More refunds for Britain's motorists ... have you paid your parking fine by credit card?

Register with us at http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk/ in order to support the campaign to expose lawless councils.
All profits go to support the various legal actions.
Check out http://www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk/ and see how we are prepared to be the David that takes on Goliath.

Meanwhile, our latest victory for Britain's motorists is reported in the Daily Telegraph.

Motorists set to recoup parking fines after credit card challenge

Motorists who have paid millions of pounds in parking fines are in line for refunds after a test case ruled that town hall surcharges imposed for paying by credit card are unlawful.

By David Millward, Transport Editor
Published: 9:00PM BST 10 Aug 2009

An estimated eight million drivers, around one in four of the total number on the roads, receive a parking ticket every year, paying an estimated £1 billion in fines.
Millions choose to use a credit card to settle the debt either by paying online or via a telephone service.

Related Articles
A mess over illegal parking tickets
Councils to use cameras to catch drivers
Illegal parking fines cost drivers millions
Motorists see £12.5m increase in parking fines
How to get revenge for your parking ticket

At least a dozen councils across the country are known to have imposed surcharges on motorists who do so, although campaigners believe the number is likely to be higher.

They include several London boroughs, including Camden - the council at the heart of the test case - and authorities from Calderdale in West Yorkshire to Wealden, in East Sussex.
But the practice of imposing the additional surcharge on drivers was challenged by a motorist in London.

His case, which challenged the 1.3 per cent surcharge in Camden, was upheld by the adjudicator.
The ruling applies to all fines imposed by local authorities including those outside the capital which have been given the right to police parking and keep the fines.
It also applies to fines imposed by councils for ‘moving motoring offences’, such as entering a box junction.

The adjudicator said councils could not demand money in addition to the fine for the offence itself.

Town halls were not, the adjudicator added, in the same position as commercial enterprises which were free to negotiate or impose additional fees on their customers.
As a result of the ruling councils which have imposed the illegal surcharges face an avalanche of claims from motorists.

Neil Herron of the motorists’ campaign group Parking Appeals, said he was ready to launch a class action to force town halls to reimburse motorists if they fail to do so voluntarily.
“Yet again we have exposed councils acting unlawfully in their pursuit of the motorist. Councils have a duty to act within the law at all times and yet again their greed, by trying to extract every last drop of cash from the motorist, is going to come back and bite them.
“In this instance they can have no excuses. The legislation is explicitly clear,” he said.
“The process of refunding motorists the full amount could not be simpler. After all they have all the details of the person who paid and, they will not be allowed to keep unlawfully derived income.
“If any council decides not to refund we are quite prepared to launch a class action on behalf of those fined unlawfully.”

An AA spokesman said: “These credit card charges have been outrageous. Councils have got their fingers burned and have been caught acting illegally. It shows the extent to which councils have been acting as a law unto themselves.
“Paying by credit card gives drivers at least some protection against fraud when paying on line. Also using the internet saves councils a fortune, compared to processing cheques or handling fistfuls of cash being brought into a parking shop.
“We expect councils across the country to stop these surcharges straight away of face thousands of appeals.”

The ruling was also welcomed by Peter Roberts, chief executive of the Drivers’ Alliance. “Councils are taking motorists for a ride with countless stealth taxes and petty fines,” he said.
“It is not before time their dubious activities have been challenged and every council must return the illegal charges without delay. The wheels are falling off the councils stealthy bandwagon and not before time.”

The Department for Transport also refused to defend councils which impose the additional levy on motorists.
“Parking charges should be used to manage demand and not to raise revenue,” a spokesman said.
“Our guidance to councils is clear that paying by debit and credit cards is more convenient for many motorists and is cheaper and more secure for local authorities so surcharges for such payments cannot be justified.”

A spokesman for London Councils declined to comment on the Camden case, saying it was up to individual authorities to deal with the ruling.

Meanwhile a spokesman for the Local Government Association, added:"Both local authorities and motorists should abide by the law. In this case, members of the public may question whether it is fair that they as council tax payers should bear the cost of collecting money from people who have broken the law but decided to pay their fine by credit card. Councils will be considering the implications of this decision."

Another little victory for the motorist ...

Well done to Durham County Council for volunteering the refunds immediately. If there is a Traffic Order problem then it also applies to tickets

Parking fine win is ‘one for the little person’ Monday 6th July 2009
By Gavin Engelbrecht

A COUNCIL could have to pay back thousands of pounds in parking fines after a lecturer successfully challenged an £80 ticket.
Margaret Bond appealed against a penalty charge incurred for parking on the banks of the River Wear, in Durham city centre.
She had rushed to the city’s Silver Street to help a teenage friend who was being harassed by a gang of youngsters.
When she returned to her Peugeot 307 – only ten minutes later – a traffic warden had issued a parking ticket.

Ms Bond initially challenged the ticket on grounds of insufficient signage but, after hours of reading through traffic law, she found more far-reaching implications.
Her ticket was issued for parking in Fowler’s Yard – not, as it should have been – for Back Silver Street.
Following a traffic penalty tribunal, the council said it would refund other fines paid for tickets for “Fowler’s Yard”.

A council spokeswoman said since the authority took over responsibility for parking enforcement in November last year, 132 tickets had been issued at the location.
She said: “We are unable to say if any of these were issued for Fowler’s Yard. However, if motorists are able to show that they have received a notice in this location with the name Fowler’s Yard on it, we will be pleased to refund any payment.”

Ms Bond said: “At first I was just relieved to get my friend back to the car and wanted to get home. But then I thought it’s time the little person fought back.”

The 55-year-old endured two unsuccessful appeals before, following a hearing at the Holiday Inn, in Seaton Burn, North Tyneside, on June 16, adjudicator David Binns ruled the council had not proved its no waiting restriction covered Fowler’s Yard and ordered the fine be cancelled.
Ms Bond, of Brandon, County Durham, has now established Best Play Fair, to campaign on consumer issues.
She said the group had 20 cases outstanding against banks, credit agencies, energy providers and local authorities and had recouped £4,000.
“I believe in fair play and I don’t think we’re getting it in all cases.
“Everybody’s got a story of being overcharged, or of being taken advantage of. Our mantra is – challenge it.”

For more information, email bestplayfair@tiscali.co.uk To challenge a Fowler’s Yard parking ticket visit County Hall, Durham City, or write to the council’s parking services.

More refunds to come ... this time Leicester City Council

If they are marking the bays 'so that they are clearer' according to the council's statement then there should be no alteration to the format. Anyone with pre and post photographs please forward them. We are building up evidence against many authorities.
Thanks also to council officials and Civil Enforcement Officers who continue to forward information of deliberate misconduct by colleagues. We can reassure you and others that such matters will be treated in the strictest confidence.

Drivers may get tickets refund over parking bay errors
Leicester Mercury
Wednesday, June 24, 2009,

Drivers given parking tickets may be able to claim a refund after it emerged the wrong measurements had been used for parking bays.
Leicester City Council workers are remarking many of the 240 bays in the city centre.
However, the authority has insisted it is only doing the work to make the bays clearer, and not because they are wrong.
It comes after a driver successfully appealed against a ticket he was given in a loading bay in the city because, he said, the dimensions of the space did not meet legal requirements.
The Leicester Mercury carried out its own checks on five random bays in the St George's area and found all were incorrectly marked out.

Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2002, lines marking out a pay-and-display bay must be 60cm long.
However, a slight leeway is allowed with gaps of a minimum of 60cm and maximum of 90cm between each one. However, in the city centre, several are not marked out in that way, which experts say makes them unenforceable. Therefore, tickets handed out are invalid.
See measures for Pay and Display bays
Measures for Disabled bays
Measures for split Pay and display bays
The council. however, said if the experts' comments led people to believe they could get their parking fines overturned, that would be "raising expectations which will almost certainly prove to be unreasonable".

Richard Bentley, a former North Yorkshire police officer, is now an expert witness on the issue.
He said: "The format for parking bays is set out in law and those laws cannot be ignored.
"A mistake in law means any money they have taken in those bays has to be repaid. Any tickets issued must also be repaid.
"Put simply, if the lines are wrong the fine is wrong."
Mr Bentley said there was no time limited on appealing against tickets handed out in incorrect bays.
It is not known how many people might be able to claim refunds on tickets given since the city took over parking from the police in January, 2007, but it could be thousands.

Between July 2007 and July 2008, the latest figures show more than 62,000 fines were issued in the city and drivers handed over about £2.7m.
It is also not clear how many of the bays are incorrectly marked, but the council said it was repainting up to 95 per cent.
The bays in question are disabled spaces, loading bays and on-street pay-and-display spaces.
City council traffic manager Andy Thomas said: "A person argued a loading bay was incorrectly marked. It was not contested because the issue was ambiguous and not because we recognised we were wrong.
"This work has not been prompted by any appeal.
"My main concern is all bays are clearly and accurately marked. While we are repainting, we will also check they are correct."
Mr Thomas said if any bay was wrong – adding he did not know of any – the council could rebuff appeals because there was "clear intent" to police parking.

Parking rule expert Barrie Segal, founder of AppealNow.com which has successfully appealed 50,000 parking tickets across the country, said that argument was "rubbish".
He said: "This argument that because there is intent to police bays, even if they are wrong, is the same rubbish councils trot out in these situations."
Mr Segal said the fact the council did not contest the appeal against the loading bay ticket "shows there is clearly something a miss".
He said: "They are measuring and remarking all of them, which suggests to me they are not sure if they are right.''

When the Mercury put its measurements and the arguments of the parking experts to the council, a spokesman said: "If people feel they have been harshly treated, our advice is that they should register a complaint via the council's normal complaints procedure."

PAID A PCN in an incorrectly marked bay?
ASSISTANCE
Click on here to open up a Leicester City Council complaint form
Complaint text:
It appears that the bay in which I received my Penalty Charge Notice was not marked in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The use of non-prescribed signs is unlawful and therefore all monies derived from such a mistake in law are recoverable under the principle established in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v The Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993].
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I would like copies of any internal communications the council holds with regard to the enforcement of non-prescribed bays and the instructions (including copies of any TSRGD 2002 drawings) given to contractors detailing what 'corrections' are to be undertaken.
Under the Data Protection Act I would like details of all PCNs issued to my vehicle(s) including any Parking Attendant or Civil Enforcement Officer notes, and any information the council holds on known signing deficiencies in the areas where my PCN(s) was/were issued.
Resolution text:
I would like a full refund of all monies paid for all PCNs issued to vehicle registration number...................(insert vehicle reg in bays which were not marked in accordance with TSRGD 2002 details)

Let the meltdown begin ...

The last few weeks have been rather busy, preparing matters for the High Court Judicial Review The case was lodged last Thursday and was widely reported here

However, there have been a number of developments over the last few weeks arising from the fact that we have submitted Freedom of Information requests to councils asking them for details of locations which they are aware have signs and lines which do not comply with the law and whether they are aware of any Traffic Order problems.

Sheffield City Council was the first to do the decent thing and offer refunds. 'Tramgate Fines to be repaid.' Read it here

As the responses start to come in some councils are 'confessing' to the press before we have a chance to go public. As a result, collective cries of 'mea culpa' are beginning to be heard across the length and breadth of the land.

Here are a few ... this one followed our highlighting of the problem across Lancashire ...

Blunder may mean refunds for Pendle parking tickets
Lancashire Telegraph

PARKING bosses face having to pay back fines worth thousands of pounds after it emerged white lines may not have been painted properly.

A DfT spokesman said: “Local authorities need to make sure they operate reasonably and within the law. More ...

... and then we met Haringey MP Lynne Featherstone and a few councillors and highlighted how many of the restrictions across Haringey were non-compliant ...

Council blunders make up 40 per cent of cancelled parking tickets
Hornsey and Crouch End Journal

NEARLY 40 per cent of parking fines cancelled at appeal last year were down to bungled council signs and road markings, the Liberal Democrats have claimed.More than 1,400 residents had their parking tickets cancelled from August 2007 to July 2008 due to Haringey Council error after appeals found road signs, markings and traffic management orders were at fault. More ...

... a local coffee shop owner in South Tyneside got in touch after getting a ticket in a loading bay ... trouble for the council ensued ...

Loading bay blunder could cost thousands
Shields Gazette
22 September 2008
By David MacLean

COUNCIL bosses could have to pay back thousands of pounds after it was discovered some of its loading bays were too narrow.

South Tyneside Council has suspended issuing penalty charge notices (PCNs) on all 45 of its loading bays while they are being reviewed and, where necessary, re-marked. The move comes after the Department for Transport told the council four bays in the Market Square and one at the western end of Smithy Street, next to Argos, were 20cm too narrow.

More ...

... and the most recent in Guildford, perhaps coming from the fact that it seems that after we asked every council in the country whether their Traffic Orders and signs and lines were compliant a lot of councils are hastily checking. It seems that they are all aware now how serious it is to take money from people illegally, and aware of the fact that the matter is set to become a lot higher in profile and The Motorist Legal Challenge Fund is likely to end up taking legal actions against those who think that they are above the law.

Legal blunder leads to free parking in Guildford
By Colin Parker 18/ 9/2008

GUILDFORD’S shoppers can temporarily park on the town’s streets without having to pay following a legal error.

Signs were put up this week near the 495 on-street pay-and-display bays advising motorists about the situation.

The suspension in charging, which does not affect off-street parking or yellow lines in Guildford, is likely to last until November.

Experts working at Surrey County Council (SCC) noticed a mistake in the authority’s written parking order, which has meant all fees and fines are invalid. More ...