SBC Dishonesty Undermines Any Important Advice

In these current times, it is vital that all Government bodies conduct themselves honestly to avoid the risk of important advice not being believed.

Sadly Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) are blatantly being dishonest by claiming that there is a “Penalty Charge” at the Abbey Plain Turning Area in Whitby. I can confirm that no such charge exists.

I have requested Mike Greene, SBC Chief Executive to correct this dishonest action of SBC at the earliest possibility to ensure the public trust is not eroded.

Posted in Scarborough

Coronavirus – Where Is The Screening At UK Airports?

On Saturday morning I arrived back home, via Dubai, from a month in India.

I was highly impressed with the temperature screening at Dubai airport, which I can personally confirm was unintrusive and simple. I have read that UAE has done more tests than any other country.

Arriving in Manchester there was no temperature screening.

Why is there no temperature screening for Coronavirus at UK airports? Surely as the public are being asked to self isolate etc.. there should be temperature screening for those arriving into the country?

I can confirm I am all clear.

Posted in Independent

Parking Ban For Carlton Lodge Hotel?

Is the Hambleton District Council (HDC) banning of overnight parking at Leeming Bar to facilitate a Hotel? It started with questions regards “Site Under Investigation“.

The wonderful roads to a field of nothing resulted in folk asking “Could it be…?”

I have now received an image of what appears to be Carlton Lodge Hotel on the “Site Under Investigation“.

Further information is invited from local residents, Truckers, HDC Officers and Councillors.

Does the name Roland mean anything to anyone?

Posted in Hambleton, PSPO

Scarborough Council – Time To Wind Your Neck In

Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) are still claiming that I have breached their SBC Unreasonably persistent and persistent complaints behaviour policy for a lawful action I did once. Why do certain SBC Officers appear not to understand the word persistent?

SBC Policy and Governance Manager, Petra Jackson this morning claimed that the recording above is in breach of the SBC Unreasonably persistent and persistent complaints behaviour policy This is despite the fact that due to her incompetence it has expired.

Wind Your Neck In

I will never be dictated to or bullied by a worthless SBC policy that breaches UK legislation. I politely suggest that certain SBC Officers and Councillors wind their necks in and conduct affairs as per legislation instead of hiding behind a silly policy that no Court of Law could ever support.

Perhaps Lily Allen – Wind Your Neck In (click on the link) may assist SBC to dismount from its rather tall horse.

SBC U-Turn

Our Petra has confirmed that the SBC Unreasonably persistent and persistent complaints behaviour policy “is currently being reviewed and amendments will be submitted for Cabinet and Council approval shortly.”

Better late than never!

Is that a stable door I hear closing? Hopefully, the rider has dismounted from the tall horse first.

Posted in Scarborough

Child Abuse Survivor Exposes ERYC Corruption

Graham Baverstock, a child abuse survivor, this morning explained to me how East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) have failed to provide him with proper care for many years in breach of legislation despite his failing health. Graham is also severely disabled.

An email has been sent to Caroline Lacey, ERYC Chief Executive, requesting her immediate personal involvement to resolve the shameful failure of her Council.

Posted in ERYC

Pocklington CCTV – Failure To Take Legal Advice

Despite suggesting to Pocklington Town Council (PTC) that it seeks independent legal advice with regards to its involvement with the Pocklington CCTV system, it is clear that it has failed to do so. Indeed it is clear that PTC has been advised by Humberside Police and ERYC.

Scheme Controlled By PTC

As no PTC Councillor or Officer has any access whatsoever to the location where the Pocklington CCTV system data is stored (Pocklington Police Station), it is false to claim that “The scheme is controlled by Pocklington Town Council”. Indeed, no PTC Councillor or staff have legal clearance to see the Data or even enter the room.

I question whether the Surveillance Camera Commissioners office has been informed that PTC does not have full control of the Pocklington CCTV system.

If PTC does have full control of the Pocklington CCTV system, then why have they not fulfilled my Subject Access Request after over 8 months?

Evidence of Crime

The Pocklington CCTV system no longer meets Home Office guidance standards as it is a fundamental requirement that a CCTV system cannot be implemented in areas of low or no crime and/or anti-social behaviour. There must be factual evidence of a significant level of crime.

The law and relevant regulations governing the use of CCTV have changed dramatically over the last few years and PTC must ensure that the CCTV system it has implemented fully complies with the law. This must include a robust and thorough review of the CCTV network in respect of crime levels. This assessment would need to be supported by data from Humberside Police.

Upon completion of an assessment, if any cameras are being used in locations where there is little or no crime recorded, they no longer meet the legal requirement for use as set out by the Home Office Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s compliance guidelines. If this is the case, all such cameras must be removed.

The only “evidence” I have been referred to is of “alleged” crime.

You can call a cat a dog; you can call an alleged crime a crime; etc…

PTC Must Seek Independent Legal Advice

After over 8 months since my intervention, the Pocklington CCTV system is still not lawful and, as such, data gathered and stored by it cannot be used in a court of law as evidence. One cannot break the law to enforce the law.

PTC is clearly being played by Humberside Police and ERYC. Why can’t PTC see this?

My advice to PTC stands – seek independent legal advice.

Posted in CCTV, Pocklington

Driffield CCTV – Failure To Take Legal Advice

Despite suggesting to Driffield Town Council (DTC) that it seeks independent legal advice with regards to its involvement with the Driffield CCTV system, it is clear that it has failed to do so. Indeed it is clear that DTC has been advised by Humberside Police and ERYC.

I note that Don Steel, ERYC Assistant Engineer – Streetworks, believes it is acceptable to use the ERYC IT-system when communicating as a Driffield resident. In addition, he appears to believe it appropriate for an ERYC Officer to condone the breaching of legislation, via an ERYC email address. Both are inappropriate. I will leave it with Don to decide what action he needs to take.

Scheme Controlled By DTC

As no DTC Councillor or Officer has any access whatsoever to the location where the Driffield CCTV system data is stored (Driffield Police Station), it is false to claim that “The scheme is controlled by Driffield Town Council”. Indeed, no DTC Councillor or staff have legal clearance to see the Data or even enter the room.

I do not question the DTC Clerk, who informed me:

“… signs, as recommended by the Surveillance Camera Commissioners office, will be erected in the very near future”

I question whether the SCCO has been informed that DTC does not have full control of the Driffield CCTV system.

If DTC does have full control of the Driffield CCTV system, then why have they not fulfilled my Subject Access Request after over 8 months?

Evidence of Crime

The Driffield CCTV system no longer meets Home Office guidance standards as it is a fundamental requirement that a CCTV system cannot be implemented in areas of low or no crime and/or anti-social behaviour. There must be factual evidence of a significant level of crime.

The law and relevant regulations governing the use of CCTV have changed dramatically over the last few years and DTC must ensure that the CCTV system it has implemented fully complies with the law. This must include a robust and thorough review of the CCTV network in respect of crime levels. This assessment would need to be supported by data from Humberside Police.

Upon completion of an assessment, if any cameras are being used in locations where there is little or no crime recorded, they no longer meet the legal requirement for use as set out by the Home Office Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s compliance guidelines. If this is the case, all such cameras must be removed.

The only “evidence” I have been referred to is of “alleged” crime.

You can call a cat a dog; you can call an alleged crime a crime; etc…

DTC Must Seek Independent Legal Advice

After over 8 months since my intervention, the Driffield CCTV system is still not lawful and, as such, data gathered and stored by it cannot be used in a court of law as evidence. One cannot break the law to enforce the law.

DTC is clearly being played by Humberside Police and ERYC. Why can’t DTC see this?

My advice to DTC stands – seek independent legal advice.

Posted in CCTV, Driffield

Peterborough Height Barrier – Hazard To Road Users

The height barrier at the entrance to Car Haven Car Park, Peterborough is a hazard to road users and in breach of legislation.

All height restrictions on a public road should be clearly identified and marked.

The standard minimum clearance over every part of the carriageway of a public road is 16 feet 6 inches (5.03 metres). When the clearance over any part is less than this, standard warning signs both on and prior to the structure should be provided. The stated clearance should be at least 75mm less than the measured height.

Heights of vehicle likely to be encountered are 4.2 metres high (i.e. A standard container on a suitable flatbed vehicle). Minimum headroom provided should be 4.65 metres exclusive of any additional space required for lighting units. Where emergency vehicle access is required, the height of such vehicles should be confirmed with the relevant emergency service. Additional clearance will be required if there is a requirement for an overlay in the future. Changes in gradient may also reduce the effective headroom for long vehicles.

Fundamental Flaws

Peterborough City Council (PCC) has failed to:

  1. Introduce a Traffic Regulation Order for the height barrier
  2. Install standard warning signs both on and prior to the height barrier.
  3. Comply with Highways Act 1980 Section 137 which states: “If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence”.

Due to these failures by PCC the height barrier is currently a hazard to road users and must be removed immediately.

Referred To Gillian Beasley

Given the seriousness of the situation, I have referred the case to Gillian Beasley, Chief Executive Peterborough City Council to address as a matter of urgency.

Posted in Peterborough

Peterborough City Council – £154,903 PSPO Fraud

Peterborough City Council (PCC) has a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in place that breaches legislation. The PSPO has been fraudulently used to take £154,903 from Peterborough residents and visitors.

Background

In 2017, 2018 and 2019 PCC issued 3,576 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) to cyclists breaching the PSPO banning them from the town centre during the day on the National Cycle Network 12.

PSPO Unlawful

The PSPO banning cycling is unlawful as:

  1. It breaches the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 – 65 – 1 which states “A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway.”
  2. The signage for the PSPO is in breach of the  Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 as the signage is not permitted? This is supported by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 – 64 – 1 which states: “In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description
  3. It is in breach of the Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 1 – 3.3.1. “The erection of an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction and the possible consequences of erecting or permitting the erection of obstructions can be severe. Those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages, for example if an obstruction is the cause of an accident or an injury in a collision.”
  4. It Breaches the Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 1 – 3.4.1.” Traffic signs in use on the highway must either be prescribed by TSRGD as amended, or be specially authorised by the national authority. Signs that are neither prescribed nor authorised are obstructions on the highway and must be removed.”

Fraud Act 2006

Page 55 of the Anti-social behaviour powers – Statutory guidance for frontline professionals confirms:

“A person does not commit an offence by failing to comply with a prohibition or requirement that the council did not have power to include in a Public Spaces Protection Order.”

Consequently, to issue a FPN would be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006. This is a serious breach of the Fraud Act given that £154,903 has unlawfully been taken over just three years.

Referred To Gillian Beasley

Given the seriousness of the situation, I have referred the case to Gillian Beasley, Chief Executive Peterborough City Council to address.

Posted in Peterborough, PSPO

Bedford PSPO – Officers Give Conflicting Information

Bedford Borough Council (BBC) have a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in place that breaches legislation. Yet not only is the PSPO fraudulently used to take money from Bedford residents and visitors BBC Officers are giving conflicting information regards a “stopping up order”.

Background

In 2018 and 2019 BBC has issued 2,526 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) to cyclists breaching the PSPO banning them from the town centre during the day.

Despite this BBC made a loss in 2019 of £5,065.

PSPO Unlawful

The PSPO banning cycling is unlawful as:

  1. It breaches the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 – 65 – 1 which states “A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway.”
  2. The signage for the PSPO is in breach of the  Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 as the signage is not permitted? This is supported by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 – 64 – 1 which states: “In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description
  3. It is in breach of the Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 1 – 3.3.1. “The erection of an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction and the possible consequences of erecting or permitting the erection of obstructions can be severe. Those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages, for example if an obstruction is the cause of an accident or an injury in a collision.”
  4. It Breaches the Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 1 – 3.4.1.” Traffic signs in use on the highway must either be prescribed by TSRGD as amended, or be specially authorised by the national authority. Signs that are neither prescribed nor authorised are obstructions on the highway and must be removed.”

Officers Contradict Each Other

Andrea Bechtle confirmed that Paul Pace is at best mistaken.

  • On 16 September 2019, Paul Pace Chief Officer Environment stated: “If you look at section 65 in full, it is clear that the areas covered by the PSPO are not highways to which section 65 applies. In any event, as explained above, the Traffic Regulation Order makes use of those areas unlawful, so they are not highways at all.”
  • It was the Victorian judge John Maynard Byles who coined the phrase ‘once a highway, always a highway’ in the 1860 case of Dawes v Hawkins. This legal principle still holds true, and it remains the case that public highways can only lose this status if a formal ‘stopping-up’ order is applied for and approved by the relevant authority.
  • As such, I made a Freedom of Information request for: “The Stopping-Up Order in relation to the area covered by the Cycling PSPO.”
  • Andrea Bechtle  FOI & EIR Officer confirmed on 4 November 2019: “In relation to the Stopping-up Order there isn’t one because the streets are still highways.”

NB: A Traffic Regulation Order can only be applied to a Highway.

Fraud Act 2006

Page 55 of the Anti-social behaviour powers – Statutory guidance for frontline professionals confirms:

“A person does not commit an offence by failing to comply with a prohibition or requirement that the council did not have power to include in a Public Spaces Protection Order.”

Consequently, to issue a FPN would be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006. This is a serious breach of the Fraud Act given that £109,100 was unlawful taken over just two years.

Referred To Philip Simpkins

Given the seriousness of the situation, I have referred the case to Philip Simpkins, Chief Executive Bedford Borough Council to address.

Posted in Bedford, PSPO