Vincent Camilleri writes:
A lot has been written about the frivolous and vexatious behaviour of the wardens towards the public. Analysing this perennial outcry one is led to believe that the wardens are now only there in order to politically obscure the government and as a means of maintaining their status vis-à-vis their salary and the generation of extra revenue to the local councils.
Apart from curbing some illegal parking, what have the wardens tangibly achieved? People are still parking haphazardly (and this is manifested by the thousands of tickets that are issued). Buses, government cars with GVN plates and other vehicles, even police cars, are still belching smoke to their hearts' content.
No fines in respect of littering are ever issued and rubbish plastic bags still adorn our doorsteps.
Lately, I received a booking for a one-way infringement and for not stopping at a warden's signal.
I wrote to the Petitions Board indicating primarily that, although it was my registered car in question, however I was not the driver, because apart from myself, both my wife and my son are insured to drive my car. Furthermore, I stated that according to a certain rule, a warden cannot issue a ticket unless he stops and books the driver personally.
To add insult to injury, the Petitions Board did not uphold my complaint and their regretful letter was delivered after the actual summons to appear before the tribunal. Needless to say I was penalised for a "no-show" and threatened with the usual extra penalties.
In this respect, I am sure I am reflecting the public's present negative attitude towards the wardens' behaviour. So may I humbly suggest that you contact the two warden companies on our behalf to ascertain whether the rules mentioned above are being respected, that is, that a warden cannot issue a ticket unless he stops the driver and whether it is within the rules to book the person on whose name the car is registered, even if he is not the actual driver.
It may also interest the readers of The Times to know whether there are any rules in Europe similar to ours.
This is not the first time I am featuring a complaint on the warden system in my column. And it will probably not be the last either because this is indeed a long-standing complaint.
It has to be said that the competence to set up and operate a system of local traffic policing, or a warden system, falls squarely at national level. And, therefore, the EU does not, cannot, come into this. So there is no remedy at EU level, this being a purely national issue.
Each country has its own rules and applies its own system, but most do, in fact, have analogous traffic policing systems. The system in Brussels, to mention but one example, is very rigorous, with cameras sitting happily on top of every traffic lights booking drivers who jump either the amber or the red lights.
It would not be prudent on my part to pass judgement on the merits of this specific case or on the applicable rules, although it does seem to me that an infringement of a one-way sign is difficult to justify unless the car in question was wrongly booked, as would be the case, for instance, if an incorrect number plate is noted by the warden. But this does not seem to be the case here.
The reader rightly sought a remedy with the Petitions Board, which is a board of review to which persons who feel they have been unjustly booked can now have recourse.
My understanding is that this new system, which has now been in operation for more than a year, is functioning relatively well and many complainants are indeed being given due remedy and their unjust contraventions struck off.
In all fairness this has been a good step in the right direction.
Having said that, it remains clear that the warden system remains a significant cause for complaints with many people - including those who favour discipline on our roads - finding wardens' behaviour unduly arbitrary if not outright repressive. Others feel that the entire system should be reviewed with the competence for traffic offences handed back to the police corps.
Regardless of the actual merits of his particular case, I do agree that the public complaints are not unfounded and that they do merit serious consideration.
As a minimum, wardens ought to be given more thorough training as it is not evident that all of them reach the required standards when dealing with people. It is bad to generalise, but let's face it, wardens are not known for their good manners with the public. So a lot more needs to be done on that count. And a regular audit of the system - with the publication of the ensuing results - would not be out of place. It does help to keep up the pressure to raise standards.
Public authority may well have been attributed to wardens by law. But, unlike authority, public trust is not attributed. It must be earned. And wardens must do more to earn it.
Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.