Another fine mess

AS crime mysteries go, I’m not pretending that it’s in the Sherlock Holmes league, but it’s a peculiar affair nonetheless. And it suggests to me that some dubious practices are being used in the pursuit of parking fines in the pleasant market town of Darlington. Let me try to explain.. .

On May 8, a quiet Sunday morning, I drove into the town centre to go to the Dolphin Centre gym and parked in Horsemarket, in the market square area outside the Contemporary hair salon.

It honestly never occurred to me that car parking restrictions applied on a Sunday morning and there was a sign directly opposite, in front of the covered market, stating that restrictions applied Monday to Saturday.

When I came out of the Dolphin Centre, several cars, including mine, had been given parking tickets. A warden was taking photographs while brushing aside protests from myself and another motorist who’d taken his children for a swim only to be landed with a £35 penalty (£70 if it wasn’t paid within 14 days).

A few days later, I appealed against my fine, politely explaining in my letter to the council that I felt it was unfair because the parking signs were, in my opinion, unclear.

“If you decide my fine should stand, could you at least review the signs in the area so there is no confusion?” I asked.

In a letter dated May 18, I was delighted to receive a reply from the council’s “parking processing and appeals co-ordinator”.

“I can confirm that it has been brought to my attention that the disabled parking sign located outside the Contemporary hair salon was removed on May 7, 2011,” it said.

“The sign had been damaged and was removed so that it could be repaired. This sign has now been repaired and was reinstated on May 18, 2011.

“I can confirm that the penalty charge notice has been cancelled and no payment is required.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused. I will look at any other penalty notices issued at this location whilst the sign was missing to ensure they are also considered in the same way.”

Hurrah, I thought to myself. But wait – the plot thickens. The next day, another letter – dated May 16 (two days earlier than the first letter) – arrived from Darlington Borough Council, with a very different view of my “crime”.

Signed by a different member of the parking enforcement department, but referring to the same penalty charge notice number DK62051736, it concluded that there were no grounds for accepting my appeal.

The letter says: “I can confirm that your vehicle was parked between two signs, showing that the area was for disabled badge holders only. I have enclosed copies of these signs for your information.”

Now, this is where it gets really interesting.

Three copies of photographs were included with the second letter.

􀁥 One, taken by Attendant Number 344, shows my car parked outside the Contemporary hair salon, dated May 8.

􀁥 Another, also taken by Attendant Number 344, shows a parking restriction sign outside Caffe Nero (the opposite direction to the Dolphin Centre), also dated May 8.

􀁥 A third shows a parking restriction sign in front of the Contemporary hair salon. Curiously, the date above the photograph had been obscured with a black felt tip pen – but when you hold it up to the light, you can see that the date is May 1, 2011 – and that it was taken by Attendant Number 324.

Indeed, the electronically-recorded date on the photograph confirms the date as May 1.

I was left with the following questions:

1. Was I guilty or not guilty? In view of the fact that my case had apparently been reviewed by two people coming to completely different conclusions, it was a hard one to call.

2. Why was the real date obscured on the photograph taken outside the Contemporary hair salon?

3. Was this a case of mere incompetence or something worse – a botched attempt to doctor the evidence in order to get my £35 out of me?

4. Was this an isolated incident or had others been similarly misled?

I contacted the council, explaining my concerns, and a statement was released, assuring me that it was an “error of judgement” rather than deliberate deception.

“The officer who dealt with the appeal did not know that the sign was not in place and used the most recent picture of this sign in its usual location as supportive information. The details were blacked over because they refer to a different case. There was no deliberate intention to falsify the evidence to fit the case.”

The council says it is not normal procedure to use an out-of-date photograph to support an appeal judgement and the officer in question made an “error of judgement”. Steps had been taken to ensure it does not happen again.

‘WHEN the sign was reinstated, it was quickly realised that there may have been tickets issued during its absence. It was then decided to proactively contact all motorists who received a ticket in this area to rescind them and to also write and uphold the appeals of those who had followed this course…We apologise wholeheartedly to all those affected.”

The bottom line is this: an out-of-date, invalid photograph was presented to me as evidence of my “offence” without any explanation in either of the letters which arrived within a day of each other.

I take the council’s word for it that this was not deliberate deception, merely an error of judgement. We all make mistakes.

But since the council replaced the police as the authority responsible for car parking enforcement in January, the more stringent approach to restrictions has become a major talking point in the town.

“Parking regulations exist to ensure all road users, especially disabled motorists, can use our roads and car parks safely and without undue obstruction,” says the council.

I agree – but there also has to be a balance to ensure that people don’t feel inclined to go somewhere else to shop or set up businesses.

And I have to say that my experiences don’t fill me with confidence about a balanced, joined-up approach to the thorny issue of car parking in Darlington.