1600 tickets issued by PCSOs without power to do so won't be reimbursed

Some Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in Cheshire have been issuing fixed penalty notices without the contractual authority to do so due to issues with their employment contracts.

However, having taken legal advise, Cheshire Constabularly has decided not to reimburse people who were issued a fixed penalty notice by a PCSO without the contractual power.

A recent review undertaken by the Constabulary, following issues identified at other forces, found that omissions in the employment contracts of a number of PCSOs meant that they were not contractually empowered to issue certain types of parking tickets. These contracts were issued during two periods – prior to 2006 and then after 2010.

Records for fixed penalty notices go back to 1st January 2007 and Cheshire Police estimate that some 1,600 tickets were issued by PCSOs without the contractual authority to do so.

It should be noted that this relates solely to non-endorsable Police Fixed Penalty Notices for parking offences, and not to those tickets issued by local authority staff.

Once Cheshire Constabulary identified the issue, all PCSOs were instructed to cease issuing fixed penalty notices. The terms of the affected PCSOs have now been brought in line so that all are now able to exercise the appropriate powers, and this power has now been reinstated.

Assistant Chief Constable Mark Roberts said: "No PCSO acted knowingly beyond their powers in issuing parking tickets to motorists, nor did the organisation knowingly permit PCSOs to issue tickets in the absence of an ability to do so. Indeed, appropriate and extensive training was delivered to all PCSOs to provide them with the knowledge and training to issue these tickets correctly.

"We have thoroughly reviewed our position. Following legal advice, we do not propose to reimburse those individuals who may have been given a fixed penalty notice by a PCSO without the contractual power. By paying the fine, motorists have admitted their liability for the parking violation; and administratively, the force cannot confidently identify those who may have paid the parking ticket.

"Whilst we are confident that all fixed penalty notices were issued in good faith, the Constabulary wishes to apologise for the uncertainty this has generated."

John Dwyer, Cheshire's Police & Crime Commissioner, said "I'm very disappointed that this mistake has been made.

"Having learned of this issue, and being mindful that other forces have had issues with some employment contracts, the Chief Constable has reviewed all of the contracts of our PCSOs and ceased issuing tickets while this review was undertaken.

"I have now been fully briefed on the results of the review. It is clear that previous chief constables wished PCSOs to have the power, but that an administrative error meant that this wasn't implemented. This pre-dates both myself and the current Chief Constable. While I remain unhappy that this issue has arisen, the Constabulary has acted to ensure all PCSO employment contracts now contain the necessary powers.

"PCSOs, who do fantastic work in our communities, were acting in good faith and were properly trained. This was an organisational issue for the Constabulary which I am confident they have resolved."

Tags:
Parking Tickets, PCSO
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Stuart Redgard
Thursday 10th March 2016 at 1:54 am
Oh dear! Cheshire Constabulary acting outside of the law. Whatever will happen next? Cheshire East Council Members or Officers acting outside of the law as well? We will just have to wait and see on the conclusion of the criminal investigation into ‘misconduct in public office’.

http://bit.ly/1QIoEjX
Pete Taylor
Friday 11th March 2016 at 12:06 am
The deadline for candidates to declare their intention to stand for election is 7th April.
Last time around John Dwyer received the endorsement of 7% of those entitled to vote in Cheshire.
According to his website he is paid £75000, plus (considerable) expenses. This is not a full-time position.

Anyone care to nominate me?
Jon Armstrong
Friday 11th March 2016 at 3:40 pm
Pete, since I assume your dig at him claiming expenses (which are actually rather modest when you look at Q3 and Q4 on his website) means you would be prepared to fund official business out of your own pocket, I can see clear advantages to Cheshire taxpayers if you were to be elected.

Perhaps you would state what salary you are prepared to to accept so we could consider your nomination?
Stuart Redgard
Friday 11th March 2016 at 8:39 pm
I do not wish to "have a dig" at Mr Dwyer. But I supported and independent candidate who stood in the same election as Mr Dwyer. I was considering standing at the next election in May 2016 but will not be doing so for a number of reasons. One of which is the cost of he deposit, which is £5000 and anticipated campaign costs of another £15,000! I assume (but iI could be wrong) that Mr Dwyer's deposit and election costs will be paid by the Conservative party. If anybody is willing to put up £5000 for the deposit and another £15,000 to fund the campaign then I would willingly reconsider.
Nick Jones
Friday 11th March 2016 at 10:53 pm
Pete.. a mere financial pittance ... don't let that put you off... You would make a great PCC/ Lord Mayor of the Shire !!!
Peter Bradley
Sunday 13th March 2016 at 9:16 pm
Having paid the fine, motorists have admitted their guilt. Rubbish, if the fine was not paid, then there were serious consequences and as a result, many people simply paid the fine. But that is not an admission of guilt. I believe that these fines were issued illegally, and have been supported by letters containing "threats with menaces " to ensure payment, quite illegal. As a consequence this money was stolen! Someone needs to be called to account and someone needs to pay back all this money, illegally obtained.
Dave Cash
Tuesday 15th March 2016 at 3:00 am
This 2009 Appeal Court decision
http://bit.ly/1RjpTSG
accepts that payment of FPN is not an admission of guilt, and if paid in allowed time, no further action for the offence can be taken.

I would suggest our sainted PCC John Dwyer should require the Cheshire Chief Con. to reimburse the 'illegal' Penalties to those affected and making a valid claim for re-imbursement by 30th June, (3 months), to avoid the risk of the income received being referred to the external Auditor as 'undue enrichment' of 2015-16 accounts.
Peter Bradley
Tuesday 15th March 2016 at 8:45 am
I agree 100% with the comments made by Dave Cash- illegally obtained money, pay it back now- undue enrichment us a serious crime
Clive Cooksey
Wednesday 16th March 2016 at 8:26 pm
If it was illegal to hand out those fine then in turn it is a damn site MORE illegal to trouser the money. That is plain robbery. Shame on you.