Council rejects warden's claim no money is left

Ennis Town Council has rejected as "so incredible as to be unbelievable" a claim by a traffic warden, who allegedly took €394…

Ennis Town Council has rejected as "so incredible as to be unbelievable" a claim by a traffic warden, who allegedly took €394,000 paid into parking ticket machines, that he had no money left.

The council did not accept the claim by Mr Chris Harford that he had a "shopping problem", Mr Michael Howard, for the council, told the High Court.

Mr Harford, of Kilmaley, Ennis, Co Clare, was ordered by the High Court last December to disclose what he did with the money, which he is alleged to have taken from parking machines at Dunnes Stores public car-park in Ennis. He is also the subject of a court order preventing him reducing his assets in the State below €350,000.

An earlier hearing was told that Mr Harford was responsible for collecting money from the machines in the Dunnes car-park from October 1999. An investigation into money paid into the machines and money returned to the council had shown that about €394,000 was missing. In December, Mr Justice Kelly directed that Mr Harford disclose what he did with the money, his bank accounts and his assets.

READ MORE

Mr Howard said that Mr Harford had filed an affidavit in purported compliance with the court's order. In it, he claimed that he had no money now and that he had spent amounts on holidays, mobile phones, clothes and socialising, including eating out.

He had bought a ride-on lawn-mower, spent €9,000 on the gardens of his home and €5,000 on structures to protect his motor vehicles. He had also bought a power-washer, a car trailer and an industrial vacuum cleaner.

Mr Howard said Mr Harford had sworn in that affidavit that he could not explain or understand where the money had gone. An examination of a number of bank and other accounts showed that large sums were lodged - and withdrawn shortly afterwards - in a period from July 2000 to October 2002, and those accounts contained no money.

The council was not satisfied with Mr Harford's answers to its questions and was seeking to cross-examine him about what happened to the money.

Counsel for Mr Harford conceded that his client did not appear to be denying that the money was taken, but his affidavit contained a dearth of information.

Mr Justice Kelly said that he would not make an order for cross-examination of Mr Harford in this unusual case because he did not believe such an order would serve any purpose. Rather, he would order Mr Harford to file a proper affidavit in seven days.