Judge rules Using parking for revenue is illegal

[Xt500 10]

SCC is obviously doing the same with their increased parking fees and extended times to catch as many people as possible. Planner1 argues on the side of the council but this goes to show the complaints people have made about being fleeced to park in the city centre by both customers and retailers is that their grievances are not unfounded and the law agrees with them.

 

Hopefully this will send a ripple of common sense through councils across the country and not a change n the law by government.

 

 

Why would it? When ever they are rumbled they dont have to pay ALL the money back only the ones that complain so whatever happens they win and thats the problem.No one is accountable.

[Penistone999 10]

A high court judge has ruled that parking permits should NOT be used to generate income.

 

"Mrs Justice Lang said the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act – which allows councils to set up permit zones – ‘is not a fiscal measure and does not authorise the authority to use its powers to charge local residents for parking in order to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes’

 

Sheffield council claim that the money generated from permits does not cover the full amount it costs to administer the permit zones.

 

So its time sheffield council disclosed exactly how much they have earned in the last 3 years and exactly how much has been spent on the permit scheme.

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/business/parking-permit-hikes-challenge-1-5893707

[tbtc 10]

Would the conspiracy theorists calm down a bit if it were shown that the cost of employing all of the staff/ resources/ administration required to keep the roads flowing (and stopping idiots from parking where they are not allowed etc) were greater than the revenue collected from "fines"?

 

Probably not, they'd just find something else to mither about.

[Litotes 63]

Would the conspiracy theorists calm down a bit if it were shown that the cost of employing all of the staff/ resources/ administration required to keep the roads flowing (and stopping idiots from parking where they are not allowed etc) were greater than the revenue collected from "fines"?

 

Probably not, they'd just find something else to mither about.

 

But this thread isn't about keeping the roads flowing, it is about the cash cow that the council have implemented at the behest of a minority of residents called a parking permit scheme.

 

Last year the parking schemes generated a surplus (and that includes the additional staffing costs etc) of nearly £1 000 000.

 

This is why the council decided they had to increase the on street parking charges by 100%. They obviously weren't making enough from the areas that had the schemes.

[tbtc 10]

But this thread isn't about keeping the roads flowing, it is about the cash cow that the council have implemented at the behest of a minority of residents called a parking permit scheme.

 

Last year the parking schemes generated a surplus (and that includes the additional staffing costs etc) of nearly £1 000 000.

 

This is why the council decided they had to increase the on street parking charges by 100%. They obviously weren't making enough from the areas that had the schemes.

 

The point is that if its shown that keeping the roads flowing isn't a "cash cow" for the council (and actually costs them more) then maybe some people will calm down a bit.

 

At the moment there's a lot of guesswork and conspiracy.

[andygardener 10]

The point is that if its shown that keeping the roads flowing isn't a "cash cow" for the council (and actually costs them more) then maybe some people will calm down a bit.

 

At the moment there's a lot of guesswork and conspiracy.

 

No, the point is the cost of residents parking should cover the cost of the scheme. It has not, it has made a huge profit. So that profit needs returning to residents who paid for the schemes.

 

Residents parking schemes are nothing to do with the wider road network, financially or otherwise. The issue is have the council overcharged, which it seems they have. If they pay the money back and say sorry then probably no council people need be imprisoned for attempted theft.

[biotechpete 10]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Litotes

 

But this thread isn't about keeping the roads flowing, it is about the cash cow that the council have implemented at the behest of a minority of residents called a parking permit scheme.

 

Last year the parking schemes generated a surplus (and that includes the additional staffing costs etc) of nearly £1 000 000.

 

This is why the council decided they had to increase the on street parking charges by 100%. They obviously weren't making enough from the areas that had the schemes.

 

The point is that if its shown that keeping the roads flowing isn't a "cash cow" for the council (and actually costs them more) then maybe some people will calm down a bit.

 

At the moment there's a lot of guesswork and conspiracy.

 

Quoting a figure for a scheme surplus sounds neither like guess work nor conspiracy.

 

It sounds like SCC are ripping of a minority of residents in affluent areas to generate money to spend elsewhere.

 

The ruling is clear, permit schemes cannot be used to raise revenue and SCC will need to repay the excess charges they have collected.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Unitedite 10]

Last year the parking schemes generated a surplus (and that includes the additional staffing costs etc) of nearly £1 000 000.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up your numbers?

[Planner1 442]

 

The ruling is clear, permit schemes cannot be used to raise revenue and SCC will need to repay the excess charges they have collected.

Really?

 

Would you like to point us to the full transcript of the ruling and point out where it implies that authorities like Sheffield have done anything wrong?

 

Barnett raised their residents permit price from £40 to £100. The judge appears to have agreed that this was to raise funds for road maintenance and found that to be unacceptable. The legislation appears to allow the use of any surpluses to fund a variety of activities including highway maintenance, so the ruling is a bit of a surprise. Barnett may well appeal.

 

How is that relevant to anything SCC have done? SCC's residents permits started at £36 seven years ago and they are now what? A whole pound more. SCC's permit income does not cover the cost of operating the permit schemes, so there is no question of permit income surplus being used to fund anything, because there is none.

 

Any surpluses SCC'S make are from a combination of the permit income, pay and display income and penalty charge notices. The Barnett ruling is only about permits as I understand it.

[mort 10]

threads merged

[biotechpete 10]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by biotechpete

 

 

The ruling is clear, permit schemes cannot be used to raise revenue and SCC will need to repay the excess charges they have collected.

 

Really?

 

Would you like to point us to the full transcript of the ruling and point out where it implies that authorities like Sheffield have done anything wrong?

 

Barnett raised their residents permit price from £40 to £100. The judge appears to have agreed that this was to raise funds for road maintenance and found that to be unacceptable. The legislation appears to allow the use of any surpluses to fund a variety of activities including highway maintenance, so the ruling is a bit of a surprise. Barnett may well appeal.

 

How is that relevant to anything SCC have done? SCC's residents permits started at £36 seven years ago and they are now what? A whole pound more. SCC's permit income does not cover the cost of operating the permit schemes, so there is no question of permit income surplus being used to fund anything, because there is none.

 

Any surpluses SCC'S make are from a combination of the permit income, pay and display income and penalty charge notices. The Barnett ruling is only about permits as I understand it.

 

From the bbc article:

"She ordered the council toi repay Mr Attfield's parking charges, plus his legal costs. The move paves the way for other residents to seek repayment for their charges."

 

As I say, the ruling and the precedent are clear. Schemes cannot be used as a fiscal measure to raise additional revenue.

 

Surpluses generated by increasing permit prices are such a form of fiscal measure. The ruling forced Barnet to repay charges to the claimant. Let's hope they don't waste more tax payers money defending more cases when this ruling was so clear. If a case can be brought against SCC the outcome is likely to be the same.

 

Someone needs to put in an FOI request on the income and expenditure in Shef, but forgive me if I don't just take your word for the claim that the scheme makes no money. The attitude of the council to put schemes wherever they can suggests they don't make a loss as you claim.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Longcol 610]

 

As I say, the ruling and the precedent are clear. Schemes cannot be used as a fiscal measure to raise additional revenue.

 

As has been pointed out earlier in the thread by someone else - this is not a precedent.