Saint Peter’s Catholic Church
Leicester Road, Hinckley, Leics. LE10 1LW
Tel: 01455 634443 Fax: 01455 890091
The Traffic Penalty TribunalRe: PCN No.VW41339949
Manchester M1 3DZVeh.No.BX56 YJN
July 27 2012,
I am writing in some detail to explain my case to you and the reason why I have refused to pay the above penalty imposed on me by Leicestershire County Council. I enclose all the correspondence that has taken place between us in the past few weeks and hope it is not too laborious for you to go over it.
I am Fr.Frank Daly, Parish Priest of the above community and Director of SPANNED the Nottingham diocesan agency for people with special needs and disabilities. The vehicle in question is a converted Renault ambulance and is the property of the Hinckley Sunshine Club, the Hinckley group of SPANNED, and I am its registered keeper.
The incident: Each year on Good Friday, Hinckley and District Churches Together meet for a brief mid-day service in the Market Place, having processed together down a significant hill (Castle St.) to get there. Several people who are infirm with walking frames, or are in wheelchairs, take part in the event because they are very keen to do so. They are able to walk down Castle Street but not back up it. Accordingly, for the past four years, I have taken our ambulance to the Market Place, and parked it there prior to the event, in order to be able to bring those who are disabled and infirm back to our church afterwards. I have always parked it in the same place, which happens to be a loading bay. It is in use at the beginning and the end of the day for the market traders, but since it is also in front of a disused shop and the others are closed for Good Friday, no obstruction was caused. I placed the required blue badges in the windscreen along with a large notice saying “Ambulance required for church service at 12.00pm”. When we arrived at the spot with the procession, a parking ticket had been placed on it.
Why I refused to pay: While it could be easily argued that what I did was not strictly legal, that does not mean to say that it was not just. Common sense alone dictates that the application of a penalty in these circumstances is not justified and that some discretion should be employed. This is the feeling of the majority of the people in the town, the leader of the local council, Mr.Bray, and because it was so absurd, it kindled significant interest from the local press and both regional television companies. It would appear that the only person who could not see the absurdity of the situation is the Notice Processing Officer, whose identity I have yet to learn because it has never be indicated to me in any correspondence from the person concerned. In addition I am very concerned about the behaviour of traffic wardens in our town, who seem to pry on people and give out parking tickets as soon as possible. Tradesmen are now unable to park their vehicles in front of the shops they are working in, taxi driver unable to escort their infirm passengers into buildings, and the general feeling is that the wardens must be on targets to make money even though the county council have denied this. We feel that this can be the only reason for their quite bizarre behaviour. Their responsibility is to keep traffic flowing in the towns and to prevent obstructions and not to generate income for the local authority. We have now discovered that they are in fact employed by a private firm in Market Harborough, who will presumably not be under the control of the county council and thus able to set their own targets. From being a public service, the work of parking wardens has now turned into a pure money-making enterprise, and this is what has caused so much anger in our town. Furthermore, I received a parking ticket earlier in the year when on an emergency visit to the house of a man who had died suddenly. I was in the house precisely ten minutes and came out to see the warden writing out a ticket as I was parked on a single line and it did not cease to operate for another half an hour. I pointed out the notice in my windscreen saying that I was a Catholic priest on an emergency call but the warden ignored it and suggested I appeal. My appeal was rejected and when questioned about this later by the local press, the processing officer commented that he/she did not think that my ‘visit was of sufficient importance to warrant any flexibility”, which was a gross insult to my ministry of over 40 years of work with the sick and the dying, as well as to that of any priest trying to look after parishioners in these very difficult circumstances.
Why do I presume that this penalty may not be applied? What gives me the right to make this presumption? Again, common sense and professional courtesy. I have been a priest for 37 years and have made thousands of hospital visits in that time, most of which have involved parking in places that are strictly speaking illegal. Never once have I received anything but co-operation and courtesy when visiting hospitals and I have never been ticketed. Why should this not be the case here, when clearly a group of people from different churches wanted to take part in the service and could not have done so had I not brought the vehicle? One might also argue that we are dealing with religious liberty and freedom of association here. Having done this for four years without any comment, I presumed that this would still be the case this year and that any wardens would use their discretion. There is ample evidence to show that discretion is exercised: the notice processing officer alluded to the fact in rejection letter No.3 that the CEO ‘may issue a Penalty Charge Notice’. Presumably this implies that they may not do so as well. Furthermore in this week’s local paper- extract enclosed – a situation has been highlighted where one of the council’s own vehicles was illegally parked for over 25 minutes and not only did the parking warden not issue a PCN but was seen actually talking to the driver for some time! In addition, in the special report issued by local government ombudsmen on parking enforcement by local authorities of December 2004, it states: “The consideration of discretion by a council is the only opportunity a motorist has to make a case where there are exceptional circumstances why a contravention occurred and why a penalty charge should therefore be waived. For the system to be seen as just, this consideration should not be unreasonably restricted.” (Section G para.2). and also, “Discretion can be exercised at any point in the procedure. Councils should not restrict consideration of mitigation to any particular part of the process, such as the period prior to the issue of the Notice to owner. Councils should ensure that they establish clear guidance and procedures for dealing with please of mitigation, and that staff who consider representations should receive guidance and training to enable them to make rational and consistent decisions on the exercise of discretion” (Section G para.5)
It is my contention that local council staff have not made a ‘rational’ judgment here but one that is based on prejudice, the thoughtless application of bureaucracy, and which is entirely lacking in common sense. I am taking this stand because of the treatment of the Christian churches by Leicestershire County Council (who owe the churches a considerable debt for their continuing support of projects linked to the council’s work, and for which I personally have been responsible for raising nearly £100,000 in the last eight years) and also on behalf of the countless people who have been unjustly treated by the over-exuberance of parking wardens in our town. I hope that as a result of my actions, not only will the penalty be waived, but serious consideration will be given to the training of parking wardens and who ultimately is responsible for their activity. This situation cannot continue in our town without serious repercussions for the economy and social cohesion of the local community.
I hope you will be able to give some time to addressing these matters, and am happy to go to an independent adjudicator to make my case.
Yours sincerely,
Father Frank Daly (Parish priest)
Notice Processing ManagerPenalty Charge No. VW41339949
Leicestershire County Council,Reg.No.BX56 YJN
PO Box 9983, LeicesterLE3 7DDDate of Notice 6 April 2012
June 3 2012
Dear Sir or Madam,
Since you have yet to have the courtesy to identify yourself, I still do not know precisely whom I am addressing. I refer to your letter on May 23 which was addressed to ‘the keeper of the vehicle’. Since our ambulance is owned by a charity – SPANNED / The Hinckley Sunshine Club – and I am its Director, I am in fact the keeper of the vehicle as well as its driver on the day of Good Friday.
I do not wish to go into further details apart from referring you to my letters of April 6 and April 18, indicating that I was not prepared to pay this fine as I believed it to be unjust, and that I have taken this stand in sympathy with many other people in the town who have been unjustly ‘targeted’ by traffic wardens as well. You will be well aware by now how much public support there is for this stance and how increasingly absurd the County Council are making themselves appear by maintaining your intransigent position. By now I would have hoped that you would have taken note of all the bad publicity, the support of the leader of the local Council here, as well as 2 TV stations and several newspapers and withdrawn the penalty as a gesture of goodwill, but this does not seem to be the case. I am not sure what the next stage should be but I certainly do wish the matter to go to some form of independent adjudication should the need arise, because I am simply not going to pay this penalty.
No doubt I will be hearing from you again shortly and I hope this time you will show some manners by actually identifying yourself by name.
Yours sincerely,
Father Frank Daly (Parish priest)