One rule for one ... and crocodile tears ...

Adopting the council's philosophy that this was 'an administrative error' and therefore anyone who paid the PCN they have accepted the penalty perhaps any motorist who buys a pay and display ticket but gets back a few minutes late can make the same excuse.

How many other councils CCTV PCNs have the same error?

Will there be any sympathy from the motorist as the council sheds its crocodile tears?

Parking ‘clerical error’ joy for drivers
Bolton Evening News
9:10am Monday 7th March 2011

HUNDREDS of drivers have escaped a parking fine after town hall bosses admitted a clerical error had been made on some tickets.

Motorist Barry Moss noticed Bolton Council was putting a short code on its fixed penalty notices when it should have been using a long code.

In a Freedom of Information request, the council admitted cancelling 214 tickets and writing off 428 others because they used the short code.

The authority began using the long code on November 17 last year.

Mr Moss, aged 64, of Hindley Road, Westhoughton, called for the authority to refund every other ticket with the short code on it which could number nearly 2,800.

But the council said payers had already accepted liability.

At the centre of the matter is the council’s CCTV smart car which has been used since November, 2009, to collect evidence on lawbreaking motorists.

Tickets are issued in the form of a letter in the post rather than a notice on their windscreen.

Joe Cumbo, aged 67, got two tickets for parking on a single yellow line in Bury Road, Breightmet, last March. He paid one but, after speaking to Mr Moss, challenged the second— and the council cancelled it because of a “clerical error”.

Mr Cumbo, of Breightmet Drive, Breightmet, said: “The other ticket had the same code, so why can’t I get a refund?

It’s wrong.”

Tracey Pilkington, aged 44, of Westhoughton, also had her ticket cancelled on the same grounds after parking on double yellow lines in Market Street, Westhoughton.

Council figures show 2,786 people were ticketed from November 1, 2009, to November 5, 2010, as a result of the Smartcar evidence and, of those, motorists paid a total of £83,792.50 in fines.

A council spokesman said: “An adjudicator in a particular case took a view that the detail about the parking contravention on the parking contravention notice could have been clearer.

“Software has since been amended to include further detail of the contravention that occurred to be as clear as possible.

“We chose to cancel these two unpaid tickets, as although they were enforceable, we accepted the view that the parking contravention could have been clearer.

“However, if a customer has paid the fine, then they have accepted that they have parked where they should not have done.”

BBC Politics Show ...

The BBC Politics Show discloses the advice from leading traffic law expert Stephen Sauvain QC which highlighted the failings of Scarborough and other North Yorkshire CPZs. This 'advice' also indicates that monies taken from motorists in areas where the signage is non-compliant must be refunded.

To date, the Department for Transport refused to make this advice available to the High Court in the case of Herron v The Parking Adjudicator but now that this information has been made public and the decision in the Moss case explicitly reaffirms the requirement for signs to strictly comply with the law then hopefully this will put an end to the nonsense spouted by some councils and adjudicators the a sign is okay if 'no reasonable person could be misled.'

Our sources say that a great deal of panic has ensued in many town halls from officers fearing that their continued enforcement of known non-compliant signage may well result in a visit and an investigation. The first court case for misconduct in public office is listed in Exeter for February. May I be so bold as to suggest that this will not be the last?

Storm Clouds gathering over Bolton

Barry Moss is just an 'ordinary,' 63 year-old retired roofer. However, he is passionate about justice and fair play and due to his dogged determination he is very soon going to be before the High Court with what could be a pivotal moment for Britain's motorists.

Barry (left) first hit front page headlines in Bolton in 2007 when he represented his daughter-in-law at a parking tribunal

The case made front page of the Bolton Evening News and now, three years later and after more campaigning and investigating by Barry and evasion and obfuscation by Bolton Council it looks like the issues which Barry and others have uncovered have serious financial implications not only for Bolton but also for every other council in the country who have used road markings which did not comply with the law.

Further investigations revealed massive failings in Bolton's on-street as well as off-street bays and more headlines followed.

The Bolton Evening News broke this news in November 2007

"A report to councillors yesterday conceded that most bay markings did not comply with the Traffic Sign Regulations from the Department for Transport, highlighting problems including the bay lengths and dimensions of white line markings."

There followed another National Parking Adjudication Service decision this time by respected adjudicator, Mark Hinchcliffe which included a statement from John Munns at the Department for Transport in which he remarked that that the bay in question was 'unlawful.'

The implications of Barry's case are enormous and he is seeking a declaration from the High Court that there are unlawful items of account in Bolton's accounts and, as such, these will have to be refunded. This will impact on all similar cases across the country.

You can support Barry's case at The Motorists Legal Challenge.

In allowing the appeal the adjudicator reinforced the decision of adjudicator Gary Hickinbottom (now a High Court Judge) in Burnett v Buckinghamshire County Council where he concluded (note TSRGD 2002 has replaced TSRGD 1994):

Furthermore, although not relevant to this particular case (in which there was no sign at all), not only must the traffic sign must be present, it must also comply with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 (SI 1994 No 1519) (“the 1994 Regulations”) (Section 64(2) of the 1984 Act): and the 1984 Act makes clear that the signing of parking restrictions etc. by a local authority in pursuance of its powers under the provisions of the 1984 Act with which we are here concerned must comply with those regulations (Section 68(2)).

There is an express prohibition of signs that do not comply (Section 64(4)).

The 1994 Regulations are over 350 pages long and, in meticulous detail, they provide for every particular of permitted signs - including the type, size, colour and dimensions.

Consequently, in summary, as a condition precedent of a local authority enforcing a parking penalty as a breach of a TRO made under the 1984 Act, the obligations of the motorist must be properly signed in accordance with the detailed provisions of the 1994 Regulations."