Relates to complaint procedures in the N.Y. city parking violations bureau

To respond to complaints about hearing delays, confusing procedures and unequitable treatment. To ensure that an individual is afforded the basic elements of due process while contesting a summons alleging a parking violation.

Summary of specific provisions

Chapters 338 and 339 of the Laws of 1987 (improper dunning statute) established a mechanism whereby motorist could challenge notices from the NYC PVB demanding payment for previous- ly satisfied or wrongfully imposed tickets and to seek compensation for expenses incurred while trying to prove his/her innocence. This bill strengthens the original provisions by:

Expanding the amount the PVB can be required to payor compensate the motorist -- currently, out-of-pocket expenses are limited to the amount of the initial fine in question -- to include lost wages (maximum of $150 per day) for expenses incurred.

Reducing from six months to two months, after certain other criteria are met, the time within which the PVB must convene the special panel.

Setting a thirty-day limit within which the PVB must pay any money due a motorist, or else the PVB will owe the motorist double.

Requiring the PVB to publicize this complaint procedure with signs post- ed in conspicuous places in its offices.

The bill also amends various sections of the VTL pertaining to the impo- sition or accrual of penalties and the scheduling of hearings. The legislation prohibits parking violations bureaus from imposing penalties whenever a plea of not guilty has been entered, while the person contesting the ticket awaits a hearing. In addition, penalties shall not be imposed or accrued during an adjournment period granted by a hearing examiner pending final adjudication of the summons. Failure to comply with this provision may result in the complainant receiving and the PVB paying double the penalty wrongfully imposed.

The hearing shall be held no later than 30 days after entering a plea of not guilty. The agency shall notify the motorist of the date of the hearing, if requested. Failure by the bureau to comply with this

provision may result in the automatic dismissal of all charges related to the violation as modeled after section 237 subdivision 8.

Effects of present law which this bill would alter

Subdivision 1-a, Paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of Section 240 of the VTL is amended. The bill creates a new subdivision 1-b of section 240. The legislation also amends subdivision 1 of section 241 and paragraph (b) of subdivi- sion 1 and subdivisions 2, 3, 4, and 5 of 241-A of the Vehicle and Traf- fic Law.

Justification

The original Improper Dunning Complaint bill was enacted into law in 1987 because the PVB was dunning motorists for tickets that were dismissed as well as for summonses that had already been paid but not recorded. There were reportedly more than 400,000 such tickets between 1978-1981 and 80,000 complaints in just 1985 for the New York City Parking Violations Bureau. At that time, the motorist had no reasonable recourse and thus, many paid rather than going through the ordeal of trying to prove their innocence.

Media accounts and audits conducted by the New York State Comptroller have revealed the PVB computer, Summons Tracking and Accounts Receivable System (STARS), continues to impose penalties and send bills to motor- ists who have previously satisfied their summonses or had them dismissed. This problem is due in part to the fact that the PVB did not adequately test the computer system before placing the unit in opera- tion. Hence, the agency had no assurance that STARS would provide accu- rate and reliable data. Furthermore, the process of transferring the data from the old computer system was not adequately supervised. As a result, STARS files contain incorrect summons data. For example, several summonses that were previously paid were reinstated as not paid. Moreover, the comptroller found that the agency does not satisfactorily review the software or procedures used by its keying vendors and the vendor that processes payments for summonses. This not only damages the public image of the agency but also causes the PVB to incur the costs of preparing and sending unnecessary billing notices.

In fiscal year 1996, over 8,000 improper dunning complaints were filed involving more than 17,000 summonses. While a significant number of complaints have been recorded, a limited amount of compensation has been awarded. This can be attributed to the fact that many people are unaware of the compensation entitlement and thus, they are not being reimbursed for their costs. Hence, the bill strengthens the publicity provisions required of the Parking Violations Bureau in the original law (e.g., posters in public offices) and allows for additional expenses to be compensated (e.g., lost wages).

In addition, the bill requires all payments owed by the agency to motor- ists to be made within thirty (30) days or the motorist is entitled to double the award. Motorists usually wait several months before receiving their refunds and often receive no explanation as to the nature of the delay.

State reports and news articles have documented shortcomings and prob- lems with the adjudication process at the NYC PVB, especially the hear- ing-by-mail system. In some instances, where motorists mailed in "not guilty" pleas, the computer system continued to impose late penalties for unpaid fines while the disputes over the summonses were awaiting adjudication by an administrative law judge. Moreover, there are frequent cases where despite the issuance of penalty holds while a verification to determine the validity of a broken meter defense or a sign is conducted, penalties continued to accrue and notices demanding that payment were issued to the motorist. When motorists are found not guilty, the fine and penalties that have accrued between the summons date and date of disposition should be dismissed and notices to that effect issued. However, that has not always been the case and motorists have been dunned while the agency sends costly, unnecessary notices for penalties that were wrongfully imposed.

Finally, an adjournment of a hearing may be granted by the ALJ when additional information is required from the respondent. Those adjourn- ments should prevent the penalty cycle from continuing according to PVB regulations. However, it has been found that adjournments did not consistently stop the cycle. With a penalty posted and billing notices generated, respondents were led to believe that their cases were lost and thus, they paid their original fines and penalties prior to the final adjudication of their cases. With some of the motorists found "not guilty" or "guilty with a reduction", they were entitled to refunds that were not automatically issued by the agency.

The procedural and administrative problems in New York City demonstrate the necessity for this legislation. Moreover, to prevent similar abuses by other parking violations bureaus and to ensure uniformity, it is critical to enhance statutory provisions in the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

Enactment of this measure will strengthen existing remedies and allow for motorists to obtain the timely relief the Legislature intended with the enactment of the earlier legislation.

Prior legislative history

In 1992, the bill passed the Assembly and was delivered to Senate Rules. In 1993-94, the bill was reported from the Transportation Committee to Codes and from Codes to Ways & Means. In the Senate, the bill remained in the Transportation Committee. In 1995, the bill was reported from the Transportation Committee to the Codes Committee and from Codes to Ways & Means. A.5602 in 1999-2000; A.3623 of 2001-02 -In Transportation Committee. A3596 of 2003-04; in Transpor- tation. A.2776 of 2005-06 in Transportation.

Effective date

First of September next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.