Scarborough Borough Council’s Parking Portfolio Holder, Cllr Randerson responds to the council losing another Traffic Penalty Tribunal case:
Mr Thorne’s article although quite probably interesting to some is after I investigated these claims also rather misleading !
The article is misleading as the original case it refers to in relation to the Scarborough CPZ was in fact overturned on appeal !
The Independent Parking Adjudicator confirmed that North Yorkshire County Council’s disc parking scheme in Scarborough was both legal and enforceable.
In relation to the PCN issued in Whitby. NYCC who are responsible for signage on street have been challenged previously regarding the additional advisory signage relating to permits and scratch cards. They are aware that they do not conform to the legislation on street signage. These were in all the one hour zones in the Borough ( approximately 10 streets in total )
This has once again today been taken up with NYCC Highways who were under the impression that all offending signage had been removed. SBC today removed 11 signs . 7 of these signs were left as they were attached to walls rather than street furniture which will have to be removed by NYCC. North Yorkshire County Council have been informed of the locations so that they can be removed accordingly. Whilst there is an acceptance that SBC did not supply the Notice of Rejection ( NOR ) to the adjudicator ( due to human error ) and this was one of the reasons for allowing the appeal it does seem the signage was the main reason for the decision.
Individual decisions remain at the discretion of the adjudicator dealing with a particular appeal on the facts relevant to the matter before them at that time .
I sincerely hope this explanation helps to clear up a rather misleading article.
Kind Regards Tony.
Dear Cllr Randerson,
I wish to respond to your unfounded claim that my article is misleading. I was not afforded the opportunity to read your comments on Facebook because you blocked me.
Your comment appears to have been written for you by an officer and you’ve spent virtually no time investigating the matter yourself despite claiming otherwise.
Whilst your statement that NYCC are responsible for signage is correct, what you’ve left out is that the signage was originally installed by SBC and management of the scheme was taken over by NYCC in later years.
Whilst the 2016 case I highlighted was indeed overturned, the point of highlighting the case was to rub the council’s nose in its inability to manage a simple residential parking scheme. This has been the case since a residential parking scheme was first created in 2002.
When the scheme was first sold to the public in 2002 and voted for by Labour councillors, it was billed as a residential parking scheme giving priority parking for residents. As we both know the real reason for the scheme was to finance Park & Ride site on Seamer Road.
Since 2002 the council lost a number of parking cases with one adjudicator remarking in 2010:
The Traffic Regulation Order that Scarborough Borough Council had drawn up was probably the worst they had ever seen.
The 2010 embarrassment led to the realisation that the scheme your council created was unenforceable and it prompted a rework of the Traffic Regulation Order in 2011 and the associated signage thereafter. The council started to remove the 663 Zone Entry signs (left) which marked the edges of the various parking zones.
In their place the council installed 662 Parking Bay signs (right) on all streets which must number in their hundreds. The replacement 662 signs were ruled illegal by Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicator Rhys Williams in November 2015 as part of case YN05385F. Neither NYCC nor SBC appealed that decision so it still stands today.
Since 2002 the scheme has changed from a Priority Residential Parking Zone which was unenforceable due to being poorly implemented across to a Disc Zone that still doesn’t give residents priority parking. In that time all the signs have changed, the Traffic Regulation Order has been completely redrafted, yet none of the replacement signs are legal and the whole scheme is still unenforceable.
There is a way to test if my information is misleading. The council claims I need a permit to park in my home zone, 3G. It further claims that if I move to another zone I need another permit.
I claim that the Scarborough Controlled Parking Zone is still an an inelegant mess, still inadequately marked and still unenforceable. I’ve been parking in contravention of these restrictions for nearly four years and I’ve yet to acquire a PCN, even after asking CEOs to ticket my car!
What I propose is to test that statement by acquiring a PCN whilst parked outside your home address in 3C. At an agreed time we will meet outside your home with a Civil Enforcement Officer in attendance to place a PCN on my windscreen. I will then contest that PCN and prove it is unenforceable.
My guess is you will consult the SBC Parking Department and turn down my offer.
Comments are closed.