Local Council Fines

Remove the ability for local councils to fine people for:

Putting their bins out on the wrong day,

Having a slightly open bin lid

Not putting the right waste in the correct bin

And basically, for using draconian powers to scare homeowners into blind unquestioning obedience

Why is this idea important?

Remove the ability for local councils to fine people for:

Putting their bins out on the wrong day,

Having a slightly open bin lid

Not putting the right waste in the correct bin

And basically, for using draconian powers to scare homeowners into blind unquestioning obedience

Sentencing should mean what is said

If someone is jailed for 15 years they should serve 15 years to the day. If someone is fined £300 they should pay £300. If someone is given 100 hours of community service that's what they should do. No more no less. If the judge / magistrates want to take into account the potential of them behaving in prison just give them less.

Also if someone is say given a jail sentence of two years and a ban on driving for three the driving ban should start after their release from prison.

 

Why is this idea important?

If someone is jailed for 15 years they should serve 15 years to the day. If someone is fined £300 they should pay £300. If someone is given 100 hours of community service that's what they should do. No more no less. If the judge / magistrates want to take into account the potential of them behaving in prison just give them less.

Also if someone is say given a jail sentence of two years and a ban on driving for three the driving ban should start after their release from prison.

 

Make fines proportional to earnings.

If a fine is issued by a court or similar public authority to any person, for commiting any offence the fine should be calculated as a percentage of  the persons earnings.

Why is this idea important?

If a fine is issued by a court or similar public authority to any person, for commiting any offence the fine should be calculated as a percentage of  the persons earnings.

Department for Transport

from the  Ealing times news paper

A CONTROVERSIAL box junction in Southall has netted Ealing Council more than £1m in just 12 months. Nearly 19,000 motorists were fined after being caught on CCTV.

Jim Douglas, who runs consumer website Moneybox Junction which gives advice to motorists who believe they have been unfairly charged, said Ealing is the authority he gets the most complaints about.

He said: "It's disgusting. The council is not obliged to enforce,  

"However, it continues to send out tickets like confetti and whenever someone takes it to appeal it does not contest because it knows it is in the wrong."

Last week the Department for Transport (DfT) advised councils to pay back money which had been raised through unfair enforcement to motorists.

There were lots of complaints to ealing council but  there was a  blunt response from the council's was that residents should pay up or appeal.

The problem for residents is when you appeal you risk doubling the fine and that's one thing many couldn't afford – and hundreds were pressured into paying fines that should never have been levied."

Why is this idea important?

from the  Ealing times news paper

A CONTROVERSIAL box junction in Southall has netted Ealing Council more than £1m in just 12 months. Nearly 19,000 motorists were fined after being caught on CCTV.

Jim Douglas, who runs consumer website Moneybox Junction which gives advice to motorists who believe they have been unfairly charged, said Ealing is the authority he gets the most complaints about.

He said: "It's disgusting. The council is not obliged to enforce,  

"However, it continues to send out tickets like confetti and whenever someone takes it to appeal it does not contest because it knows it is in the wrong."

Last week the Department for Transport (DfT) advised councils to pay back money which had been raised through unfair enforcement to motorists.

There were lots of complaints to ealing council but  there was a  blunt response from the council's was that residents should pay up or appeal.

The problem for residents is when you appeal you risk doubling the fine and that's one thing many couldn't afford – and hundreds were pressured into paying fines that should never have been levied."

Fines for Anti Social Behaviour

To set out a standard list of penalties for those who spend a weekend getting so drunk that they require the public serviced to assist them.

If people wish to drink to excess and then require the services of the police, para medics, hospitals etc then they should pay the cost.

Why is this idea important?

To set out a standard list of penalties for those who spend a weekend getting so drunk that they require the public serviced to assist them.

If people wish to drink to excess and then require the services of the police, para medics, hospitals etc then they should pay the cost.

Law and fines

If a person steals a cycle which has a value of £200, which was not recovered, he would possibly be fined £60 to be paid back to the court.

WHY NOT DO THIS – make him/her pay the whole amount £200+£60 even if it takes years

if they are getting ssp ie-£10 per month till paid, If they get employment then should be paid quicker

If it is a car costing thousands its the same- they pay for the total loss including the fine no matter if it takes 8 years etc  

Why is this idea important?

If a person steals a cycle which has a value of £200, which was not recovered, he would possibly be fined £60 to be paid back to the court.

WHY NOT DO THIS – make him/her pay the whole amount £200+£60 even if it takes years

if they are getting ssp ie-£10 per month till paid, If they get employment then should be paid quicker

If it is a car costing thousands its the same- they pay for the total loss including the fine no matter if it takes 8 years etc  

Stop the arbitrary fines imposed by government departments

Stop the unnecessary fines being imposed by government departments. Business does not need any additional costs or having further time wasted challenging a fine.

The imposition of fines and the sending out of aggressive, threatening letters does nothing for the reputation of government departments.

There are also genuine reasons why a business may be late in providing a payment or a form.

Only a tiny minority of businesses fail to pay up for their own financial gain, a few will pay up within two weeks of the deadline and the majority will pay up on-time. However the threat  will be made to all.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the unnecessary fines being imposed by government departments. Business does not need any additional costs or having further time wasted challenging a fine.

The imposition of fines and the sending out of aggressive, threatening letters does nothing for the reputation of government departments.

There are also genuine reasons why a business may be late in providing a payment or a form.

Only a tiny minority of businesses fail to pay up for their own financial gain, a few will pay up within two weeks of the deadline and the majority will pay up on-time. However the threat  will be made to all.

Institutions that Fine should be liable to fines themselves

If I miss a late payment for my tax with the HRMC I am usually liable to a fine. It is my mistake and I have to pay for it. When the HRMC makes a mistake with my accounting and thousands of pounds go missing, I am not able fine them back. At best I can expect a muted apology from them (this has happened before!)

When I get onto the wrong train at the station, a genuine mistake the train operator makes no room for my error and will fine me or make me upgrade my ticket at a huge expense. When the train is late or cancelled at the last minute, there is no accountability to the passengers. How is this fair?

When I go overdrawn on my bank, the institution will have no problems with charging me with a fine. When the bank makes a mistake with my money (accidental double charges for instance) I have to point it out and get it sorted. Why can't I 'fine' them for their mistake?

Why is this idea important?

If I miss a late payment for my tax with the HRMC I am usually liable to a fine. It is my mistake and I have to pay for it. When the HRMC makes a mistake with my accounting and thousands of pounds go missing, I am not able fine them back. At best I can expect a muted apology from them (this has happened before!)

When I get onto the wrong train at the station, a genuine mistake the train operator makes no room for my error and will fine me or make me upgrade my ticket at a huge expense. When the train is late or cancelled at the last minute, there is no accountability to the passengers. How is this fair?

When I go overdrawn on my bank, the institution will have no problems with charging me with a fine. When the bank makes a mistake with my money (accidental double charges for instance) I have to point it out and get it sorted. Why can't I 'fine' them for their mistake?

Abolish the London Congestion Charge to get London working

I would abolish the London Congestion Charge in its entirety because it is a tax on the poor, a tax on the worker, a tax on the business and in accordance with the Turnpike Act 1683 the revenue generated is not spent on the roads but public transport which is fraudulent.

The law that needs to be abolished is the Road User Charging (Charges & Penalty Charges) (London) Regulations 2001 which may have reduced traffic a little and encouraged bicycle use but at £8 or perhaps £10 a day is totally unacceptable and a rip-off. This does not discourage use but prohibits use of the zone.

Anyway the charge is not an access charge but a road toll because buses, cyclists and the like don't have to pay it! Never mind the fact that there are computer problems with the system , number-plate cloning, parking problems outside the zone and the like.

Why is this idea important?

I would abolish the London Congestion Charge in its entirety because it is a tax on the poor, a tax on the worker, a tax on the business and in accordance with the Turnpike Act 1683 the revenue generated is not spent on the roads but public transport which is fraudulent.

The law that needs to be abolished is the Road User Charging (Charges & Penalty Charges) (London) Regulations 2001 which may have reduced traffic a little and encouraged bicycle use but at £8 or perhaps £10 a day is totally unacceptable and a rip-off. This does not discourage use but prohibits use of the zone.

Anyway the charge is not an access charge but a road toll because buses, cyclists and the like don't have to pay it! Never mind the fact that there are computer problems with the system , number-plate cloning, parking problems outside the zone and the like.

Remove the “conditional offer” of self incrimination

In the event of an alleged motoring offence (eg Safety camera evidence fo speeding), the Notice of Intended Prosecution gives an option of recieving a penalty and points "where there is evidence on an offence". RTA legislation allows the accused to pay the fine and take points on their license. In many cases, as this is the easiest route, even those who may not have been speeding will accept these penalties.

They have, in effect, been induced to admit to a crime they may not truly believe they have commited. To use a personal example, my choice was to accept the £60 and 3 points for an incident I would like to have contested, but would have lost at least a day's pay , far greater than the £60, and due to other personal circumstances, do not wish to put my partner through the stress of a court appearance.

The conditional offer is a pernicious route to revenue gathering and admission to guilt without trial – NOT in the spirit of innocent until proved gulity or proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

If we truly believe a breach of the law has been committed, then a court appearance should be the only route to levying any form of penalty. The conditional offer is tantamount to demanding money with menaces, and where the offer is accepted, if the accused has any doubt as to theri guilt, iis effectively equal to an inducement to perjury. 

If this  change represents an increase in overall cost to the state, it should be accompanied by an increase in penalties to cover this cost – the consequence of this change in legislation would therefore reduce unjustified penaly of the innocent, and raise the level of financial penalty for true motoring offences to a meaningful level, rather than the current token sums usually  levied.

Why is this idea important?

In the event of an alleged motoring offence (eg Safety camera evidence fo speeding), the Notice of Intended Prosecution gives an option of recieving a penalty and points "where there is evidence on an offence". RTA legislation allows the accused to pay the fine and take points on their license. In many cases, as this is the easiest route, even those who may not have been speeding will accept these penalties.

They have, in effect, been induced to admit to a crime they may not truly believe they have commited. To use a personal example, my choice was to accept the £60 and 3 points for an incident I would like to have contested, but would have lost at least a day's pay , far greater than the £60, and due to other personal circumstances, do not wish to put my partner through the stress of a court appearance.

The conditional offer is a pernicious route to revenue gathering and admission to guilt without trial – NOT in the spirit of innocent until proved gulity or proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

If we truly believe a breach of the law has been committed, then a court appearance should be the only route to levying any form of penalty. The conditional offer is tantamount to demanding money with menaces, and where the offer is accepted, if the accused has any doubt as to theri guilt, iis effectively equal to an inducement to perjury. 

If this  change represents an increase in overall cost to the state, it should be accompanied by an increase in penalties to cover this cost – the consequence of this change in legislation would therefore reduce unjustified penaly of the innocent, and raise the level of financial penalty for true motoring offences to a meaningful level, rather than the current token sums usually  levied.

CONGESTION CHARGE TIME TO PAY

ALLOW MORE TIME TO PAY THIS CHARGE (5 DAYS) ITS NOT PEOPLE TRYING TO AVOID PAYING IT THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A BUSY DAY YOU OFTEN FORGET! ALSO LOWER THE FINE TO £20.00. A JUMP FROM 8.00 TO 60.00 IS DAYLIGHT ROBBERY.THE PEOPLE THAT TEXT YOU A RECEIPT COULD ALSO TEXT YOU A REMINDER TO PAY AFTER THE 24 HOURS IS UP ITS NOT DIFFICULT BUT ITS BETTER FOR LONDONS REVENUE IF YOU FORGET.

Why is this idea important?

ALLOW MORE TIME TO PAY THIS CHARGE (5 DAYS) ITS NOT PEOPLE TRYING TO AVOID PAYING IT THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A BUSY DAY YOU OFTEN FORGET! ALSO LOWER THE FINE TO £20.00. A JUMP FROM 8.00 TO 60.00 IS DAYLIGHT ROBBERY.THE PEOPLE THAT TEXT YOU A RECEIPT COULD ALSO TEXT YOU A REMINDER TO PAY AFTER THE 24 HOURS IS UP ITS NOT DIFFICULT BUT ITS BETTER FOR LONDONS REVENUE IF YOU FORGET.

Non payment of fines/compensation/costs

Fines enforcement was taken away from Police to Court appointed warrants officers. they have not the time or resources to enforce them. Include the Police back in to the loop. I always dealt with warrants when persons were arrested even though it wasn't my remit. Most peopl have the wherewithall to pay, they choose not to, so let u get back to distress warrants and seize property, cars, TVs whatever and sell them off. Don't whinge about low payment rates,enforce it. 

Why is this idea important?

Fines enforcement was taken away from Police to Court appointed warrants officers. they have not the time or resources to enforce them. Include the Police back in to the loop. I always dealt with warrants when persons were arrested even though it wasn't my remit. Most peopl have the wherewithall to pay, they choose not to, so let u get back to distress warrants and seize property, cars, TVs whatever and sell them off. Don't whinge about low payment rates,enforce it. 

Civil Enforcement Officers

So-called Civil Enforcement Officers should return to being Parking Wardens. Their current powers to issue fixed penalties for offences other than parking ones, should be handed back to the police or, alternatively, to Police Community Officers.

Why is this idea important?

So-called Civil Enforcement Officers should return to being Parking Wardens. Their current powers to issue fixed penalties for offences other than parking ones, should be handed back to the police or, alternatively, to Police Community Officers.

Using CCTV to catch motoring offences

CCTV was set up to protect society by preventing and protecting from dangerous crime, currently it is being overused by councils and private companies to hand out fines for small motoring offenses.

The coalition government should put a stop to CCTV cameras being used to fine motorists for small driving offenses as CCTV cameras were not designed for this type of practice

Also there are now cctv cameras being driven around on smart cars to catch motorists and issue fines, and the majority of time these spy cars are parked on double yellow lines……..how unfair is that?

 

story link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292944/CCTV-spy-cars-rake-8m-fines-catching-nearly-200-000-victims.html

Why is this idea important?

CCTV was set up to protect society by preventing and protecting from dangerous crime, currently it is being overused by councils and private companies to hand out fines for small motoring offenses.

The coalition government should put a stop to CCTV cameras being used to fine motorists for small driving offenses as CCTV cameras were not designed for this type of practice

Also there are now cctv cameras being driven around on smart cars to catch motorists and issue fines, and the majority of time these spy cars are parked on double yellow lines……..how unfair is that?

 

story link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292944/CCTV-spy-cars-rake-8m-fines-catching-nearly-200-000-victims.html

Make public officials financially liable

The Chief Executive and the Board of Directors of public organisations should be personally liable for paying fines or suits against their organisations, and not the taxpayer.

Why is this idea important?

The Chief Executive and the Board of Directors of public organisations should be personally liable for paying fines or suits against their organisations, and not the taxpayer.

Stop Local Councils creating and setting fines

Councils will be fining us for breathing the wrong way soon.

I understand the need as people will abuse parking etc without a deterent but there are so many fines and they are huge.

Fines to be set and collected centrally then redistributed to stop councils using it as an underhand revenue source.

Why is this idea important?

Councils will be fining us for breathing the wrong way soon.

I understand the need as people will abuse parking etc without a deterent but there are so many fines and they are huge.

Fines to be set and collected centrally then redistributed to stop councils using it as an underhand revenue source.

Stop targeting motorists for filling revenue coffers!

There should be a law against unfair practises of Authorities, Insurers, Governments, Landlords (enriching themselves disproportionally through association with predatory clamping practises) who should refrain from unfairly targeting motorists as a source of easy revenues and Governments raising  taxes by placing VARIABLE RATES on fuel.  A FIXED rate is what is required. 

Why is this idea important?

There should be a law against unfair practises of Authorities, Insurers, Governments, Landlords (enriching themselves disproportionally through association with predatory clamping practises) who should refrain from unfairly targeting motorists as a source of easy revenues and Governments raising  taxes by placing VARIABLE RATES on fuel.  A FIXED rate is what is required. 

Stop Automatically Fining Us!

No fine or forefeit without a chance to put our case.  Scrap the automated autocourt system built by robots for robots.  Stop the disease of "penalty charges" infecting just about everything now.

If i get a parking ticket and a fine of up to £100 I want my day in court to fight my case.  Not an automatically generated letter by and automatically generated robot for an automatically generated fine.

Our lives are busy and stressful enough – work with us, not against us!

Why is this idea important?

No fine or forefeit without a chance to put our case.  Scrap the automated autocourt system built by robots for robots.  Stop the disease of "penalty charges" infecting just about everything now.

If i get a parking ticket and a fine of up to £100 I want my day in court to fight my case.  Not an automatically generated letter by and automatically generated robot for an automatically generated fine.

Our lives are busy and stressful enough – work with us, not against us!

Replace road fines with driver training

If the idea of road regulations is really about safety and not just a cynical form of stealth tax then let's have less fines and more driver training instead.

Points could be added onto licences for completing training courses and accident free driving (miles not years) instead of taking points off.

Why is this idea important?

If the idea of road regulations is really about safety and not just a cynical form of stealth tax then let's have less fines and more driver training instead.

Points could be added onto licences for completing training courses and accident free driving (miles not years) instead of taking points off.

Reduce the powers of local authorities

Local authorities are imposing petty rules which have applied excessive fines attached for minor matters such as over-filling waste bins,  These are simply money-making rackets given law.

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities are imposing petty rules which have applied excessive fines attached for minor matters such as over-filling waste bins,  These are simply money-making rackets given law.

Fines for not Recycling Properly

I HATE the fines one can get for not recycling properly. It is we consumers that  buy the food, we should not be forced to recycle and then threatened with a fine if we make a mistake. That is absolutely ludicrous. And its a hassle.

 

In fact, we should be getting paid for doing this type of labour. We already pay council taxes for our rubbish to be done away with and now the councils want to cheat us out of MORE money. Recycling should definitely be encouraged, but the government should look to encourage people to do this, like, offering coupons or something to make people want to do it.

Why is this idea important?

I HATE the fines one can get for not recycling properly. It is we consumers that  buy the food, we should not be forced to recycle and then threatened with a fine if we make a mistake. That is absolutely ludicrous. And its a hassle.

 

In fact, we should be getting paid for doing this type of labour. We already pay council taxes for our rubbish to be done away with and now the councils want to cheat us out of MORE money. Recycling should definitely be encouraged, but the government should look to encourage people to do this, like, offering coupons or something to make people want to do it.

Fiscal penalties (cash fines) for minor crimes.

We are always hearing that there are too many people in prison and young offenders’ places.  We also hear that whilst one person might receive a fine for a crime, someone else gets a custodial sentence for the same offence, whilst another person is also found guilty somewhere else in the country for the same or very similar crime but gets away with a telling off.  I believe, the general public are frustrated by the inconsistency of the courts and the length of time the whole process takes to bring someone to court.

Many crimes such as speeding, going through a red light, and other traffic / road related offences can be dealt with by a fine being imposed but often this isn’t a deterrent as it’s always the same amount.

I was once caught speeding in a 30 mph zone.  Instead of having points added to my licence, I attended a driver training day, which cost me £100.  This was the first offence I had ever committed.  However, I found that most of the other people there had already collected 6 or 9 points on their driving licence and often for repeated offences such as speeding.  The course certainly improved my awareness of driving and I believe made me a better driver.

However, there are many “minor” offences, which on their own are very unlikely to result in someone being sent to prison, not only for bad driving but also shop-lifting, theft, vandalism, etc.  If all of the minor offences were organised into groups and set out on a sliding scale of how serious they are, then a fiscal penalty (cash fine) could be more easily imposed by the Police, at the point of being stopped / caught / arrested.  Furthermore, to act as an ongoing deterrent; the fine issued should double in value each time

We could start with a minimum fine of £125 for the most minor offence such as dropping litter, £250 for the next level and so on, doubling the amount for each level.  Then if someone commits a second offence at the same level or higher, the criminal database would automatically double their fine.  This means that if a person goes about committing a series of minor offences, over a period of time (with a rolling ten year period used), they could end up paying £1000 for a third offence, then £2000 for a 4thand £4000 for their 5thminor offence. 

At some point, a person who is caught speeding in their car, driving through a red light or using their mobile phone whilst driving, is going to realise that having to pay double each time due to their previous actions and fine, will eventually deter them from how they go about their day-to-day life.

I believe a fiscal penalty system would also free-up the Police and courts to deal with more serious offences, so that prison can be the place for any non-minor offence.

Why is this idea important?

We are always hearing that there are too many people in prison and young offenders’ places.  We also hear that whilst one person might receive a fine for a crime, someone else gets a custodial sentence for the same offence, whilst another person is also found guilty somewhere else in the country for the same or very similar crime but gets away with a telling off.  I believe, the general public are frustrated by the inconsistency of the courts and the length of time the whole process takes to bring someone to court.

Many crimes such as speeding, going through a red light, and other traffic / road related offences can be dealt with by a fine being imposed but often this isn’t a deterrent as it’s always the same amount.

I was once caught speeding in a 30 mph zone.  Instead of having points added to my licence, I attended a driver training day, which cost me £100.  This was the first offence I had ever committed.  However, I found that most of the other people there had already collected 6 or 9 points on their driving licence and often for repeated offences such as speeding.  The course certainly improved my awareness of driving and I believe made me a better driver.

However, there are many “minor” offences, which on their own are very unlikely to result in someone being sent to prison, not only for bad driving but also shop-lifting, theft, vandalism, etc.  If all of the minor offences were organised into groups and set out on a sliding scale of how serious they are, then a fiscal penalty (cash fine) could be more easily imposed by the Police, at the point of being stopped / caught / arrested.  Furthermore, to act as an ongoing deterrent; the fine issued should double in value each time

We could start with a minimum fine of £125 for the most minor offence such as dropping litter, £250 for the next level and so on, doubling the amount for each level.  Then if someone commits a second offence at the same level or higher, the criminal database would automatically double their fine.  This means that if a person goes about committing a series of minor offences, over a period of time (with a rolling ten year period used), they could end up paying £1000 for a third offence, then £2000 for a 4thand £4000 for their 5thminor offence. 

At some point, a person who is caught speeding in their car, driving through a red light or using their mobile phone whilst driving, is going to realise that having to pay double each time due to their previous actions and fine, will eventually deter them from how they go about their day-to-day life.

I believe a fiscal penalty system would also free-up the Police and courts to deal with more serious offences, so that prison can be the place for any non-minor offence.

Civilian Video Enforcement

First of all I'm not suggesting we remove or reduce the number of Police out on the Streets AT ALL. I would like to suggest that a system should be set in place to allow citizens who want to, to upload video evidence that they have captured themselves. With the advent of technology, most members of the public carry a phone with video capability or other means of recording video.

CCTV is a very effective law enforcement tool, from alerting officers to an incident in progress that can be dealt with, to providing rhetorical evidence of crimes. Unfortunately CCTV is very inefficient, constantly recording and monitoring, even when nothing is happening. Again, I am not suggesting that CCTV system sin place right now be removed, just supplemented.

CCTV is often used to impose fines on people, from littering and public order disturbances to motoring offences. I would suggest that some kind of reward system could be put in place in event of a successful fine being dealt out (say 10-15%)..

Why is this idea important?

First of all I'm not suggesting we remove or reduce the number of Police out on the Streets AT ALL. I would like to suggest that a system should be set in place to allow citizens who want to, to upload video evidence that they have captured themselves. With the advent of technology, most members of the public carry a phone with video capability or other means of recording video.

CCTV is a very effective law enforcement tool, from alerting officers to an incident in progress that can be dealt with, to providing rhetorical evidence of crimes. Unfortunately CCTV is very inefficient, constantly recording and monitoring, even when nothing is happening. Again, I am not suggesting that CCTV system sin place right now be removed, just supplemented.

CCTV is often used to impose fines on people, from littering and public order disturbances to motoring offences. I would suggest that some kind of reward system could be put in place in event of a successful fine being dealt out (say 10-15%)..