Banner
any day today rss facebook twitter

Bonkers Blog November 2012

Index: 2009201020112012201320142015201620172018


6 November (Part 2) - Parking fines. Exposing Bexley’s dishonesty. (Episode 8)

Civil Enforcement Officers, BexleyheathOn 29th March the disabled ex-policeman wrote again to Bexley Council’s Director of Customer and Corporate Services, Paul Moore. Another four pages of hand written A4 complaining that his previous letter had been “delegated to a minion who proceeds to send two sheets of waffle”. Here is a flavour of it…


He states that the CEO made a misjudgment, if that is so I pointed out his misjudgment at the time so he should have cancelled the PCN then and there. If he did not have the discretion to cancel and this misjudgment was genuine he should have admitted his mistake and rectified it in his report. He did not, In fact he chooses to tell an absolute lie, thereby abusing his powers.

I have a signed admission from [Mr. Greg] Tippett and [Mr. Graham] Ward that you operate a policy of discounting the first appeal of a PCN and reject it out of hand with no investigation. The excuse given is that the Traffic Management Act 2004 allows [only] 14 days for a response, which is insufficient for an Authorised Officer to leave his desk. Unbelievable.

This proves that Authorised Officer I.S. lied in his statement when he says “I have considered all evidence from both parties” when he rejects my challenge. This shows a lack of integrity within Bexley Parking Services.


The letter goes on to piece together various dishonest statements concocted at ranks between Civil Enforcement Officer and Deputy Director and says that is all the proof necessary for a conspiracy charge. It also asks for an explanation of some of the terms to be found in Mr. Ward’s letter.


Could you please explain what were “the contractual penalties imposed upon Vinci Park” and “the error was dealt with through the council’s contract and liquidated damages were levied against the contractor for their error”.


Mr. Moore took just over a month to reply. He repeats the misjudgment word when referring to the Enforcement Officer’s false statement on his report, that is not going to go down well. He explains that the liquidated damages means that the parking contractor was made to pay the full cost of the PCN (£120) to the council and repeats the offer of a meeting but rejects the suggestion it might be recorded. Would anyone expect anything else of Bexley council? Mr. Moore would have done better if he had simply accepted that the Enforcement Officer had fibbed. By then the parking contract had gone to NSL. What harm would it have done?

This story is reported in an indeterminate number of episodes. A cumulative version is provided for convenience.

 

Return to the top of this page