New Speed Camera illegal? Bigger implications?

New speed cameras could be ruled illegal
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 16/10/2006)

The latest generation of speed cameras which record number plates and take pictures of drivers could be illegal, a Government watchdog has warned.
Sir Andrew Leggatt, the Surveillance Commissioner, has said that new laws are needed to prevent the evidence the cameras provide from being successfully challenged in the courts.

Read more here

New device to be used against motoring 'criminals'

This is the future...more motorists captured remotely. More fines generated. Always denied in the first instance but who would have ever believed 20 years ago that registered keepers would be remotely fined by camera for their vehicle (not necessarily them in person) allegedly parking illegally, entering a bus lane or yellow box junction?

If you want to see the future for the motorist click here

Speed Scameras

Undercover probe reveals the 'buckets of money' made from speed cameras
By DENNIS RICE and WAYNE FRANCIS
Mail on Sunday
15th October 2006

Read it SafeSpeed has repeatedly stated this has nothing to do with road safety.

Is this the country you want your children to grow up in?

If everyone does not start to stand up to these insidious, offensive proposals and strike them down before they are given the merest oxygen to grow then the mad officials will most certainly have taken over the asylum.

Council workers may get right to impose on-the-spot fines
Sunday Times
October 15th 2006
David Leppard
Read it here

As more local authorities are getting caught out with the parking fight back they are now looking for another 'guilt trip' to justify a new stealth tax.

Public goodwill towards recycling and the local authority waste removal service is being restructured as a punitive measure to expose those who wish to damage the planet by failing to recycle ... thereby costing the local authority for their failure to hit EU recycling targets.

Just watch the environmental shroud wavers play the guilt trip and make anyone who doesn't recycle look fair game for the on-the spot fines. It's about to be rolled out across the country. Don't say you haven't been warned.

"Pay-as-you-throw is a real prospect, with cash-strapped councils viewing it as a potential revenue earner to rival parking fines. " Read it here

New ITV 'Driving Me Crazy' Documentary

ITV are compiling another documentary ... this one is entitled 'Driving Me Crazy.'

Their ad for the programme is below:

"Have YOU ever been issued an outrageous or unfair parking ticket.

Are YOU fed up with over zealous traffic wardens, ridiculous road regulations and sneaky speed cameras?

Or do YOU think that the parking and speed regulators have a point?

ITV want YOUR help to expose the issues that are driving you crazy!"

If you e-mail me with a brief summary and a contact telephone number I will pass the programme the details.

Manchester City Council and the National Parking Adjudication Service

Richard Paver
Treasurer
Manchester City Council
Town Hall Albert Square MANCHESTER M60 2LA
13th October 2006

Dear Mr. Paver,

I have just had a conversation with Susan Ray who has very kindly agreed to assist with an enquiry but it may end up coming your way so it may be best to detail a brief outline which I anticipate will lead to further questions.

I have noticed that as well as being the Manchester City Council's Treasurer you are also the Treasurer of the National Parking Adjudication Service and thus responsible for their accounts.

A couple of matters do concern me with regard to the relationship between Manchester City Council and NPAS who claim to be independent.

Can you confirm that Manchester City Council acts as the lead authority for the NPAS Joint Committee?

Is Manchester City Council responsible for any of NPAS' contractual obligations? If so, can you please detail which contracts and refer to any Council Meetings where this was proposed and agreed?

What other responsibilities does Manchester City Council have in relation to NPAS and can you please indicate where in the Manchester City Council accounts any financial relationships / obligations / liabilities are noted?

I would be grateful if you could provide details of the District Auditor and confirm whether this is the same District Auditor that acts for NPAS.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and I loof forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,


Neil Herron

12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA

National Parking Adjudication Service 2006 Accounts

The National Parking Adjudication Service's Annual Accounts for 2006 have just been published.
You can read them here

Once you have read them click here and play the Flash video.

Now consider this:

• the adjudicators are appointed by the NPAS Joint Committee (comprising members of the local authorities participating in the scheme) with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, not by the Lord Chancellor (as with the Congestion Charge Adjudicators)
• the local authorities pay NPAS 55p per PCN issued
• Manchester City Council acts as the 'Lead Authority' for NPAS and their Treasurer, Richard Paver, does the NPAS accounts.
• NPAS' accounts are audited by the same District Auditor as Manchester City Council
• NPAS employees pensions are contained within the Greater Manchester Pension Fund administered by Tameside Council
• Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard trains the adjudicators.

There is more to come but do you now think that NPAS is independent, given the relationship between the NPAS and Manchester City Council, or even compliant with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Once we start to examine the competence of NPAS and its adjudicators we can see that they were still finding in favour of local authorities who were issuing non-compliant PCNs post the MacArthur v Bury (May 2005) decision. Indeed, the NPAS website contained a PCN which had no date of issue some 8 months after the MacArthur Circular was sent round the local authorities.

Now the question needs to be asked ... "the money that NPAS had from PCNs now found to be non-compliant and being written off by the local authorities ... where is the money now? Is it going to be given back to the local authorities? What will they do with it"

The adjudicator in my recent case refused to accept evidence on the Article 6(1) but I introduced the point anyway (for the benefit of the tape) and a number of pieces of evidence. This avenue, and the local authorities complicity will be expanded.

We would appreciate any commentary on the ability / legality of a local authority to enter into contractual obligations on behalf of a third party (ie. acting as the lead authority for the Joint Committee set up under section 101(5) of the 1972 Local Government Act and any further information on the financial relationships between NPAS and other bodies.

I am aware that a Police investigation has now commenced in Sunderland and the NPAS aspect will form a necessary part of any evidence.

Remember that Sunderland City Council's Assistant Solicitor told NCP Ltd. in an e-mail of 16th June 2005 to change the wording of the PCNs (to include a date of issue) without delay. NCP did not change them until 4th and 30th November 2005 for the handwritten and computer generated PCNs respectively.

Over 12,000 PCNs were processed which Sunderland Council were aware were non-compliant. NCP issued them knowing that they had been told to change the tickets.
Sunderland City Council processed them knowing that they had told NCP to change the tickets.

Over 12,000 people suffered a direct financial loss as a consequence... and NPAS benefitted from this at the rate of 55p per ticket.

I think that matters are about to become a little more serious.

National Drivers Organisation to be launched soon

Preparations are being made to pull together a membership organisation that looks after the interest of motorists across the country.

We will be working with specialists in all fields ... and we also have a nationwide network of transport / traffic lawyers ready to begin working with us.

Up to date news and cases will be reported and the latest legal information and case law will be provided to all members.

To date we have successfully exposed many local authorities acting unlawfully and this will be expanded to cover all spheres of the law that affect the motorist, including any necessary group and class actions.

It is always difficult for the individual against the system. What we are creating will establish an 'equality of arms' and with the support of an organisation the motorist will not feel isolated and will be able to benefit from the best advice ... all available on the website and through the helpline.

Our press and media connections will ensure that any motoring injustices are accurately and immediately reported and major policy issues affecting motorists will be confronted and challenged through political channels.

Our team will include experts in court procedures and bailiff law and will ensure that anyone suffering at the hands of bailiffs will know exactly what they are / are not allowed to do.

We have already had a fantastic response from taxi drivers organisations, road hauliers, disabled motorists groups, couriers, specialist car clubs and small businesses as well as individuals.

Just remember that 1 in 4 motorists will be hit with some form of penalty in the next twelve months.

Can you afford not to join?

If you would like to receive more information nearer the time of our national launch send me an e-mail to neil.herron@btconnect.com

Department for Transport anxiously watches Sunderland

It was the Department for Transport that relied on 'assurances' given by Sunderland City Council in their application for DPE.

There were no checks.

We are reliably informed that there are concerns which extend upwards to the highest Ministerial level of the implications of the Sunderland situation.

NCP Ltd are currently conducting their own investigation into the BBC documentary and the issues raised.

The Police are taking the issue very seriously.

In the documentary reference was made to NCP officials keeping a dossier on me, including photographs. My Data Protection Act information release request has gone into Sunderland City Council with regard to that dossier.

Meanwhile my car continues to be issued with PCNs.

As for NPAS, Kerry Colbourne the Appeals Co-ordinator has confirmed that the further evidence submitted by Sunderland City Council has been forwarded to the adjudicator.
I was told at the hearing ... 'no further evidence.'

Court adjourned for speeding cases

Motor Cycle News
Wed 3 Oct
Court adjourned for speeding cases. ...

TOP lawyers say that speeding cases can be adjourned in UK courts until the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has decided the future of Gatsos. Legal experts have already told MCN that they fully expect the Government to lose its case in the ECHR and, if this bears true, by adjourning the court hearing for impending speeding convictions they could be quashed forever.
The case in question, Francis v UK Government,was heard on September . 27, and the 21 judges involved in the hearing have retired to make their separate judgments. However, it could be at least a year until they
reconvene to declare their final verdict.
Speaking to MCN as he left the Grand Chamber from the ECHR in Strasbourg, speed camera martyr Idris Francis said: "Go to court and ask for an adjournment until my case has been decided. It's going to clog up the courts no end."
We asked expert criminal lawyer Richard EIlis for his advice on the best course, of action for those hoping to adjourn their case, he said: "You could ask a court to adjourn pending a decision. However, you can't ask for an adjournment when you receive an NIP because at this stage there are no court proceedings. A court hearing is only listed if you fail to return the form or return it unsigned.
"It's up to the court at the time and different courts might take a different view. You should always seek legal advice."
(note - I see no reason why any NIP recipient should not ask the police to extend the 28 dayperiod for a reply to the date the verdict is known, on the basis that if HMG wins, the information will be provided, and if not, not. The 28 day period is, after all, not sacrosanct and the police do routinely extend it in many cases, not least when they are trying to apply pressure to get answers Idris)

You hypocrite!

TOP cop Meredydd Hughes was exposed by the BBC's Newsnight programme for the hypocrisy of letting police officers off speeding fines.
Newsnightobtained evidence that South Yorkshire Police vehicles had tripped speed cameras -and the driver was not penalised because he could not be identified. The BBC asked for the photographic evidence under the Freedom of Information Act, but the force declined, saying it would be embarrassing for the individuals concerned.
Chief Constable Hughes then failed to satisfactorily answer why, if the individual could be identified well enough to cause embarrassment, they could not be identified to be prosecuted.
MCN asked Meredydd Hughes why a UK citizen was taken to the highest court in Europe because he refused to incriminate himself in an NIP and yet South Yorkshire Police simply writes off speeding tickets when a driver can't be identified.
Hughes declined to comment.

Notes - I believe Newsnight showed police discussing how not to prosecute one another, and wiping camera tapes. I was not taken to the ECHR - I took HMG to the ECR Idris

4% of accidents down to speed

OFFICIAL accident statistics published by the Department for Transport have confirmed speed is only responsible for 4% of all accidents. The Road Casualties in Great Britain is a comprehensive annual report that details all road accidents across the UK; including pedestrian and bicycle statistics.
The report says 'Failed to look properly' was the primary reason given for 32% of accidents, overshadowing speed as the most common reason for accidents on UK roads.
Captain Gatso phoned - MCN to give his reaction to the findings.
He gloated: "It's like I always said, speed doesn't kill but a lack of attention does."
Now the Government has debunked its own propaganda."

Editorial
One rule for them, one rule for us

IF any of us are unfortunate enough to nip through a speed camera a little over the speed limit there is usually a wait and then a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) lands on the doormat.
Once you have this NIP, the procedure is clear for all of us - if, indeed, it was us riding the bike or driving the car. We fill it in, giving the details of who was driving at the time and then wait for the punishment to arrive either as points and a fine or a court appearance for more serious offences.
If, for some reason, you can't remember who was driving at the time, the usual procedure is that you will end up in court and get a huge fine for your trouble.
All of this is true and in keeping with the law -unless, of course, you are a police officer. Then you can just forget who was driving because the driving log wasn't filled in and then claim the driver couldn't be identified in the photo.
Despite some investigations the police force thenjust lets it all fade away with nothing done.
Imagine if the scenario was reversed.
"I'mterribly sorry Mr Policeman, I've taken myself outside and asked myself some pretty searching questions and I can safely say, I still have no idea who was driving."
As South Yorkshire Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes squirmed with embarrassment at the hypocrisy of his own force (see above) it was another hammer blow to the shambolic, dishonest, flawed and self-governing speed camera operation that does little for road safety but a huge amount towards raising money.
The sooner the government wakes up to the real facts of what affects road safety - poor driving standards, idiots on mobiles, unchecked drink driving andthe general ignorance of most people to' motorcyclists - the better.

High Wycombe Council in another fine mess

Click here

Parking bosses meet Asian leaders

Sunderland Echo
Tuesday October 10, 2006

Parking bosses and council officials have met members of Sunderland's Bangladeshi community over remarks made in a television documentary.
Five parking attendants have been suspended after NCP staff in Sunderland were filmed making racist comments and cracking jokes about disabled people on the BBC programme.
The workers were removed from their positions and a full investigation is under way.
Members of Sunderland City Council and executives from NCP, whose staff enforce parking rules in the city for the authority, have met and spoken with members of Wearside's Bangladeshi community following the programme.
The remarks were filmed as part of an undercover report for the BBC's Inside Out programme and showed one attendant describing slashing a man's tyres after he complained.
NCP took over parking enforcement from the council in 2003 but unions are now urging the authority to take parking enforcement "in-house".
Jacqui Gallagher, branch secretary of Unison, said: "We were against the transfer in the first place and, after watching the programme, have been appalled at the conduct of BCP attendants with their racism, comments about the disabled and their deceitful actions."
After the documentary Coun Bryan Charlton, who has responsibilty for community cohesion in Sunderland, said: "The council and its partners are as shocked as everyone else.
"These views of a tiny minority are not representative of parking attendants in the city."
"Many people in Sunderland have worked very hard over the past few years to promote good relations between people from different backgrounds".

PATAS faces another Bill of Rights Challenge

This time it has been submitted by a solicitor, Frank Rayner. The adjudicator has requested 5 weeks for consideration.

The appellants Skeleton Argument is listed below:


IN THE PARKING AND TRAFFIC APPEALS SERVICE
Case number.9060054726

BETWEEN
FRANK RAYNER

And

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
_____________________________________
APPELLANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The Appellant seeks to appeal against Transport for London’s rejection of its grounds for appeal

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

2. The Appellant makes no comment on the alleged facts relating to the alleged infringement of the Congestion Charge having sought to appeal the decision of TFL on the basis that its attempt to impose a penalty charge(s) on the Appellant is unlawful

3. The Appellant has refuted TFLs right to impose this charge on the basis that it is extorting money and is in breach of the express provisions of the Declaration / Bill of Rights 1689.

4. Accordingly it is submitted that the appeal should be upheld.

THE ISSUES
5. The Appellants submit that the issues for the adjudicator to decide are as follows;

a. Whether the Declaration / Bill of Rights has been repealed by the Congestion Charge Scheme

b. If the Declaration / Bill of Rights has not been repealed whether the Congestion Charge Scheme in particular the facility to levy varying penalty charges is consistent with Declaration / Bill of Rights;

c. In particular whether or not the penalty charge is a "fine or forfeit";

d. that TFL and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for the alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a court of law

e. whether PATAS is an independent tribunal;

f. whether the constitution of the PATAS breaches the Appellants right to a fair hearing;

THE LAW

6. The Appellant will say that the substantive law relevant to this appeal is the Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights upon which it is based
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

7. The Appellant further refers to the case of the Metric Martyrs Judgment at sections 62 and 63.

8. The Appellant notes that TFL has referred to the recent application of Mr R de Crittenden for judicial review.

9. The Appellant notes further that TFL relies on an adjudicators decision in Robin Townsend v Transport for London. TFL has declined to produce a transcript of the case however and suggest that the Appellant obtain a copy from PATAS. The applicant has not been issued with a copy of this case and is therefore unable to evaluate it.

SUBMISSIONS
10. The Appellants submits that the Declaration of Rights 1689 contained the terms of the Settlement to put an end to years of revolution. The Agreement was made between William of Orange and those members of the general public that he had called to meet with him and which enabled William to claim legitimate kingship and thereafter summon lawful Parliament.

11. The most important task undertaken by the new Parliament was to create a Parliamentary Recognition of the Declaration of Rights and the complete text of the Declaration of Rights was incorporated into an Act of Parliament known as the Bill of Rights.

12. The Appellant contends that the significance of this is that whilst the Bill of Rights is a creature of Parliament and subject to repeal & or amendment the Declaration is NOT such a creature and accordingly not subject to repeal and or amendment by any parliament.

13. Accordingly even if which is denied the Adjudicator were to hold that the Bill of Rights was amended or repealed by the provisions enacting the Congestion Charge Scheme these cannot be held to apply to the Declaration.

14. The Appellant contends that the Declaration / Bill of Rights have not been amended or repealed by the Congestion Charge Scheme. Further the provisions of the Bill of Rights are clear and express, ie :
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

15. TFL has sought to argue that the Congestion Charge Scheme is compatible with the Bill of Rights as "its intention was to protect the rights of citizens and prevent the imposition of penalties without a right of challenge." The Appellant has challenged TFL to substantiate the basis of this interpretation but notes that TFL has still been unable to do so. It would appear that TFL believes that repeating the same opinion makes it a fact.

16. The Appellant rejects the relevance of this opinion of TFL and is content to rely on the clear and express wording of the Bill of Rights. In particular there is no issue of rights of challenge when a fine or forfeit is void ab initio before conviction.

17. The Appellant has referred to the case known as the Metric Martyr’s case in particular at sections 62 and 63. It is noteworthy that TFL whilst acknowledging that the Appellant has relied on this case fails to comment or challenge the findings.

18. The case is of paramount importance in that Justice Laws held that a later statute did not impliedly repeal an earlier one where there was incompatibility when the earlier statute had a special "constitutional" status. The judge expressly referred to the Bill of Rights 1689 in this category.

19. Accordingly insofar as the penalty charge is a fine or forfeit it is unlawful to seek to impose or enforce it in the absence of conviction.

20. TFL then refers to a further adjudicators decision which is submits supports its contention that the imposition of a penalty charge is a civil matter and therefore not a fine. TFL acknowledges that this adjudicators decision is not directly related to the Congestion Charge Scheme.

21. The Appellant has no access to this decision and it is noteworthy that TFL declines to provide a copy nor indeed has it cited any passage of any relevance. Notwithstanding the Appellant denies it has any relevance to the instant appeal. Insofar as it alleges otherwise TFL should be compelled to make full and detailed submissions on the point given its importance.

22. As to the substantive issue as to whether or not the penalty charge is a fine or forfeit the Appellant finds the argument disingenuous. The fact is that a penalty charge meets all the criteria for the definition of a fine or forfeit and to maintain otherwise is emabarrassing to the Appellant.

23. The penalty charge is clearly intended to intimidate and enforce conduct by the use of financial sanctions. If the matter were a purely civil one then the Appellant suggests that the sum levied should bear some resemblance to the loss or damage incurred by TFL. Clearly this is not the case. To continue the civil analogy further it is well established that a penalty at civil law is void at common law.

24. TFL further refers to the recent application by Mr R de Crittenden before Mr Justice Collins. Whilst the judge declined Mr de Crittenden’s application for judicial review it is denied that this has settled any matters as Mr de Crittenden is filing papers with the Court of Appeal and may even take it to the House of Lords if necessary.

25. Further it is not apparent from TFL reference to Mr de Crittenden’s application whether Mr Justice Collins considered the arguments raised by the Appellant in this appeal in relation to the Congestion Charge, nor Mr Justice Laws judgment in the Metric Martyrs case. TFL makes no submissions on these points.

26. Notwithstanding the foregoing the Appellant challenges the independence and impartiality of the adjudicator and refers the adjudicator to the attached extract from submissions made to PATAS in the matter of an appeal by Alan Parker against TFL, in particular the submissions of Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com.

CONCLUSION

27. In the premises the adjudicator is requested to find that TFL has no authority to impose the penalty as claimed or at all, that its purported enforcement should be rejected and the appeal upheld.




FRANK RAYNER
7 th October 2006

Talks over city parking

Snderland Echo
Monday 09 October 06

Talks were due to be held today over concerns about parking enforcement across Sunderland.
The move follows a BBC TV documentary which showed parking attendants using racist language and making offensive comments.
Phil Barrett, the city council's director of development and regeneration, was due to meet senior executives from NCP, the company which operated parking enforcement in the city.
Five attendants have been suspended from their posts as a result of the programme.
The chairman of the council's environmental and planning review committee, Jim Blackburn, wants a report on the situation to be presented to its meeting next Monday.

Leeds City Council Parking Problems

After a tip-off I attempted to get a PCN in Leeds City Centre last Friday, but to no avail.

There were no Parking Attendants spotted and so my expedition was fruitless.

However, my journey westwards continued. My Penalty Charge Notice collected outside the offices of the National Parking Adjudication Service in Manchester will give me the opportunity to challenge the independence and impartiality of the service and its financial and administrative complicity with Manchester City Council.

More to come.

By the way, the bay in which I was parked to get the PCN wasn't correctly marked!

Sunderland Parking Meltdown

Would you believe that Sunderland City Council have attempted to supply further evidence to the NPAS tribunal two days AFTER the adjudicator, Andrew Keenan ruled that he would not accept anything further.

As the shockwaves of the BBC 'Inside Out' Documentary reverberate throughout the 'parking industry' a it is revealed that a total of 7 NCP Parking Attendants have now been suspended.

That doesn't get Sunderland Council off the hook for the following reasons:

• at least ten of my PCNs at the NPAS appeal had been issued by the PAs featured in the shocking documentary and who are now suspended.
• the Council can offer no guarantee that my, or indeed any other persons PCNs issued by these PAs have been issued correctly and without malice.
• therefore, all monies received by Sunderland Council may be classed as items of unlawful income and should therefore be refunded.

As John Howe points out in last night's Sunderland Echo, the indignation of Sunderland City Council and quick condemnation of NCP has given them a useful smokescreen to bury the failings of the Council. Don't worry tho' cos that smoke is starting to lift.

There is much more to come.

Meanwhile, I do believe that Leeds City Council has a bigger problem

£3.5M parking fines may be written off

Norwich Evening News
By David Powles
4 October 06




John Sampson is one of 61,000 people in Norwich who might have their parking tickets written off because they are invalid.





More than £3.5million of unpaid parking tickets given to motorists in Norwich may have to be written off.
The Evening News can reveal Norwich City Council has now suspended enforcement action on 61,000 outstanding parking tickets while it waits to find out if they are invalid.
If they are, the lost revenue will be a bitter blow to the cash-strapped city council and Norfolk County Council, which puts the money raised from the tickets towards road safety improvements.
The revelation came after a High Court case ruled in favour of motorist from Barnet, London, who argued his parking ticket was illegal as it did not clearly state both the date the offence took place and the date the ticket was issued.
Following the case, the city council was one of several in the country to change the wording on its tickets.
Prior to this, the city council's tickets contained a date and time for the offence, but not a separate date of issue.
Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act revealed the authority handed out 172,518 of such tickets since 2002.
Of these, 111,997 have already been paid and it is believed motorists will not be able to claim the cash back as they have effectively admitted guilt.
However, the remaining 60,521 PCNs, worth £60 each to the council, could have to be written off and are now on hold.
The authority hoped tickets would not be classed as invalid, although it was awaiting formal guidance on the implications of the ruling.
A spokeswoman said: “Our tickets are not the same as the ones in the judgement, however we are awaiting further legal advice.
“The unpaid tickets have been put on hold but they can still be paid by members of the public.”
However, Barrie Segal, of Appeal Now, who represented the driver in the Barnet case, said: “The ticket is invalid and falls squarely within the judgement because it has just one date.
“I think motorists are entitled to claim back tickets paid because the judge said that such tickets are a nullity. Why should any motorist pay an invalid ticket? The council is pulling a fast one.”
Meanwhile, Neil Herron, founder of the People's No Campaign, which fights over parking fines, said: “The court case means that no local authority can pursue non-compliant PCNs.
“Norwich City Council must now create a year zero and an amnesty for motorists. They know they have got it wrong, which is why they have changed the wording.”
John Sampson, 43, from Clover Hill Road, in Bowthorpe, received a ticket for parking in St Benedict's, which has now been put on hold.
He said: “I believe they gave me the ticket unfairly so I appealed. I wrote back to them and by law they should have replied within 14 days.
“But it is two months on and I have heard nothing. This could have massive repercussions.”
The High Court ruling said tickets issued by Barnet Council were not correctly worded under the Road Traffic Act 1991.
Tickets must include separate dates for the offence and issue, even if they occurred on the same day.
A circular to all councils in London sent from Nick Lester, director of transport, environment and planning for the Association of London Governments, said: “Boroughs may not enforce non-compliant PCNs. This means that no Notice to Owners or charge certificates should be sent out, nor should debt registrations or bailiffs warrants be sought with respect to non-compliant PCNs.”
Norwich City Council said the cash raised by the tickets is used to cover its costs, with the rest handed over to Norfolk County Council to pay for road improvements.
Have you had a parking ticket written off by the council? Contact David Powles on 01603 772447 or via email on david.powles@archant.co.uk.

SUSPENDED

Five parking attendants off the streets in 'racism' probe
Sunderland Echo
Wednesday October 4, 2006
By Craig Thompson and Jeremy Wicking

Five parking attendants have been suspended after NCP staff in Sunderland were filmed making racist comments and cracking jokes about disabled people.
The workers have been removed from their positions while a full investigation into the remarks gets underway.
In an undercover report for the BBC's Inside Out programme, one attendant even described slashing a man's tyres after he complained.
Amid union calls for parking enforcement to be brought back under council control, and condemnation from all sectors of the community, the controversy appears to be rolling on.
NCP, whose staff enforce parking rules for Sunderland Council, took a temporary measure to withdraw some staff from parts of the city after Monday's programme led to verbal abuse.
A spokesman for the organisation said: "This was for their own personal safety. Five workers have now been suspended from their posts and an investigation has now been launched."
Coun Bryan Charlton, who has responsibility for community cohesion in Sunderland, said: "The council and its partners are as shocked as everyone else and has taken immediate action including ensuring that NCP acts swiftly and decisively to redress the situation and make appropriate retribution to the damage caused by the actions of some of its employees.
"These views of a tiny minority are not representative of parking attendants in the city. We would urge people to be supportive of the vast majority of attendants going about their duties and providing an important service to the city."
NCP took over parking enforcement in Sunderland from the council in 2003.
Coun Charlton added: "This recent episode is hugely regrettable but needs to be kept in proportion.
"Many people in Sunderland have worked very hard over the past few years to promote good relations between people from different backgrounds.
"Unions are urging the council to take parking enforcement "in-house".
Council leader Bob Symonds has already ordered an immediate review of the three-year-old contract, which could lead to it being taken over by the council, a new company brought in or a shake-up at NCP in Sunderland.
Conservative opposition leader Coun Peter Wood said the programme had raised fresh issues about parking in Sunderland which have come after hundreds of traffic rules and regulations were exposed as being wrong.
He said the "drip, drip" of allegations over parking was harming sensible enforcement in the city and, given the council's track record on other traffic matters, he would have major doubts if it was taken in-house.
The council and NCP have been partners in ticketing since taking over from Northumbria Police and more than £1.8million has been collected in fines.

Comments shock city businesses
BUSINESSMEN from across Sunderland have spoken of their shock at hearing the comments of city parking attendants.
Asif Khan, 33, of Ashbrooke, said: "The comments from the people in the programme have let the rest of the community down, and I'm sure that these were just a few bulldogs."
The comments also showed up the wider ignorance of the NCP parking attendants, as the majority of the ethnic community in Sunderland have a Bangladeshi background and are not from Pakistan.
Mr Khan said that in Urdu, the main language of Pakistan, "Paki"means clean and "stan" is land, a fact that many British people would not know.
He said: "I was completely horrified at the comments. They should all be sacked on the spot and they're ruining the reputation of the rest of the community of Sunderland, who I know are not like this."
A file on the comments has been sent to Northumbria Police.
Peter Darke, who runs a bike shop in the city centre, said many people had been put off coming to do their shopping in Sunderland because of the parking attendants.
He said: "Things were much better when the police and council were running things."

'Two sets of parking rules for same street'
AN ASTONISHED independent parking adjudicator heard there were two sets of traffic rules for the same stretch of street.
The claim came in a tribunal at which parking protester Neil Herron was appealing against 26 penalty tickets he has deliberately collected around Sunderland.
Mr Herron used the public hearing, at Sunderland Central Library to bring up flaws which he claims could bring down the entire parking regime in the city.
On one road, Frederick Street, the council admitted it had two parking orders imposed – one imposing "no waiting" restrictions, while the other made provision for parking bays.
Adjudicator Andrew Keenan said that he would "need a lot of convincing" that two traffic orders could cover the same area.
He told Stephen Sauvain, a barrister acting for the council,: "I'm asking what does the Traffic Regulation Order say – parking spaces or no waiting? You're saying 'it's both actually'. How can motorists know what's going on?"
He added that if correct markings had not been used throughout the city's controlled parking zones then this could invalidate the whole zone, and had done in other adjudications.
Mr Herron went on to claim that a number of other streets in Sunderland had been signed and marked incorrectly and were subject to conflicting traffic regulations.
He said: "It seems the whole thing is a complete shambles. The motoring public in Sunderland deserve better than this."
But Mr Sauvain QC said Mr Herron had failed to produce evidence to suggest that road markings and signage were incorrect.
After the hearing, Mr Keenan said that he would consider the appeal carefully and write to the two parties to inform them of his decision, adding: "I will need to spend a considerable amount of time on this."
If Mr Herron wins his appeal, he claims the decision could cause the collapse of parking orders in Sunderland and lead to penalty ticket refunds for hundreds of motorists. He faces paying the fines should he lose.
04 October 2006

PROBE INTO PARKING CONTRACT AFTER TV SHOCKER

Sunderland Echo
03rd October 06

SUNDERLAND Council leader Bob Symonds today launched an immediate review of the city's parking enforcement contract after revelations in an undercover TV investigation.

He also revealed that police are being handed a file on how traffic attendants made racist comments and jokes about disabled people on the BBC programme.
Coun Symonds said he would meet with NCP (National Car Parks), which has had the contract for three-and-a-half years.
That review could see the parking service taken over by the council, a new contractor or a renegotiated agreement.
As well as racist comments on the Inside Out programme on BBC1 last night, an attendant described how he vandalised a car in revenge after an argument with a driver.
Coun Symonds said: "I was disgusted and I'm as concerned as everyone else in the city about the remarks that were made.
"This city council will not tolerate racism or comments like this about disabled people from our staff or anybody else, and it is certainly not what we expect from our contractors.
"The racist remarks are being referred to the police and the contract is under review."
He confirmed he would be meeting with NCP at the earliest opportunity to discuss the contract and urged anyone to report the behaviour of attendants to the council, NCP or police.
Control of traffic attendants from Northumbria Police passed to the council at the beginning of 2003 and since then more than £1.8million in fines has been collected.
There are 17 attendants and the service has been plagued by allegations of aggressive ticketing while the council has had to refund more than £60,000 of fines after loopholes were exposed.
NCP spokesman Tim Cowen said it was taking the programme's footage extremely seriously and launched an immediate investigation into the conduct of the attendants.
He said: "As an employer we cannot condone the language used in the programme, but it was not clear the level of entrapment used.
"The BBC refused to show us any footage of it and we are deeply suspicious about the way it was compiled and it was riddled with mistakes.
"He said an allegation of tyre slashing may simply just have been "silly bravado" and added:
"Whether the attendant actually slashed them is another matter as there is no record of a complaint to the police.
"Nevertheless, we cannot condone racist comments or those about people with disabilities and we're investigating those."
The BBC said: "We set out to ask some serious questions about the state of parking in Sunderland."

D-Day for parking protester Neil
A CAMPAIGNER who has waged a one-man war on parking attendants today gets his chance to challenge the city's parking laws.
Neil Herron has exposed serious flaws in the city's parking regulations over the last 18 months and helped drivers claw back tens of thousands of pounds in fines issued incorrectly. For two years, he has deliberately collected parking tickets in an attempt to expose the fact that Sunderland Council and NCP were acting unlawfully but, Mr Herron claims, the council have always dropped the cases and cancelled the tickets.
Today Mr Herron's appeal against 26 tickets will be heard by National Parking Adjudicator Andrew Keenan at a public hearing at Sunderland Central Library in Fawcett Street.
Sunderland City Council has instructed barrister Stephen Sauvain QC to handle the case.
No other local authority has ever taken such steps for a £60 parking ticket appeal, said Mr Herron.
To date the campaign has forced the council to refund more than £60,000 to motorists wrongly fined.
Neil Herron said: "We offered to sit down with the council to highlight the massive flaws in their regime but we were dismissed with a contemptuous arrogance. We were forced to go public.
"Hopefully, the hearing will allow a full public airing of the errors that still exist in what has become the biggest parking shambles in the country."