online first - parking advice for appeals

Published Tuesday, 8 September 2015

A new online interactive guidance facility to help motorists with their parking appeals has now gone live.

Bromley and Bexley are proud to be the first councils in the UK to provide this new online system developed by Barbour Logic and beta-tested in partnership with the shared Bromley and Bexley Parking Service.  For the first time ever, motorists appealing against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) will know in advance the likely outcome of their appeal with a full explanation.  This is the most significant change yet in the way councils deal with PCN appeals and it demonstrates how the Parking Service for Bromley/Bexley is open and transparent.

Councillor Colin Smith, Bromley’s Executive Councillor for Environment said: “Bromley Council has always encouraged ticketed motorists who feel hard done by to appeal and we will of course continue to always abide by the arbitrator’s decision.  This innovative new development is designed and intended to assist those contemplating doing so, arrive at their decision in a more fully informed manner in future. We are hopeful that in addition to serving motorists with a genuine reason to appeal, it will also help others before they decide to enter what can sometimes be a very stressful process on a purely speculative basis”.

Jason Barbour, Managing Director of Barbour Logic, added: “We’re delighted to launch Response Master Self-Serve with the forward-thinking London Boroughs of Bromley and Bexley. The interactive system learns from users, understands parking and knows the councils’ policies. Which means motorists can get on-the-spot answers and advice, saving them time and stress.”

Bromley and Bexley Councils receive approximately 23,000 and 12,000 appeals per annum, respectively.  Motorists have been able to appeal online against penalties issued in these boroughs for a number of years.  The latest improvement being access to the new online guidance, which allows the motorist to interact and find out the likely outcome of an appeal and where appropriate, the type of evidence required to consider it further.

ENDS

Editor’s notes: The London Boroughs of Bromley and Bexley merged their Parking Service sections to form a shared service on 1 April 2013.  All Penalty Charge Notice processing and operational management for both boroughs is undertaken at their base in Bromley.

Barbour Logic are the creators of Response Master, a highly specialised, award-winning system used by councils and the public to answer queries about Penalty Charge Notices.

For media enquiries, please contact Andrew Rogers, Communications Executive, on 020 8461 7670 or email andrew.rogers@bromley.gov.uk
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
Sorry if I'm missing something, but could someone explain how this is "pay up 'cos you'll lose anyway" please?

Offline Bluebird

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 24
Sorry if I'm missing something, but could someone explain how this is "pay up 'cos you'll lose anyway" please?

The underlying software is designed to lead potential appellants to believe that they have no hope of winning an appeal, thereby further loading the dice in favour of the councils.

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
OK, but haven't Councils been using this software for years to reply to appellants?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all Bromley and Bexley seem to have done is remove the paper, envelope and stamp.

Offline Bluebird

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 24
OK, but haven't Councils been using this software for years to reply to appellants?
No, this is a new piece of software. It might also constitute a procedural impropriety as the council is expected to "consider" all aspects of an informal challenge. Computer software cannot "consider" anything at all. To avoid appeals being allowed on the grounds of procedural impropriety the informal challenge must still be "considered" by a human being. This new process is designed to discourage informal challenges by indicating that the process will fail at the first hurdle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all Bromley and Bexley seem to have done is remove the paper, envelope and stamp.
They might save themselves the cost of some paper, envelopes and stamps but if a motorist is determined to challenge a PCN  the system will prove to be a poor deterrent.

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Sorry if I'm missing something, but could someone explain how this is "pay up 'cos you'll lose anyway" please?


The Council will give you their view of the likely outcome. Put another way, the weasels who financially benefit from your decision are offering you advice on whether to pay or not. Put yet another way, Councils who are regularly criticised by adjudicators as well as campaigners for inadequate signage, and continue to enforce because they are 'satisfied', will be advising you. Let's explore a worked example,

A retired policeman with a disabled badge had his appeal turned down because of the clear kerb markings,



……and the clearly displayed sign,



I shamelessly plagiarised that from the appropriately named Bexley-is-bonkers, the entire sorry saga can be read via this link.

Now, I could be wrong but I see Joe Public falling into roughly three groups,

1, I didn't realise I did anything wrong but the Council must know what they're doing. I'll pay up and try to be more careful in future.

2, Those bastards are getting nothing from me. Dear Mr. Mustard……………….

3, I don't understand this crap but I'll try an appeal and see how I go as I didn't deliberately break any rules.

The motive for this then must be to sway opinion. Convince group 3 they have no chance and it's best to simply pay up and to reinforce the mindset of group 1 that they are doing the right thing. They are simply taking the numbers game and further tipping the balance in their favour. Read the text again, specifically from the token spokesweasel. "it will also help others before they decide to enter what can sometimes be a very stressful process on a purely speculative basis". He's already decided that anything you submit is purely speculative. The sheer arrogance of these pricks is evident in that they "always abide by the arbitrator’s decision", like they're doing you a favour.

The Council have no business whatsoever offering legal advice on a matter where they are after you for money. M'learned Eagle will be along later to educate you on conflict of interest.

 <Hatoff>
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4497
  • THE lowest common denominator
There is another scenario to consider. Take the Chatham bus lane as an example.

Through FoI requests we know and have proved that Medway council played the numbers game to the extent that they started allowing the vast majority of appeals to the council (93% - see http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=2944.msg22663#msg22663 ), in order to avoid getting their arses kicked at an appeal to the TPT. What they did do however, was to select ones that were a slam dunk for them at TPT (where the representations to the council showed the naivety of the driver) so that the record reflected a much higher success rate on appeals to the TPT, albeit that over the period of a year only 10 appeals have gone to the TPT and been refused. This would reflect a success rate for the council of 100%, even though they may have allowed 93% of the fines at the appeal to the council stage.

Always bearing in mind of course that the TPT results are a matter of public record, whereas you can only get details of stuff that goes on behind the doors of the Parking department via carefully worded FoI requests.

Now fast forward to this new programme/software that is being used by Bexley/Bromley. One of the information fields will no doubt request input of the number of successful/failed appeals to London Tribunals for a specific location. If the council play a similar numbers game at a specific venue to the one adopted by Medway, they can genuinely report a 100% success rate at London Tribunals to any motorist considering a challenge at London Tribunals.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this, or variations on the theme, is how the system will be abused by councils. It is nothing short of bullying and we should not be surprised that the private parking sector have picked up on this and have taken it a step further.

Rant over. <Sage> <Swearyrant>
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
OK, but haven't Councils been using this software for years to reply to appellants?
No, this is a new piece of software. It might also constitute a procedural impropriety as the council is expected to "consider" all aspects of an informal challenge. Computer software cannot "consider" anything at all. To avoid appeals being allowed on the grounds of procedural impropriety the informal challenge must still be "considered" by a human being. This new process is designed to discourage informal challenges by indicating that the process will fail at the first hurdle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all Bromley and Bexley seem to have done is remove the paper, envelope and stamp.
They might save themselves the cost of some paper, envelopes and stamps but if a motorist is determined to challenge a PCN  the system will prove to be a poor deterrent.


Having had a quick look at Barbour Logic's website, they've won awards for "Responsemaster" in 2008 and 2009, and it is used by a lot of local authorities from all over the UK.
"Responsemaster self serve" (which is what Bromley and Bexley say they are using) appears to be a development of this, so I'd hardly call it new, but I'll agree to differ.
If, as you suggest, it is a Procedural Improriety to use such software online, then surely it must also be a PI to use it for written appeals too, in which case it has been going on for over 5 years with both sets of Adjudicators being either (a) happy that no PI has occured, (b) never been asked to consider it or (c) colluding with the various Councils. I would consider (c) to be ridiculous.
What we need is a "test case" - I never go to either Bexley or Bromley, otherwise I'd be willing to get a PCN from them to try and prove the point - but I'd chip in (with others) to a fund so that anyone who chooses to can do so without risking their own money.

If, as you claim, it's a procedural impropriety to use this software then it's been going on for a very long time

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player