Are you appealing enough? Careful where you Parke!

Not a question to decide whether you appealing or attractive to the opposite sex but a question as to why more people don't challenge their PCN.
Real reason is that having a 50% discount for early capitulation levelled at your head makes most people think that it's not worth the fight no matter how unjust or unfair the PCN is.

However, your chances of success are quite high and don't always take it for granted that the council will win should you fight all the way to adjudication. It is sometimes the underdog who causes the upset!

Drivers Told To Fight Unfair Parking Tickets
Friday June 03, 2011
Lulu Sinclair, Sky News Online

Motorists are being urged to consider contesting car parking tickets if they think they have been given one unfairly.

Fewer than 1% of drivers took issue with their fines in 2009/10 out of a total of almost 4.25 million tickets, according to the chief adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

But of those who did, just under 60% won their case, Caroline Sheppard revealed.

She is head of a team of 24 lawyers who rule on appeals from dissatisfied drivers within the 250 or so councils in England and Wales which are responsible for parking tickets.

The adjudicator makes her plea in a new report which says councils on the whole are issuing slightly fewer tickets than before.

"Parking tickets are a strong source of revenue for councils "

"The aim of the tribunal is to provide an easy, convenient, fair and informal service for motorists," Ms Sheppard said.

"We believe it is important for people to understand better the rules and regulations, for councils to exercise discretion in cases where it is due, and finally, for people to know that they have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator if they want to continue to challenge a penalty after the council has rejected their case."

A spokeswoman for the tribunal chief said she was keen to let people know there was an appeal system, if they thought they were being unjustly treated.

"This is open and accessible to motorists who think they have a case and we want to make sure people know about it."

Another source of irritation among drivers is the private parking system where parking fines are disproportionate to the "crime", and the chief adjudicator is calling for an independent ombudsman to be set up, to allow rights of appeal to drivers.

Take Parking Tickets To The Tribunal
The Traffic Penalty Tribunal deals with the final stage of the appeals process.

You can appeal to it if:

:: You have been issued with a Penalty Charge Notice by a council.

:: You have already made a formal appeal in writing to the council.

:: The council rejected your appeal and sent you a Notice of Appeal form.

:: You then have 28 days to appeal to the tribunal.

Source: Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Neil Herron, the former metric martyr turned campaigner for fairer parking, is pleased motorists are being made more aware of what they can do but warns it is a Catch 22 situation.

"The more people know about methods of complaint, the more they will use them and the more overloaded the system will eventually become."

He remains sceptical that councils use parking restrictions as a way of managing traffic, arguing that they are a growing source of revenue, particularly when central funding to councils is being cut back.

"Councils rely on people just paying up," Mr Herron told Sky News Online.

"You usually have the incentive of 'half-price' fines for 14 days so you're taking a risk if you decide to appeal. If you lose, you'll have to pay double right away.

"But remember, your chances of success are greatly approved once you get into the formal legal process, so don't be put off.

"The rules are built on unstable foundations. If you feel that your ticket has been unfairly or unjustly issued, then fight it. You stand a good chance of winning!"

Parking tribunal Chief tells councils to show common sense

Perhaps the motoring public would have more faith in the system if decisions by the TPT were consistent ... and applied the law in relation to signing. We have seen many instances where they chant the mantra 'no reasonable person could have been misled' which is at odds with regard to the fact that signing must comply with the law. PATAS on the other hand is far more consistent in its approach. However, new developments on a number of fronts will shake this 'industry' from top to bottom ... and the recent arrest and pending trial of a council officer for misconduct in public office will cause a great deal of consternation as whistleblowers queue up to ensure that they are not tarred with the same brush.

The Sunday Telegraph
By David Harrison

10 Oct 2010
Caroline Sheppard, chief adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, accused some local authorities of operating a "zero tolerance" approach to minor infringements.

She suggested that motorists who are given parking tickets for petty breaches of the rules should be let off if they appeal against the penalties. Mrs Sheppard complained that motorists were being punished for such offences as leaving one wheel over the white line of a car park bay, or failing to display their pay-and-display ticket correctly.

In such cases, drivers whose penalties were upheld on appeal to town halls have subsequently had them overturned by the tribunal.
Last year the tribunal received more than 12,000 applications to overturn tickets. In more than 60 per cent of cases it ruled in favour of the motorist.

The intervention by the chief adjudicator comes after The Sunday Telegraph's Campaign for Fair Parking highlighted cases where councils have carried on issuing tickets in areas where they knew the signs were illegal. Mrs Sheppard accused councils of failing to exercise their discretion when penalties were challenged, and called for "an outbreak of common sense" over trivial cases.
She urged motorists to appeal against penalties if they think they have been dealt with unfairly or illegally.
She said: "Motorists must appeal if they have any doubts over penalty charges. People want to explain but we only see what comes before us, so let us look at it."

The chief adjudicator said she was concerned that too many councils were failing in their statutory duty to give proper consideration to representations made by motorists contesting penalties, or to evidence offered in mitigation.

She said that motorists' letters of explanation to town halls were often dismissed with a standard response letter of one or two lines – a practice which suggests that their arguments "had not been considered properly or fairly".
Many councils were "unwilling or unable to consider challenges based on mitigating circumstances", Mrs Sheppard said.

Mitigation pleas are common in cases where a ticket had been issued because of a failure to display a permit, disabled parking badge or pay-and-display ticket.
Many councils had taken the "extraordinary" view that it was somehow "fairer" to reject all representations, she said.

Adjudicators had seen this explained in letters of rejection in which council officials said it would be "unfair" on people who had paid a penalty charge if those who made representations were "let off".

Mrs Sheppard, a barrister, also criticised the rising number of appeals that councils failed to contest at the tribunal, saying: "I don't understand why local authorities reject drivers' representations and then go no further."

The tribunal, which covers all of England and Wales except Greater London, considers cases where motorists have received a parking ticket then appealed to the town hall, which has upheld the decision.

It received 12,423 submissions last year, an increase of 11 per cent on the previous year's figure.Of cases decided by the tribunal, 34 per cent were won by the motorist because the council did not contest the case and a further 28 per cent were decided in favour of the motorist after the adjudicator considered and rejected the council's arguments, meaning that 62 per cent of all appeals were successful.

In nine out of the past 10 years, the proportion of successful appeals has been over 60 per cent.
Last year in 28 areas more than half of all appeals went uncontested by the local authorities concerned.

Areas with the highest proportion of tickets overturned at the tribunal in 2008/9, the most recent figures available, included the Medway towns in Kent, where 360 motorists appealed to the tribunal and 91% were successful, and Slough, where 246 appealed and 84% were successful.
The chief adjudicator declined to comment on councils which instructed enforcement officers to issue tickets despite having being warned that their regulations or signposts were legally flawed.
But she said it was "regrettable" that the tribunal was still being asked to determine appeals against penalties issued on streets where road signs were misleading and confusing.

In some cases, the tribunal has told councils to ensure that their parking officials receive guidance from their legal teams.

Parking tickets can only be issued when a motorist has broken a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), or bylaw, that has been made correctly by the local authority.
Mrs Sheppard said that adjudicators were "bewildered" by some TROs, and called for greater clarity so that parking signs were clear and unambiguous.
The most common appeals were over pay and display tickets, "signs and lines", vehicle ownership, loading and unloading, penalty charge notices not issued or not on the vehicle, residents and visitors permits, and disabled bays and badges.

Most (57 per cent) of appeals are dealt with by post, 35 per cent by personal hearing and 8 per cent by the recently introduced telephone conference, the latter up from 12 in 2008 to 167 last year.

Police seize documents from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Let us hope that the Police leave no stone unturned in this investigation. It follows closely on from the admission from the Council that the Traffic Orders for the Devon and Exeter hospital car parks have 'not been legal' since 2008. This will then go to the core of Devon's application to the Department for Transport for Civil Parking Enforcement powers.

Furthermore, it is understood that Mr. Harry has instructed a firm of London solicitors to represent him and that a private action is being considered against a number of individuals.

His case is also being assisted by the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund.

Councils' parking tribunal evidence probed by Exeter police
Tuesday, February 23,

POLICE are investigating allegations that a council employee falsified details on a map which was given as evidence at a tribunal.
The probe was launched after concern was raised by Peter Harry who was given a penalty charge notice after he left his car parked in Southernhay East, Exeter, in March last year.
The 67-year-old from Dawlish appealed against his fine and took the matter to a tribunal. He claimed the markings on the road were not legally correct.

An adjudicator ruled against him but after obtaining evidence from the tribunal, held in Manchester, Mr Harry went to the police with his concerns prompting a criminal investigation.
He claims that a council worker from Exeter City Council or Devon County Council, both of which have responsibilities for administering parking in the city, had realised that Southernhay West had been wrongly put as the location on the penalty notice and had changed it to Southernhay to defend the appeal.

He said: “The councils provided a map, showing the location of my vehicle, underneath the marked reference placed on the map is the word Southernhay. On the PCN the location is given as Southernhay West.
“In actual fact I was parked in Southernhay East which would have made the PCN invalid. But sooner that cancel the ticket, I believe they decided to take another route in order to enforce the unenforceable by doctoring the map, which is an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”

Devon and Cornwall police confirmed yesterday that an allegation of perverting the course of justice was currently being investigated.

A spokesman said: “Police have made preliminary inquires following an allegation of perverting the course of justice in relation to documents being altered to assist a prosecution. At this stage we have not established if a crime has been committed so it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.”

It is understood that senior officers have been to Manchester and have seized documents which had been filed in relation to the appeal.
It is not clear at this stage which authority was responsible for carrying out the alleged alteration of the map.
No one from either the county or city council was available for comment yesterday

Is the Traffic Penalty Tribunal independent and impartial? You decide

The lady on the left is Caroline Sheppard, the Chief Adjudicator for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal of England and Wales.

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal's only source of income is 60p from every Penalty Charge Notice issued in the country (outside of London).

After over two years of obfuscation and evasion, including a side-stepped Parliamentary Question we have finally received answers to questions ... but only after we raised the objection with the District Auditor. It has been decided to place this information in the public domain. This material was not disclosed by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal in the recent application to the High Court.

Even Lord Adonis, the Secretary of State for Transport seemed unable to provide the answer.

However, perhaps the following answers will assist Lord Adonis and Central Government. The first is from Manchester City Council:

However, the most damning revelation and one which seems in clear breach of Article 6(i) ECHR has been provided by Sarah Howard of Grant Thornton, the District Auditor for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

There is a further case pending before the High Court.

It is Glenn Dickinson v The Parking Adjudicator and Glenn raised the point that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal were not independent or impartial. This evidence has been made available to Glenn. The date for his case has yet to be fixed.

The Yorkshire Post reported on Glenn's case earlier in the year:

'Boost for legal bid to win back millions in parking ticket refunds.'

The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund, fighting for justice on behalf of Britain's Motorists is ready to support this and other cases.

Manchester City Council MUST refund all the money

There are two angles to this story which need further investigation:

1. The statement "We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," by Assistant Chief Executive Vicky Rosin is outrageous and could lead to any unlawfully charged motorist, ratepayer or councillor making a complaint of misconduct in public office. Why would the motorist need to contact the council? The council have their details.
The council are aware that the Penalty Charges were unlawful.
The council are aware that they cannot retain unlawfully derived income.
The District Auditor needs to be contacted immediately.

2. The 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal is funded solely from PCN revenue at the rate of 60p per PCN. They will have received £10,800 from Manchester's unlawful PCNs and will therefore have been similarly 'unjustly enriched.' As the lid starts coming off this whole sorry can of worms our elected representatives will be forced to initiate an inquiry into why all of the employees of the 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal are actually employed by Manchester City Council.

18,000 drivers had illegal fines
BBC News 18th September 2009

The council's cameras were not certified until May 2007
More than 18,000 fines handed to motorists caught driving in bus lanes in Manchester were illegal, the local authority has admitted.

The drivers were all caught out by cameras between October 2006 and May 2007 - before they were approved for use in bus lanes.

Manchester City Council believed the cameras could be retrospectively certified - but lawyers ruled it out.

It could now face a payout of more than £544,000 to drivers who were caught.
All bus lane cameras in the city have had Department for Transport approval since 24 December 2008.

Administrative error
The uncertified cameras came to light during a review of its bus lane enforcement.
Vicky Rosin, assistant chief executive, said the "deeply regrettable administrative oversight" took place in the early stages of bus lane enforcement.
"We have taken steps to notify the public as soon as this technicality came to our attention. We apologise for this mix-up," said Ms Rosin.

People who think they have been issued with a penalty charge notice by one of the cameras during the relevant period have been advised to contact the council.
"We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," she added.
"However, we want to remind people that all of our current bus lane enforcement cameras have full approval and we remain determined to ensure that bus lanes stay free-flowing for the benefit of public transport users and to help prevent congestion."

Another big parking High Court case set to expose the 'independent' parking adjudication service

It has taken years to force Manchester City Council to admit that all Traffic Penaltty Tribunal staff are employed by the council. Do you perceive that you will get a fair hearing?

Boost for legal bid to win back millions in parking ticket refunds
Yorkshire Post
31 August 2009
By Alexandra Wood

A LANDMARK parking ticket case which could see millions of pounds being refunded to motorists has been given a major boost.
The legal bid by engineer Glenn Dickinson, who was landed with five parking tickets after parking on a verge near his home in Hull, will be heard by the High Court later this year.Mr Dickinson, 62, believes the system where tickets are issued by councils and policed by a body called the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, is illegal.

Now new information has come to light which raises fresh doubts about the independence of the TPT. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act have confirmed that administrative staff working at the "independent" tribunal, including the tribunal manager, are Manchester City Council employees – in apparent contravention of European Human Rights legislation.

Mr Dickinson, who could lose his home and business if his legal action fails, says the new evidence is vital: "Article 6(i) of the European Convention on Human Rights allows me to have my case heard before an independent tribunal."How on earth can a body be perceived to be independent when its staff are all employed by the council and the people who are charging the fine are paying the people who adjudicate it?"

He said: "It was a nightmare getting the information out of them – it took more than 70 requests."They have finally admitted that the head of the administrative staff is employed and paid for by Manchester Council."
The adjudicators are appointed by them and sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor. However they are employed and paid by the council."The judicial system states quite categorically that in order for it to be totally independent it must have no connection however small, either monetary or personal, with one party or the other."

He said: "I am doing this because the council tried to rip me off for five parking tickets. Leader of Hull Council Carl Minns said on Politics North, on BBC1: "What's a splash of yellow paint?" It made my blood boil because it shows total contempt that the council have for the people and businesses of Hull – they use us as cash cows."

The tickets were issued under the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement scheme, which allowed councils to take over parking enforcement and keep the money raised from fines. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal is the final stage of appeal for motorists against a penalty issued by a council in England and Wales, outside London.

However it is totally reliant on income from parking tickets – 60p on each ticket issued. Manchester Council is the lead authority, "the headquarters" for parking enforcement for the whole country outside London.

Mr Dickinson is being supported by Neil Herron, campaign director for the pressure group Metric Martyrs and the Motorists' Legal Challenge Fund.

Mr Herron said: "We are not opposed to proper fair parking enforcement but what we have now is a stealth tax which is used by councils to fill holes in their budget and the motoring public has become a victim."

Mr Dickinson challenged the tickets at TPT, formerly the National Parking Adjudication Service, but had his case rejected twice. As a result he took the case to the High Court. Mr Justice Ouseley allowed an adjournment to provide time to compile evidence against the national Deregulated Parking Enforcement scheme and the TPT.

Last December leave was granted for a full review which is expected to be heard towards the end of the year.

Manchester Council said it would be inappropriate to comment.

One small step for a motorist ...one giant leap for justice

In an upstairs function room in the Marriott Hotel on Tuesday a little ray of sunshine shone through the window as the waves crashed onto Seaburn beach below.

The room was set out for a Traffic Penalty Tribunal hearing. There were various appellants v Sunderland City Council before Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicator Mark Hinchcliffe, who reassuringly stated that he also sat as a judge.

Sunderland were represented by Parking Services' Julie Tunstall and also present were Assistant City Solicitor Elaine Waugh and Highways Engineer Paul Robinson who clutched a very dusty version of the 1985 Traffic Signs Manual (repealed more times than a Groundhog day apple) as if his whole career depended on it to attempt to justify Sunderland's use of non-compliant bays.

Sunderland City Council's Parking Services Manager Earl Belshaw was conspicuous by his absence.

Mr. Belshaw has presided over Sunderland's shambolic decriminalised parking enforcement regime since its inception in 2003 and has been in the national media spotlight since the first Trevor McDonald 'Tonight' Special which was followed by a BBC expose which led to the sacking of a large number of Parking Attendants and the removal of National Car Parks Ltd. from the enforcement contract. The programme provided convenient scapegoats for the council and a welcome diversion from the council's unlawful restrictions.

Ever since the DfT were misled into granting DPE powers Sunderland has been continually correcting and covering up their mistakes and amending incorrect Traffic Orders. However, after over 4 years of investigation and evidence (including documents from the DfT reminding the council that their actions were unlawful) we appear to be seeing the beginnings of justice finally prevailing.

As we have always maintained, there are some very good councils out there who endeavour to act in accordance with the law and apply a sensible and fair approach to enforcement. However, there are some officials who have forgotten that they are public servants and who think that they have the power to behave in the most Draconian manner and with a cavalier and reckless approach to the law.

The decisions...

Unlawful Traffic Regulation Order
One of the first cases heard on Tuesday was Herron v Sunderland ... for a PCN issued in a dual-use loading / parking bay in Derwent Street. Now this location was one challenged previously before adjudicator Andrew Keenan and was where Sunderland City Council had misled the Secretary of State into granting Special Authorisation for the 'non-prescribed' dual-use bays by stating that they would mark the bays to the minimum required ... 2.7m.

The bays are only 2m wide and not wide enough to fit a HGV into!

Documents obtained under FoI showing this deception were submitted to the tribunal. Officers at the Government Office for the North East had previously suggested that the use of narrow loading bays could be considered 'entrapment.'

However, the critical point came when the adjudicator was taken to the description of the location at Item 548 in the TRO. Sunderland had become a little muddled in their drafting ... getting their east confused with their west (or using legal terminology not knowing their arse from their elbow).

Mrs. Tunstall said it was simply a 'typing error.' Christopher Latham Sholes shifted uncomfortably in his grave. Perhaps he put the 'w' 'e' 'a' and 's' a little too close together. (He invented the typewriter).

Wonder why Sunderland didn't spot the error when it had been pointed out in every single representation for this location that they kept rejecting? Perhaps if they had it would have undermined the adjudicator's decision. Perhaps if they had then everyone would have started digging a little further. Perhaps if they had all the traders in Park Lane Village shopping village who had been persecuted by Parking Attendants would have been even more aggrieved. Perhaps Captain D W Green who had spent years trying to expose Sunderland council's legal department's incompetence might have finally been vindicated.

Good job they hadn't ended up trying to defend that one with £50,000 of public money in the High Court (FoI response in October 2008 indicated that Sunderland had spent £36,000 of Sunderland ratepayer's hard earned cash on Stephen Sauvain QC and others legal advice in relation to issues arising from the council's parking shambles). I am sure that the Sunderland Echo will be requesting an up to date figure of the money spent on lawyers and a number of councillors will now be demanding the full external investigation that was promised by the previous Chief Executive. No more whitewash ( or yellow paint wash). No more sweeping matters into the gutter.

How much cheaper in the long run would ' We are sorry, we got it wrong' have been?

One day's news, a few refunds and respect. As a nation we are the hardest to fight but the first to forgive.

No-one at all criticised Sheffield City Council when they did it, and that was £350,000 for one ambiguous, confusing sign ... and the man whose tickets sparked the victory, Alan Bangert, despite being a mature student, did the admirable thing and donated his 'windfall' to the local children's hospice.

So finally, after over three years and half a rainforest of repeated evidence all of which had been before Sunderland's solicitors, their parking team and Adjudicator Andrew Keenan OBE, the restriction in Derwent Street was ruled unlawful.

Should Sunderland consider spending another tranche of public money to try and avoid repaying those fined unlawfully? Or will they be advised that monies derived from PCNs issued at this location will have to be refunded (Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners) and enforcement suspended immediately? Certain lawyers have already dispensed this advice to various councils and District Auditors across the land.
A couple of phone calls and a sharing of legal opinions will ensure that all councils concerned know that they will not be able to benefit or be 'unjustly enriched' from a mistake in law.

We would encourage anyone in Sunderland receiving a parking ticket refund to share their 'windfall' with the Grace House Appeal or any other worthy cause.

Unlawful 'instant' pay and display tickets
The second council blunder concerns all the on-street pay and display bays. Quite a simple one and the appellant's argument (a city centre Estate Agent) was that he was loading and unloading in the pay and display bays adjacent to his premises.
The Council's own Parking Charter shows that vehicles on commercial business are allowed 20 minutes observation

This is also allowed in the TRO where it states that loading and unloading is permitted for up to 20 minutes.

The Council had however, instructed its Civil Enforcement Officers to issue 'instant' tickets meaning that there was no observation period, in breach of its own Parking Charter and contradicting its own legal document, the Traffic Order.

Have the Council's lawyers and Parking Managers ever taken the trouble to read the Parking Charter and the TRO or was this a deliberate attempt to raise revenue after a disastrous drop in PCN numbers in the aftermath of the BBC documentary?

No observation period means no evidence that no loading or unloading was taking place and therefore the PCN has been issued incorrectly.
It's a pretty fundamental thing when financially penalising motorists to at least read your own legal documents. If they have read them and understood them then who issued the instruction to the CEOs to issue 'instant' tickets directly contradicting the Charter and the TRO?

However, such a decision is not accidental or an oversight. This MUST have been a deliberate policy decision by at least one individual.
Who was it and who else was involved?
Was it the Parking Services Manager? Was it the Service Director? Was the Policy Decision supported by the legal department and Chief Executive?

Former National Car Parks Ltd. Parking Attendants and management have confirmed that it was policy when they were in post to allow 5 minutes constant or 20 minutes casual observation.
So when did the policy change and who changed it and why? Was the legal department aware?

Were the same council officers involved in this decision as allowed the enforcement contract with National Car Parks Ltd. to be transferred to NCP Services Ltd. without anything in writing? Without anything being minuted? Without any parent company guarantees or indemnity?

No stone must be left unturned when investigating this fundamental piece of incompetence and misconduct. The vicarious liability for all this resides with the Chief Executive who has been given ample opportunity to initiate a full investigation into the Parking Service Department's failings over the past four years.

More will be revealed shortly about the District Auditor's investigation into the breach of the council's own constitution with regard to the 'transfer' of the contract ... but the Council's accounts for 2007 -2008 have yet to be signed off and the District Auditor is seeking counsel's opinion for the second time.

Meanwhile, everyone who has ever had a Code 05 or Code 06 PCN in a pay and display bay should write to the council and request a refund and all monies derived from such errors . Their address is here or simply give them a call on 0191 520 5555 and ask how they intend to refund you.
Any assistance needed just drop us an e-mail at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk


All single yellow line tickets in the City Centre Controlled Parking Zone suspended Finally, and perhaps the most significant were the PCNs issued on single yellow lines issued within the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).
This matter has been granted leave at the High Court with 2 days being set aside for the case after a High Court Judge, Justice Keith decided that the case needed to be heard before a Senior High Court Judge.
The implications are far reaching and will affect EVERY PCN issued on a single yellow line in any CPZ. The implications are so enormous that the Treasury Solicitors have requested that the Secretary of State for Transport intervene and be allowed to give evidence.

What that evidence might be is yet to be disclosed.

However, adjudicator Mr. Hinchcliffe ruled that as the PCNs were issued on a single yellow line in a CPZ and seeing that this matter was now before the High Court he would grant the request for an adjournment.

One more step forward for a motorist ... one giant leap towards justice for Britain's motorists ... against what has become a lawless, out of control 'industry' without any judicial checks or balances.

Thanks to all those who continue to support the campaign. Please spread the word and turn The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund into the public defender and watchdog that Britain's motorists are in desperate need of to hold rogue authorities to account and to expose injustice across the country and get such matters before the courts where all of this can be exposed under the brightest spotlight.