High Court Ruling on Bike Parking Tax is deeply flawed – but it paves the way for a successful Appeal…

Some riders have been dismayed by a High Court Judgement against a claim lodged by NTBPT Chairman Warren Djanogly – that Westminster City Council used Traffic Act powers unlawfully, and to cover the creation of a new tax on motorcycle parking in on-street bays that had already been established and paid for. But I am not.

The first ruling in the courts was always going to find in favour of the council in my view as there is far too much at stake for the first judges on the case to cut to the chase and effectively acknowledge a truth that is incredibly inconvenient for our ‘Traffic Management’ policy shapers and shippers.

As most riders can see as plain as day, Westminster’s scheme had nothing to do with Traffic Management, it’s all about something completely different. IT’S JUST ABOUT THE MONEY HONEY!

But the problem they and we have is that UK law does not allow them to say they just want our money out loud. Amongst other things there is a major snag in the Local Government Act, 2000, (3.2) It expressly forbids any local authority from introducing a scheme run by private contractors that creates a revenue stream. But that all came too late to protect drivers from an extensive range motoring taxes because those evolved over decades, alongside a smart range of bureaucratic washing machines which the money goes into and comes out clean. Unfortunately for Westminster, the laundry service failed to work when they decided to try and tax riders in exactly the same way as drivers. It is clear for all to see – and even WCC admit it – that within a few months of starting their ‘experimental’ version of the motorcycle parking tax scheme, they made a cool ’surplus revenue’ aka profit, of half a million quid by the time they were legally entitled to make it permanent. Currently of course they claim to be making a loss, but if they can get away with keeping this tax they sure as hell won’t make a loss for ever...

Anyway, the reason I’m not dismayed about the ruling is that it has done even more than I’d hoped or expected. In order to find in favour of the council, the ruling would have to include fundamental flaws because nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that the Traffic Orders in question could do anything other than create a new revenue stream – and those flaws are now out there and open to successful attack and review. Better still – if there is any justice to be had – that will lead to the ruling being overturned.

Now, here is my take on where we are and what’s next, including a recap of the basics for anyone who is new to this saga. And I realise that what follows is a bit of a whopper of a read so I won’t be offended by the odd bit of nodding off, snoring or legging it up the pub – or gong for a ride instead. You can also take your time reading anyway as it will be the last thing I post for a bit as I am off at the end of the week to recharge the batteries for a couple of weeks, on a small island in the sun and warmer rain than we have here in Blighty.

And so, it came to pass…

The High Court ruling, of 16th July 2010, on a hugely significant claim that Westminster Council had used Traffic Act powers unlawfully, is fundamentally flawed in my humble but expert opinion by failures to grasp key facts and see black holes in the defence case. The claim was made on behalf of the NTBPT and all objectors to this regressive tax, of whom I am proud to be one, and it asserted that the council had effectively used Traffic Management Act legislation to cover the creation of a new tax on motorcycle parking in on-street bays that had already been established and paid for.

But the ruling is demonstrably wrong as far as I and a number of other observers are concerned, as it fails to address three fundamental flaws in Westminster’s defence of making the Traffic Orders in January 2010, that were made to convert an ‘experimental’ version of pay-by-phone charges for parking in on-street bays to a ‘permanent’ scheme.

The judgement identifies “two clear objectives the Authority sought to achieve the introduction of the parking orders”. And it says that these two objectives are legitimate goals for the Authority to try to achieve by using Traffic management Orders, to introduce new charges for on-street parking of motorcycles in bays that were already designated and paid for to accommodate use for that purpose.

The first legitimating ‘objective’ is, “to improve on-street parking availability for motor-cyclists” but this is demonstrably totally wrong, as it is not an objective that is identified at all in the official ‘reasons’ for a permanent version of the charging scheme. The second objective according to the judges was, “the termination of discriminatory treatment between motorcycles and cars.” But again, one of the big problems with that is that it was never identified by Westminster as such. Here, under ‘publications’ is where Westminster hid their reasons for the permanent scheme on their website – and they can be found in the Statement of Reasons document in PDF form. But see if you can spot either of the reasons that the judges say Westminster gave for the new charges, and that the judges said made the council’s use of Traffic Management Act powers to create a new tax lawful…

So, fundamental flaw No. 1. The judges have ruled that Westminster’s use of Traffic Orders to create a new revenue stream – and force riders to pay a new tax to park in bays that were already paid for – is ‘lawful’ because the ‘objectives’ for the new charges was to do two things that the council has never claimed as reasons for the new scheme… Er, how does that make sense in or out of a court of law?

But there is more that is wrong with this ruling. Fundamental flaw No. 2. The key question to be considered and ruled on in this case has been completely missed and left out of the judgement.

The critical question is not whether WCC could lawfully use Traffic Act legislation to introduce a new charge for motorcycle parking on public highways. The question to be ruled on is this: Can WCC lawfully use Traffic Act legislation to increase the powers it already had to manage demand for kerbside space – but without making a case that it’s existing powers had failed to manage such demand – AND in a way that would be rectified by the introduction of a new category of charges and trigger for penalty fines aimed at riders of scooters or motorbikes? And let’s get things clear here, as I explained to the judges in a section of my witness statement, WCC had all the powers it needed to control motorcycle parking and ‘manage demand for kerbside space’ by all motorised modes. There is not one inch of public highway controlled by Westminster where they have any demonstrable need to increase their power to decide who can park what, where and for how long – with or without out paying a fee or incurring a fine.

The last main flaw in the judgement of the case certainly has a critical impact on the rights and wrongs of the ruling for riders. But in my view it has an even greater impact on establishing the extent to which ‘consultation’ procedures about local authority use of Traffic Management powers can be skewed – in order to use them to do nothing more than create new revenue streams.

Throughout the entire consultation process on the ‘experimental’ version of the scheme, and once a decision had been taken in principle to make it permanent, consultees were consistently told that the main reasons for the new charges for on-street parking in designated bays was to fund further improvements to motorcycle parking amenities. But fortunately for all concerned now, I and other sceptics became increasingly bothered about the likelihood that Westminster were pushing the idea of funding further improvements as the ‘main reason’ for new bike parking charges, not because it was, but because it would limit the amount of opposition from key stakeholder consultees. So, in an attempt to push the council to reveal more about the main reasons they would give to ‘justify’ a decision to convert the experimental scheme into a permanent measure, I arranged and attended a meeting between Danny Chalkley who was Westminster’s Cllr in charge of the scheme at the time and Craig Carey-Clinch as the Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCIA) representative. In that meeting, dear old Danny smiled reassuringly and steadfastly denied that the main official reason for the charges was ‘demand management’ – and he repeatedly gave Craig and thereby the MCIA firm verbal assurances that the real reason for introducing new bike parking charges was to fund loads more improvements to on-street motorcycle parking. With my encouragement some weeks later, Craig invited Danny to confirm his assurances about the main reason in writing, but as I expected, that written confirmation never came.  But never mind all that well spun flannel flopping around in that meeting, as a matter of hard fact, Westminster made a fundamental change in the thrust of the official main reasons for the new charges. And, unfortunately for Westminster, I reported all that in the witness statement that the judges were obliged to read and consider. And the fact that the court’s first ruling seems to neatly avoid any consideration of those events doesn’t mean they can be ignored in a second round.

Anyway, a key fact of the case and in my view the lawfulness of Westminster’s use of Traffic Management Act powers to create a tax, is this: The first ‘main reason’ one was of course encouragingly positive for those who accepted it at face value, namely to improve the accommodation of rider’s needs to park – but the second one was extremely negative, namely to ‘restrain’ demand for bike on-street parking as the primary reason and to deter people from choosing to use a motorcycle at all in Westminster for unspecified ‘environmental’ and ’safety reasons.

But the most critical thing about this change that the judges ignored in their ruling was the timing of when that change was actually officially confirmed. The first time anybody concerned could know what the main reasons for the permanent version of the scheme really were, was when the Traffic Orders were published on January 22nd, 2010, just three days before the permanent version of the scheme came into force on January the 25th! Sounds a bit smelly? Not quite the way that truly legitimate consultation procedures are run? You bet.

To put it mildly, this neat trick had a crucial skewing impact on the reliability and validity of the consultation processes that has not been addressed at all in the ruling. To put it bluntly it was hugely misleading for all consultees at best, and at worst a key element in a very long con.

So, what’s next? Well, as far as I can see, so long as the NTBPT Barrister makes these flaws clear to the courts, the only way that justice can be done and seen to be done is for an appeal to be heard and a fresh ruling made. I’ve spent some of today making a few suggestions for the Barrister to consider as part of his request for an appeal and sent them off. So, all I can say for now is fingers crossed then…

Boris Johnson filmed ‘threatening’ to stop bus lane use by motorcycle and scooter riders – unless protest against WCC bike parking tax is called to a halt

In an extraordinary outburst from Boris Johnson, London’s Mayor, broadcast by BBC news, he makes what NTBPT protesters have called a “threat” to stop motorbike access to bus lanes – unless they stop protesting against Westminster’s highly controversial motorcycle parking charging scheme. This episode has now also been reported by Guardian blogger Dave Hill

The mayor can be clearly seen and heard saying: “Do you want to stay in bus lanes?” To which the rider at the protest says “of course we do” – with the Mayor replying: “Well stop this protest”.

In response, Warren Djanogly, Chairman of the No To Bike Parking Tax group,   said: “This would seem like a thinly veiled threat, bordering on blackmail.”

A fuller report of the incident was aired on BBC London News as the headline story for their lunchtime bulletin today.

The bikes in bus lanes measure to which the mayor refers is being run as a trial throughout the whole Red Route network of strategic roads in the capital.

But as it happens and with a bizarre coincidence of timing, the trial version of the measure is due to end with an independent report on the results due for submission to TFL this month.

Up until today, the Mayor had made it clear that the decision to keep bikes in bus lanes would depend entirely on the results of the report which is being conducted by TRL. Sources tell me that the trial results are likely to show that casualties involving cyclists have dropped in bus lanes which are shared with motorcycle and scooter riders. If so, that result alone should make it very difficult for our avid cyclist mayor to turn the clock back and stop motorbike access to bus lanes – as it may well cause a rise in casualties to his fellow riders.

As ever, we will have to wait and see what happens next. But my hope is that the Mayors’ newly focused concerns about the bike parking tax protest will now be focused on discussions about the real cause of that problem, namely the Westminster City Council scheme – which is not only hugely unpopular and has no demonstrable traffic management benefit – but according to the council is now running at a shocking loss. As it also happens I will soon be meeting with the new Westminster City Council Cabinet member who has inherited responsibility for this ill-conceived scheme and will be hoping to find a way forward that is truly sustainable and good for all concerned – including our colourful mayor!

Police, Camera, Action! But who is calling for the shots of protesters against bike parking taxes, Top Cops or two Greedy Piggies in two City Halls?

Up until now, the MET police in London have been more accommodating towards riders protesting against Westminster’s regressive cash-cow bike parking tax, than any other single issue riders campaign I have ever seen. So I was a tad surprised last week to see a highly visible video cop adding a new and potentially intimidating element in their responses to protest rides organised by the NTPBT.

But my latest info from sources close to the MET and Westminster insiders suggests that there  may have been some string pulling by the sharp trading leader of Westminster City council and his big business chum and deputy Mayor of London. And, if so, there may be a radically different explanation for what might really be going on…

Barrow + Cash Crop

Whatever the truth may be, one thing’s for sure as you can see from this latest film report. It looks like the MET decided to make a potentially imposing show of making a video record of protesters and police attempts to deal with them. But, as is often the way with this twisted saga, all is not what it may seem.

It turns out that the getting-richer-quick millionaire leader of Westminster Council, Colin Barrow, is a chum and business partner of Kit Malthouse, a premier league political bruiser, former WCC Cllr, and wannabe Tory Grandee. The barrow boy is top dog at Westminster City Hall and has several sources of income, although at least one biking blogger has questioned his accountability regarding some of them. Anyway, one wonger making option is wheeling and dealing as a Hedge Fund company Director – and the latest of these highly profitable ventures is Alpha Strategic where he is Executive Chairman & his big Mate Kit is Finance Director. But two other sources of cash for Barrow have taken months of diligent follow ups to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to reveal the truth.

Cop-watch Chum Malthouse

First, it was eventually revealed that in addition to his ‘Basic’ councillor allowance of £10,250, he got a handy £37,639.55 in 2009, for ’special’ expenses making a total of around £48,000. And, equally handily, as the this FOI string finally confirmed in Feb 2010, (!) following a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, his decision to liquidate one of his Hedge Fund companies called Eiger Capital, meant that he was no longer legally obliged to pay £19,186.71 in business rates owed to none other than Westminster Council. So, in round figures, Cllr Colin effectively trouserred a cool £68,000 of rate payers cash in 2009.

Meanwhile, his business associate Kit Malthouse is technically second in line to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. But the scale of power Malthouse really has behind the scenes could be higher than a typical ‘number two’ for a few key reasons. Not least of these is that the Conservative party got rather fed up with seeing Boris, their Golden boy Mayor, rapidly establish a bad reputation for losing deputies for  unseemly reasons. Losing one deputy mayor might be considered unfortunate, two careless – but three in a year is a bit too far beyond the pale. So Malthouse was brought in as a “Boris hit man” to very much stick around in City Hall and get the Mayor’s ship back on as straight and narrow a path as possible.

However, the most significant thing about Malthouse for riders opposing Westminster’s plan to tax us to park, may be that he recently acquired new and potentially all encompassing powers over the police. When London Mayor Boris Johnson got ‘too busy’ to Chair the MET police authority as he famously vowed he would, he ’stepped down’ so Malthouse could be shoe horned into the job at the end of last year.

This move was however far from free of critical comment as Malthouse had “missed key police meetings” up until then. But almost as soon as the mayor’s new deputy dawg began his new cop-watch role he fuelled even more controversy over the extent of his powers to influence the direction of policing in London.

Understandably, many in the MET were not amused. Right from the start of Malthouse taking charge of overseeing the MET a great deal of concern grew among senior officers. Some were “aghast at politicians meddling in their business”. But the stuff really hit the fan when the Mayor’s hit-man Malthouse infamously declared that he and the Conservative party had now got their “hands on the tiller” of the MET police force in London. In fact this prompted a “warning” from the MET’s chief that the claim by Malthouse could pave the way for ‘lunatics or the BNP winning control of the police’.

Now I have seen no hard evidence to prove any truth in rumous that the MET police have been heavily lent on to change the way that protests against WCC’s bike parking tax are policed – or that such pressure was applied by somebody with big clout in Mayor Johnson’s City Hall. Nor have I seen any proof  that the leader of the London council that is trying to pioneer a new parking tax for motorcycle and scooter riders has asked his mate and business partner – who had claimed to have his hands on the tiller of the MET, to either arrest the NTBPT protesters as a way of stopping them cause huge disruption to traffic on a weekly basis, or do something new to try and dissuade them from drawing attention to their beef with the rich burghers of Westminster. So, of course, I couldn’t possible suggest that such rumors are true. Nor would I even dream of doing so. Yet.

As ever I will leave it up to readers and riders to make what sense of this they can, and will welcome any further news or thoughts you may have…

Overhaul of UK parking fines system long overdue but will any politicians have the guts to support it while Westminster stay top dogs in issuing dodgy PCN gravy train tickets?

Over the last few days I’ve been rather more immersed than I’d like in the dark and dodgy business to be found lurking behind the smoothly drawn official lines about parking schemes and scams. The most pressing things have been focused by calls from the NTBPT to help them and their legal team deal with Westminster’s plan to try and force riders of scooters and motorbikes into the clutches of ‘golden contract’ Verrus As you may recall, this lot have a potentially juicy contract from WCC to use their super-slick pay by phone systems to extract a brand new bike parking tax. And they’ve already trousered well over £2 million from the first few months ‘trial’ of the new tax.

But there is good news on that front though as the case against the legitimacy of the WCC plan, and recent Traffic Orders to try and make it a permanent fixture, is already big and powerful. And, following a meeting I went to last Friday where the NTBPT team discussed refinements with their lawyers, and we all went off to get a few more crucial facts and figures, I can say that the case is growing stronger each day. And there will be more to say on that very soon after the application for statutory review is lodged this Friday!

However, there may be other glimmers of hope for progress. These latest steps in what will be a crucial case for all UK bike and scooter riders also coincides with a new coalition of forces to call for a complete overhaul of the way parking is ‘managed’ in Britain. As this article reveals in useful detail. But this has prompted me to do a mini review and dig a bit deeper to see how we got into what seems to me to be an increasingly nasty and abusive mess.

Ever since parking enforcement was ‘decriminalised’ in 1991, i.e. it could be done for councils by big profit-making companies – in exchange for a slice of the cash extracted for ‘managing’ this aspect of road use – it has become a very big business indeed.

In fact the latest figures show that the total income from UK parking charges and fines reached an eye-watering high of £1.9 billion per year. And, to make matters worse this is not only one of the few real growth industries in terms of revenues, it is probably the fastest growing one in Britain right now. Some councils doubled the income they squeezed out of motorised road users in the last year alone – and one is trying desperately hard to bolt a new bike parking tax on the side.

But as we all know, whenever big sums of money are at stake there will always be some players who are prepared to bend or break the rules as much as they dare – to get a bigger slice of the action. And recently I’ve had to do a bit of digging to discover who is doing what on the dark and dodgy side.

So, the less good news for me has been finding out just how rotten our parking enforcement systems have got. The number of parking penalty charge notices PCNs that are unlawfully issued is staggeringly high. This is clear to see if you know where to look, as all UK councils have been forced to reveal the figures. But top of the national league in issuing dodgy PCNs – which is in my view nothing short of an abuse of local government powers is… well who do you think? Yep, as Westminster City Council’s Annual Report on Parking shows, they are streets ahead of all others when it comes to the number of fines they have to withdraw because they were unlawfully issued in the first place.

Since 2005, Westminster council has agreed to cancel an average 20% of all PCN notices to pay a parking fine each year as they were found to be unlawful for various reasons. The extent of this unlawful use of Traffic Management power is shockingly quantified by the council’s own figures.

In 2008/9, there were 133,856 instances in which a PCN for an alleged parking offence was cancelled as it had been issued without due evidence that a violation had been committed.

This works out at an average of 372 unlawfully issued fines per day! Does our UK system in which this can go on need overhauling? You bet.

So now back to the big question about whether UK politicians will support new challenges to the rotten parking enforcement systems we have – and riders are facing more of. In my view the answer will depend on various things. But the key one in the run-up to the election is whether they think there will be more votes in supporting the challengers, or the fat cat players who are currently driving the gravy trains.

Well, I’m sorry to say that’s all I’ve got time to say for now as there is still quite a bit to do before Friday – when the next few rounds in fight against new bike parking taxes will begin…



Will the UK Serious Fraud Office investigate claims that top Westminster Council officers were part of a £200m Parking Enforcement contract scandal – or not?

Unless you are new to Britain or live in a shed or up a tree, you will know that the business of ‘enforcing’ parking regulations frequently arouses suspicions of foul play. Parking contract activity may seem like a dull aspect of local governance, but since it was ‘decriminalised’ in 1991, it has become quite ‘exciting’ for some. And, with parking fees and fine incomes for UK councils totalling £1.9bn per year in 2009, it has also grown into a very big and often murky business indeed for others, especially in that most illustrious and wealthy of London Boroughs, run by Westminster City Council (WCC).

But, the latest focus for suspicions may cap all that have gone before. This week, two top WCC officers were formally accused of a series of offences under the Fraud Act 2006, and of Gross Misconduct in Public Office. I learn late tonight that the BBC have now picked up on this. The claims were lodged by the No-To-Bike-Parking-Tax (NTBPT) campaign group against the suspects who are… Well I’ve just heard that one of them is shaping up to take legal action to block being named and attack anyone with the temerity to question the legitimacy of his recent actions, so, as I have no intention of interfering with the due course of justice, I have for the moment removed the names of the suspects…

To be fair to Westminster, as I always try to be, theirs is not the only place where the execution of parking business can at times become unseemly or shown to be illegal.

Dodgy doings by private parking companies with hugely lucrative council contracts across the UK have been well documented over many years. And, as the latest ‘SHOCKING’ video evidence shows, the UK’s ‘leading parking enforcement firm’ APCOA, recently employed a couple of ’swaggering’ wardens to act as agents of local governance, but who seem to have extended the ’services’ they offer the local community to a spot of illegal drug dealing.

I can’t vouch for the reliability of this footage or legal case against the two ‘civil enforcement officers’ though, but note that the National Newspaper who published reports of these seemingly criminal actions has not been made to take them down as yet. I am, however, fairly confidant that if the two officers caught on film were selling illegal drugs, they will probably be subject to rigorous investigation by their employers and be brought to due justice by the police. In fact the employers APCOA were quick to say they were “appalled” by the allegations and are taking them “very seriously” and that “any suggestion of illegal activity by their employees, would be taken straight to the police”. Strangely though, I am far less confident about what will happen to the two senior officers on the Westminster payroll. I am even doubtful about the extent of justice that will be brought to bear on this case.

For a start, the video footage of two blokes in parking enforcement officer’s uniforms doing a sixty quid dope deal is clear – and looks like damming evidence of deeply dodgy conduct. Whereas it is not so easy to see such clear proof of what that Gilchrist and Large may have been up to. Especially as the evidence so far is currently all in a 54 page report that details the various claims about what they have been doing behind the scenes where big value enforcement contracts are transferred from one company to another. But although I make no claims to being a legal expert, I have read the complete list of ’suspicions’ of wrong doing and have formed my own opinion that that there seems to be some serious and well evidenced reasons to doubt that due procedures have been followed.

In a nutshell, it is claimed that the WCC officers made a series of moves to enable Westminster and over 30 other councils to change the contractor they used for parking enforcement, but without going through the full tendering processes that local authorities are required to do by UK and EU law. Crucially though, if it is eventually proved that this is what they have done it could mean that all of the councils involved will have to pay back over £200m to people who were issued with PCNs by companies that had no legal right to do so.

So, with that amount of local government and big parking company business revenue potentially at stake – and the ongoing £billions from future enforcement contracts – it should come as no surprise that the activities of ********* and ***** are likely to benefit from a significantly more well funded defence than a pair of dope dealing traffic wardens are likely to muster.

It also seems likely to me that a whoever is involved with investigating the allegations of Fraud and Gross Misconduct, they will be in for an uphill struggle and will face intense scrutiny and great but probably well hidden resistance from various aspects of the government machine. Initially, this investigation will be by the Met Police who have told me tonight. “We can confirm we have received an allegation of fraud on 10 February. The allegation is currently been looked at. We are unable to discuss further at this early stage.”

I also gather that whether this ends up being investigated by the SFO will depend on various factors including the amount of cash that ends up being considered to be at stake.

Meanwhile, the latest news I’ve been given from Westminster tonight comes from Mike More, Chief Executive of Westminster City Council. He tells me that these allegations are all part of an ongoing campaign by a “motorbike protest group who are unhappy over parking charges in Westminster”. Although More fails to acknowledge a parallel set of similar claims being investigated in Sunderland by the Parking Appeals car driver group co-ordinated by Neil Heron. Anyway, More goes on to say that WCC “remain confident that the parking contract was properly let by our officers and all allegations of fraud or deliberate wrongdoing are completely unfounded”. Although he feels obliged to add that they are now considering their legal position to see what action they should take in response to these claims with a suggestion that “if “there is an investigation “we will fully co-operate with any police enquiry and I fully believe this will resolve the issue.”

But with no undue disrespect for Mr More, the Met police have already issued a crime number in response to the NTBPT claims – so it is already clear that an investigation is going to happen – and has begun. What remains to be seen is how far the investigation will go and to see if the SFO will be drawn into investigate these allegations that senior officers have been engaged in Fraud and Gross Misconduct. All I can say for now is, that we’ll all have to wait and see but don’t hold your breath though because this is in my view likely to be a very long winded affair…

NTBPT Gridlock Central London & Win Round 1 in fight against plans for UK Bike & Scooter Parking Tax as Office of Fair Trading start investigating case against Westminster…

As GMTV warned on their morning news and this slideshow shows, the ‘gathering’ demonstration ride organised by the NTBPT and mentioned in my previous post, did indeed bring traffic to a standstill in central London. You can also see a nice little film of these goings on here. Ironically, these ‘amateur’ protesters took a leaf out of the professionals’ latest book on high-tech road user tax extraction systems – as written by Messrs Gilchrist, Chalkley & Slick-Willy pay-by-phone merchants Verrus – & the ‘gathering’ was triggered by simultaneous multiple text alert. Cripes and gadzooks!

So, within minutes of the text going out, hundreds of peaceful but angered riders suddenly gathered at Trafalgar Square and began riding round it during a lunch time demo.

The most astonishing thing about the event though – apart from the fact that there seems to be nothing that the authorities could do to stop it happening – was to see how incredibly quickly a relatively small number of riders could bring all the roads into and out of Trafalgar Square to a gridlocked halt. As a fellow riders rights champion, BMF Chairman Anna Zee said to me once we’d all arrived at Milbank. “It was incredible to see what a huge impact a relatively small number of riders can have within three minutes of gathering together and starting to ride perfectly legally round a small but critically central roundabout…”

Anyway, once the protesters had made their point of protest about the bike parking tax plan being pushed by Westminster, the riders all moved on in appropriately dignified fashion through Whitehall and Parliament Square and were joined by over a 100 more to rally outside the Tory HQ at Milbank.

A key point for the demo was to encourage the Conservative party leaders and key members to think about the huge damage that one of it’s flagship council’s (Westminster City Council no less) is doing to their reputation by trying to impose a new Stealth Tax on riders of powered two wheelers.

Currently, the word from Tory central office is that they regard this attempt to pioneer an unprecedented extra tax against a key group of vulnerable road users as a ‘Local Matter’. Correspondingly, I have it from the highest levels inside Tory HQ that this unprecedented plan to create a new M/C parking tax and spread it across the UK is something that party leaders are not going to bother about or to consider in a broader context. But I’d add, yet.

In my view, which I have shared with their top transport policy adviser and a couple of Tory MPs who were prepared to listen so far, this could be a very grave mistake unless they think again about a plan to impose an extra new tax on UK riders. Especially as just about all of the million plus motorbike and scooter riders in Britain also just happen to be VOTERS as the RAV campaign is beginning to explain in time for the next election.

It is also crucial for me to point out that it is not just the Tories who are seeming to hide behind the excuse that ‘this is a local issue’ while turning a blind eye to bad or unjustifiable policy decisions to create new revenue streams via ‘motoring’ taxes. After all, the Labour party and Lib Dem central office have also all held back from anything remotely close to condemning this stealth tax for what it is

But sadly, up until now my suggestions and indeed those from others in the motorcycling community have fallen on stony ground. Nevertheless, there is also some very good news for all concerned with treating riders as part of the solution to many congestion problems instead of seeing them just as a target for a bit more ‘motoring’ tax.

I learned late on Friday that the Office of Fair Trading OFT has reconsidered it’s earlier attempt to try and pass the buck for investigation of claims that Westminster have bent or broken rules to ensure trading is done fairly. After a great deal of work on submissions to the OFT by Graham of NTBPT and a couple of tweaks that I added to his latest contact with them their new position looks like this:

“Due to the complexity of the issues you have raised your case has been passed to our Preliminary Investigations Team and has been allocated thirty working days for research and response.”

Well done to all concerned I say – and round 1 to the NTBPT!

Record depths reached in push to be Britain’s top ‘Robber Baron’ or just a new cut in ‘free’ parking, or could this be good news for bike parking tax opponents?…

I am rarely surprised by the depths that a desperate politician will plunge to, while trying to justify action that stinks. In my experience this often happens when a plan for a government move is being pushed that is nothing more than state backed extortion or highway robbery – and that looks to most law abiding citizens like the acts of a robber baron rather than a servant of the people.

But as you can see by the expression on Cllr Chalkley’s face, even he is struggling to make it look straight as he tries to deny that his council’s latest plan to end ‘free’ parking in London’s West End and throughout Westminster, is just a new way to screw more cash from riders of motorcycles and scooters and motorists.

On the face of it this latest plan by WCC may seem like very bad news. In essence it is to put parking charges up again and end ‘free’ parking on single yellow lines up till midnight!  But I think that there is a huge silver lining to this otherwise very dark cloud, and especially  for all who have been battling with Westminster over their attempts to make an ‘experimental’ M/C parking tax a permanent fixture. More details at NTBPT. The bottom line here for me is that this latest move is already being seen by the majority of people and businesses in the West End as nothing more than a revenue grabbing move that will do a great deal more harm to all concerned than good. In turn, this majority in the heart of the capital will start to see the riders who have taken to the streets to oppose the council’s tax attacks on them less like a nuisance – and more like knights in shinning armour – and no matter whether the steeds they ride are great big motorbikes or nifty scooters.

Another key factor here for me – and IMHO all riders to consider – is that this is NOT A PARTY POLITICAL ISSUE. Westminster are of course a Tory council, but UK councils of every colour including Labour and Lib Dem, have, up until now, followed WCC’s lead in creating ever more sophisticated cash cows for milking motorists in the name of ‘traffic management’ – and supposedly ‘encouraging’ people to walk, cycle or go by privatised ‘public transport’. And, of greatest concern to me, they are also watching with keen interest to see if Westminster can get away with turning all motorcycle and scooter riders into a new source of local revenue by imposing extra road user taxes targeted at them.

Now, back to my views on the latest in Westminster and the pic of Chalkley. My choice of image may seem a tad unfair as this shot may have caught him at a ‘bad’ moment. Even more revealing though (as you can see in the BBC interview linked below) is the long pause as he says “…err…” while composing himself to deliver a statement that looks to me like a bit of a fib! To be frank though, anyone prone to strong feelings about weaselly attempts to justify more tax, under the cover of ecoist faith or ‘traffic management’, may even suggest that what our elected member may be saying about Westminster’s latest plan is a heaving steamer!

Nevertheless, in the sprit of fairness and decency that I try to live and write by, all I can say about whether lies are being told or not is that you will have to make your own mind up. And, you may find this live BBC interview helpful in drawing your own conclusions.

What I will say though is that one of things that troubles me most about this latest plan to end what is commonly described as ‘free’ parking – including by the objectivity seeking BBC – is that PARKING A MOTORCYCLE, SCOOTER OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE IS NEVER FREE in Britain. As I and others have said before, all law abiding vehicle owners in the UK pay far more in motoring taxes and duties than most people in the developed world, and vastly more than is ever spent on public highways.

Lastly, I will add that the real reasons why congestion continues to be a great problem in UK towns and cities, and especially Westminster has nothing to do with parking as dear old Danny Chalkley and many others claim. The key causes of ongoing and often worsening congestion is that most local authorities continue cutting the amount of road space that the majority of people are allowed to use. Let battle continue in the fight against robber barons – were ever and who ever they may be and whatever they’re trying to nick, be-it our cash or public highway road space!

Westminster go-ahead for controversial M/C Parking Tax that is set to hit all UK riders – but it also opens doors for serious legal challenges…

So, Westminster City Council (WCC) have finally decided to go-ahead with plans to make their ‘experimental’ and unprecedented pay-by-phone M/C parking tax a permanent measure. The decision by Cllr Danny Chalkley (right) to authorise new Traffic Orders to do this – as recommended by officers led by ‘this is not a revenue stream’ Alistair Gilchrist (left), will take effect on 25th January. Of course this is potentially very bad news for all UK riders as it could trigger a nationwide roll-out of new bike parking charges. If such charges do go nationwide it could cost the motorcycling community a staggering £93,000,000 per year, according to the Tax Payers Alliance who support objectors to what they see as a tax in all but name. But there is some good news. The leading opponents of the move NTBPT say that the WCC decision also opens doors for legal challenges on a number of fronts.

So, although WCC may regard the matter as closed by their decision, this is not the case as far as I am concerned and i am delighted to report that I am far from being alone in that view. And as I’ve reported a few days ago, some scallywags in our midst have been so angered by what they see as a totally unfair and unjustifiable scheme, that they have gone to the extremes of taking the law into their own hands. Within two days of me and other biker bloggers breaking news about this move, many signs explaining how the scheme works at M/C parking bays had been defaced. And, as regular visitors here will know, these shocking acts made the controversial charges technically unenforceable within UK Traffic Act regulations. But the facts as I see them are that the vast majority of protests and objections have been made in legitimate forms and superbly led by the NTBPT and their thousands of supporters who are the focal point for opposition to Westminster’s regressive scheme.

And, although I and others concerned with this nasty rider’s tax must stress that we can’t condone actions that cross the line into any forms of illegal activity, it was cheering to hear NTBPT chairman Warren Djanogly’s initial response to news of the WCC decision, which in his in his generally robust campaigning style was to say to me. “Let battle commence!” Now though, Warren has spoken in more measured tones to identify the basis for further challenges and work to get the charging scheme scrapped. “Cllr Chalkley’s decision to make the scheme permanent has opened a window for us to launch a full legal challenge.” In a nutshell what this means is that NTBPT are now proceeding with legal challenges having already raised the magnificent sum of £30,000 for a ‘fighting fund’ to cover legal costs.

One challenge is in the form of a formal demand for an official Public Inquiry into the legitimacy of the ‘experiment’ on which WCC based their decision to press ahead with the scheme. Other NTBPT challenges have prompted the District Audit Office and the Office of Fair Trading to investigate their claims and outlines of evidence that the council has breached various regulations that govern procurement and tendering procedures for UK local authorities. And, as my news story for MSL magazine highlighted, the EU Commissioners are also investigating what WCC may have been up to that wasn’t quite the way it should have been.

Yesterday I did the decent investigative thing and called WCC to get the latest on what Danny Chalkley had to say about his latest move . As you’d expect, he defended his decision and told me that he ‘understands’ that “charging to park is not popular with some motorcyclists”, but he also claimed that “it is fair and reasonable that motorcyclists, contribute to the cost of improvements and the maintenance of transport infrastructure.” But I have a big problem trying to accept this line of argument. In fact, as far as I can see, Danny has a big problem with it too. After all, as we all know now, thanks to diligent probes and many Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, the facts of life about the money already extracted from rider’s pockets show that this argument is unsustainable to say the least – and complete and utter tosh to be a tad more accurate.

The relentless barrage of  FOI requests forced the council to admit that they have already taken over £2 million from riders during the ‘trial’ of the charges. And even by their well spun calculations, WCC Inc. have already trousered a net surplus of at least £500,000 after all costs of ‘improvements’ and setting up their ultra sophisticated pay-by-phone system have been paid for.

So where are we now? Well, in the course of my attempts to scrape a living from writing about the stuff that bothers UK riders today, I did a round up of what the key players in our rider’s rights groups think and have to say.

What do Rider’s Rights groups and the Motorcycling industry say and call for now?

Updated Friday 15 Jan, 08.45 The first comments on this blog have been about the UK Motorcycle Industry’s position during the course of this campaign and now. In the light of that I have added a link to the MCIA page explaining their position in full and add what I regard as the most pertinent section immediately below and prior to my summary posted last night. I will be talking to the MCIA spokesman for Public Affairs soon,  hopefully today, and will encourage the industry to update it’s position now that WCC have decided to go-ahead with their scheme whilst retaining the ‘demand management’ objective as an official reason to impose new extra charges for the use of motorcycles and scooters in Westminster.

From MCIA Policy statement

“MCI is concerned that the justification for the parking charge may have moved from being one of paying for improved parking service provision for motorcyclists, to one of ‘demand management,’ intended to deter motorcycle use. WCC officials have sought to assure the Association that the basis of the charge is service provision.

However, the current Westminster CC ‘Unitary Development Plan’ (UDP) specifically states that parking charges for motorised vehicles are levied on the basis of ‘demand management’. MCI is opposed to many of the principles of the ‘demand management’ philosophy, as this has often been used as an excuse to discourage powered vehicles and in particular PTWs, and is urging WCC to clarify and resolve this apparent contradiction.”

Back to original summary…

Let’s start with the The Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCIA). And yes I know that there are some riders & campaigners who have been a bit frustrated by a somewhat restrained level of action regarding the M/C parking tax issue so far. But the MCIA position as I understand it is quite clearly that it wants the scheme withdrawn because a key official objective for the charges, in Westminster’s core policy document called the UDP,  is to ‘manage demand’ for M/C bays by introducing ‘fees’ to deter riders from parking and therefore using PTWs on central London streets.

MAG’s General Secretary, Nich Brown, put the debate over bike parking fees into a clear perspective earlier today and offers good advice about what riders can do and says this. “The argument that riders should pay to park on roads operated by local councils, is fundamentally flawed. Riders pay far more in taxes than the benefit they receive when using the roads. Every year the councils raid the money they should be spending to make roads safer for motorcycles by ensuring road repairs last more than five minutes and providing non-slip manhole covers and access to bus lanes.” He then added that “Until all councils ‘think bike’, there can be no question of charging to park on the street.” Nich then suggests that “MAG’s RAV campaign (supported by BMF and MCI) is giving thousands of riders an opportunity to quiz would-be MPs and councillors. ‘Why should I give you my vote?’ is one of the most powerful ways to get what we want.” (http://www.ridersarevoters.org)

Now as far as chairman of the NTBPT Warren Djanogly is concerned he has said this. “Cllor Chalkley’s decision to make the scheme permanent has opened a window for us to launch a full legal challenge. It’s going to be expensive but if just 5,000 bikers contributed £10 each (less than a tank of fuel), we can beat this evil stealth tax.” In response, the BMF has called on all UK motorcyclists to chip in whatever they can. Chris Hodder, the BMF’s Government Relations Executive said. “These parking charges run contrary to the Government’s aim to ‘mainstream’ motorcycling but the only option now available is to overturn the scheme in the courts. If we don’t, this could spell the nationwide end of free parking for motorcycles. Now is the time to stand up and be counted and support the NTBPT fighting fund.” Currently the fund stands at £30,000, but needs at least another £20,000 to meet the expected minimum legal costs of £50,000.

Finally, MAG’s campaigns co-ordinator Paddy Tyson summarises the current situation in a way that I agree with wholeheartedly. “The serious nature of this situation really shouldn’t be underestimated. MAG understands that all local councils are underfunded, but motorcycling is certainly not the resource they should turn to as an extra source of revenue.” He adds. “PTWs can help local authorities actually reduce costs, by reducing congestion and infrastructural damage as well as emissions, so motorcycle and scooter riders shouldn’t be penalised and discouraged. MAG fully supports NTBPT and urges councils around the country not to  adopt a policy which in essence is counter productive.”

Westminster’s top dog Colin Barrow leads Tory Cllrs who want a ‘Magna Carta for localism’ but is this good for the people or good for them?

News is breaking today that top Tory Cllrs are making their final push to get a  ’Magna Carta for localism‘ embedded in the Conservatives pre-election manifesto.

This could be very good news for UK riders in my view but not in a way that Cllr Barrow would like it. It is only fair to assume that many conservative councillors and MPs are in favour of a ‘localist’ emphasis – on the basis that it will help ensure that policy decisions are made in the best interests of people where they have greatest impact – namely at local level. But, and I have to say it’s a very big but in my view, there is often a very big gap between the real motives that politicians have for increasing political power at local level, and the seemingly well meant theories that can reassure us that everything they plan will be as lovely as it can be.

The last time I spoke to Barrow was before an exceptionally well attended full council meeting in which the ‘experimental’ motorbike parking charges/tax scheme was to be reviewed. He told me that his officers (led no doubt by Alastair Gilchrist ‘this is not a revenue raising exercise’ ) said that Westminster had ‘problems’ with meeting demand for bike parking in the borough. I told him that there was a simple solution to all these ‘problems’ and that is to look at what all comparable cities do. Throughout the EU and most of the developed world, local authorities recognise the invaluable positive role that scooters and motorcycles play in modern towns and cities – and do not see riders as a potential target for new taxes. Very sensibly and rightly, most transport authorities outside the UK allow riders to park without extra charges in the abundance of places they can use without causing inconvenience to anyone or cost to the council. Barrow looked nonplussed at my suggestion and could find nothing to say apart from “Oh, I see” Not quite true of course because it was clear to me that neither he nor his officers had bothered looking for ’solutions’ that didn’t involve creating a new tax.

Now though, in addition to various other challenges ahead for Barrow he may have a new and real problem. His fellow top Tory Councillors and key parliamentarians may start taking a very dim view of his council’s plans to pioneer a brand new local tax – to ’solve’ a bike parking ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist in any other world city. The real problem for Barrow and us all is that Westminster council has always led the way in screwing all the money they can, from any group of road users they can, in the form of parking ‘management’ and highly profitable privatised enforcement. But if the new Tory Magna Carter ends up being seen as a charter for councillors to impose more localised taxes, and especially on vulnerable road users in the form of PTW riders, it may not seem quite as attractive to the electorate as it’s promoters hope. This latest development of a new ‘Magna Carter’ and controversial measures for enforcement also begs other questions. Not least important of these concerns the way Cllr Barrow will be seen by his fellow politicians and the great British public. Will he be hailed as a ‘people power’ Baron or slide into disfavour as a greedy King John?

Protesters fightback against Westminster’s attempts to get cash flowing in again from bike parking tax

Westminster’s attempts to keep it’s ‘Stealth Tax’ for scooter  and motorbike riders is being subject to stealthy attacks by a secret army of angered citizens. I am reliably informed that protesters have already been out in force in London to fightback against Westminster’s attempts to get cash flowing in again from their controversial and widely hated bike parking tax scheme. And these latest events are happening only days after go-ahead was given to try and make the ‘trial’ charging scheme permanent. Reports are coming in from Visordown (thanks for latest pic) & the NTBPT campaign group to confirm that within hours of the council sending contractors out to replace defaced signs, the new signs have been rendered useless.

Fresh applications of paint have already been applied to many of the new signs to cover crucial details about the charging scheme and this means that charges or parking tickets can not be legally enforced by Westminster City Council.  As I have said before, I cannot condone acts of protest that can be regarded as vandalism. However, the facts of life in a democracy work like this. When officials with government powers end up disregarding a massive swath of legitimate objections to their plan for a new tax on a specific section of the public – and all legitimate paths for meaningful objection by individual citizens are closed – some individuals will take action that is outside those legitimate channels of communication from which they feel shut out.

In my view this current plan for a new parking tax is exceptionally ill-conceived and regressive, and I have done my best along with many others to explain why this is so to the bods who are responsible for creating the current mess. In essence, the key problem with this stealth tax and cause of so much anger is this. It is targeted at a specific group of citizens who work, live and shop in the central district of London who are all doing their bit to cut congestion problems by making essential journeys by motorbike or scooter. Penalising such a group with a new tax is IMHO, indefensible and mad!

And, the main reason that I can’t see objections to the tax ceasing in the foreseeable future, is that the target group for turning into a new local government revenue stream includes an extraordinary cross section of people. Powered Two Wheeler (PTW) riders range from nurses & other essential low paid workers to hospital consultants and couriers who are ensuring that the pace of business in the capital remains competitive with other world cities. So, the current situation looks like this to me. The income from the ‘trial’ of this parking tax scheme in the heart of the the capital run by Westminster Council has far exceeded any ‘benefits’ that the council originally said would justify new charges and fines to be imposed on riders. Correspondingly the only real reason for Westminster officials to try and keep this charging and fines scheme in place is to extract a bit more cash from a minority group of vulnerable road users aka bikers & scooterists.

Lastly, for now, I think there is one other thing to keep in mind. Although the defacing of signs is the most obviously ’sensational’ aspect of the latest events that can and I’m sure  will be labeled as vandalism by some who will tut accordingly, other very legitimate lines of protest are now open and are as I understand it ready to be actioned – including formal investigations by the EU Commissioners and the Audit Commission and at least two other legal challenges regarding the legitimacy of tendering processes etc, during the set-up phases for the scheme.