Sheffield drivers fined £80000 for car removal

[local music]

And I did I heard today that Sheffield City Council chose not to contest my appeal to the Parking Adjudicator, admitting that 'evidence shows that my car WAS parked on the street in question prior to the signs going up'. Well I have mentioned just once or twice that that was the case

 

Anyway thanks everyone for taking part in the lively debate. I do think that justice prevailed.

 

Sleep well all.

 

S x

Pleased for ya solitaire, woman out of my own heart, fight for what you think is right, instead of taking crap

 

---------- Post added 25-09-2016 at 17:05 ----------

 

Do you not realise that they are private sector "turnip heads" working for the contractor, Amey?

 

Yen mate ( ooops sorry you don't have any ) and the SCC

Edited September 25, 2016 by local music

[Solitaire]

Do you not realise that they are private sector "turnip heads" working for the contractor, Amey?

 

Of course. But they're private sector 'turnip heads' that Sheffield City Council got into bed with, aren't they????

 

S

[Planner1]

Of course. But they're private sector 'turnip heads' that Sheffield City Council got into bed with, aren't they????

 

S

 

They won an open tender process if that's what you mean.

 

They are not council staff though.

[Solitaire]

They won an open tender process if that's what you mean.

 

They are not council staff though.

 

I'm fully aware that they're not SCC staff. However, if Amey's work isn't up to scratch, isn't it SCC's responsibility to manage the contract and ensure that they pull their socks up?

 

S

[Eddie_shef]

Well done solitaire on getting your money back from them.

 

Hope that loads of others are also successful, and thank you for offering them help in advance!

 

Planner, would have thought you could provide some insight into what went wrong regarding the planned streets for works? From reading the posts, it does seem that Solitaire was completely in the right. Is there any way SCC or Amey could help make sure this doesn't happen again? Or is there any way in which they could refund monies taken incorrectly?

 

Thanks!

[Planner1]

Planner, would have thought you could provide some insight into what went wrong regarding the planned streets for works? From reading the posts, it does seem that Solitaire was completely in the right. Is there any way SCC or Amey could help make sure this doesn't happen again? Or is there any way in which they could refund monies taken incorrectly?

 

Thanks!

I have no idea what "went wrong" or indeed if anything did go wrong. I don't know the details of the actual case.

 

Amey are carrying out a £2 billion programme of works on pretty much every street in the city, which involves huge numbers of teams working on the different tasks being undertaken. Because of the nature of highway engineering works it is pretty much inevitable that there will be changes to advertised schedules of works.

 

For some operations, like resurfacing, the street needs to be cleared of vehicles. This is done via a temporary traffic regulation order, which lasts 18 months and is enacted as needed by erection of signs on street. Any vehicles left on street are in contravention of the order and can be removed. The council feel it is best to remove the vehicles to a safe compound where the owner can collect at a time of their choosing. Some authorities just move them to the nearest available on-street parking space, but personally I'd want my vehicle kept in a safe place.

 

Measures are in place to identify vehicles which were on the street when the signs went up, so appeals against the penalties can be assessed and people who were away on hols etc can get a refund.

 

No system of vehicle removal is going to be popular. There are lots of steps in the process where there can be human error, but I can't see how there can be a foolproof system. There are means by which drivers can appeal any penalty they feel is incorrect, which culminate in an appeal to a completely independant adjudicator. The people doing all aspects of this have plenty of experience, as the Amey contract has been running for about four years now. Quite a number of vehicles have been removed over the years and We haven't seen large numbers of people on here or in the press complaining of major injustice, so that gives some assurance that the system in place works adequately in the vast majority of cases.

 

---------- Post added 26-09-2016 at 15:14 ----------

 

I'm fully aware that they're not SCC staff. However, if Amey's work isn't up to scratch, isn't it SCC's responsibility to manage the contract and ensure that they pull their socks up?

 

S

 

It is, and they do.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Planner1

[Solitaire]

I have no idea what "went wrong" or indeed if anything did go wrong. I don't know the details of the actual case.

 

Amey are carrying out a £2 billion programme of works on pretty much every street in the city, which involves huge numbers of teams working on the different tasks being undertaken. Because of the nature of highway engineering works it is pretty much inevitable that there will be changes to advertised schedules of works.

 

For some operations, like resurfacing, the street needs to be cleared of vehicles. This is done via a temporary traffic regulation order, which lasts 18 months and is enacted as needed by erection of signs on street. Any vehicles left on street are in contravention of the order and can be removed. The council feel it is best to remove the vehicles to a safe compound where the owner can collect at a time of their choosing. Some authorities just move them to the nearest available on-street parking space, but personally I'd want my vehicle kept in a safe place.

 

Measures are in place to identify vehicles which were on the street when the signs went up, so appeals against the penalties can be assessed and people who were away on hols etc can get a refund.

 

No system of vehicle removal is going to be popular. There are lots of steps in the process where there can be human error, but I can't see how there can be a foolproof system. There are means by which drivers can appeal any penalty they feel is incorrect, which culminate in an appeal to a completely independant adjudicator. The people doing all aspects of this have plenty of experience, as the Amey contract has been running for about four years now. Quite a number of vehicles have been removed over the years and We haven't seen large numbers of people on here or in the press complaining of major injustice, so that gives some assurance that the system in place works adequately in the vast majority of cases.

 

---------- Post added 26-09-2016 at 15:14 ----------

 

 

It is, and they do.

 

 

Hmmm, you clearly seem to be an SCC insider, Planner1. My own 'man on the inside' suggests that: 'It isn't, and they don't'.

 

So ... who's right?

[Planner1]

Hmmm, you clearly seem to be an SCC insider, Planner1. My own 'man on the inside' suggests that: 'It isn't, and they don't'.

 

So ... who's right?

I am of course.

 

They have a team who manage the contract. I know the people who run it.

[Solitaire]

I am of course.

 

They have a team who manage the contract. I know the people who run it.

 

So let me get this right: the people who say that SCC is managing the contract well are .... the contract management team? Hmmm, well (in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies), they would, wouldn't they?

 

S x

[Planner1]

So let me get this right: the people who say that SCC is managing the contract well are .... the contract management team? Hmmm, well (in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies), they would, wouldn't they?

 

S x

 

Whether something is done well or not is rather subjective. It's also not the query you raised. You queried whether the contract was being managed. It clearly is.