Bert Biscoe and his crew (see my previous post) have been described as "heartless" by a TPT adjudicator.
I can think of many ways to describe Mr Biscoe and "heartless" is way down the list in terms of derogatory comments I could make about him. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Nurse-helping-dying-patient-wins-parking-fine/story-23304259-detail/story.htmlSt Mabyn nurse wins appeal over parking fine for helping dying patientNORTH Cornwall nurse Linda Irwin has won her appeal against a parking fine issued while she was on her way to help a dying patient.
Traffic penalty tribunal adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson was sharply critical of Cornwall Council's handling of the case, describing officials as "heartless".
The council this week apologised and accepted it had "got it wrong".
Ms Irwin, from St Mabyn, was given the £70 fixed penalty notice in February while parked in an empty taxi rank outside Boots the Chemist for only three minutes.
She was collecting pain-relief drugs for a patient who was in the final stages of life. She was supported by a letter from her manager at the care home where she is a nurse.
At a traffic penalty tribunal hearing in Truro last week, Ms Irwin said the facts of the case were not in dispute, but she challenged the way Cornwall Council had interpreted its own guidelines for medical emergencies.
The council, which in July prepared a 44-page dossier to help pursue the fine, said Ms Irwin's circumstances did not meet its criteria for a medical emergency, which typically involves dealing with lifesaving situations.
The council's own civil parking enforcement procedures, however, does advocate parking enforcement leniency of up to ten minutes for motorists who have to deal with crying children in their cars.
Ms Irwin said she accepted that she was not trying to save a life, but insisted she was part of a medical emergency response. After the hearing, she said she would now give £70 to a local cancer charity.
"Common sense has prevailed," she said. "I am so relieved this is now over. It has taken eight months, and goodness knows how much time, effort and money the council has spent trying to defend its position.
"I would like to thank all the people who have supported me. I have always said that I would give the £70 to a cancer charity and that is what I am now going to do."
Tribunal adjudicator Mr Robinson said that Cornwall Council was guilty of "procedural improprieties" for failing to properly articulate its reasons for rejecting Ms Irwin's original appeal. The council had not recognised the nature of the emergency, describing Ms Irwin's trip to the chemists as simply "loading or unloading".
Mr Robinson added that if the council had attempted to detail its reasons for rejecting the medical circumstances, "it would have seemed pretty heartless".
Delivering his judgement, he told Ms Irwin: "It is not enough for the council simply to say that it sympathises with an appellant, it must explain why. But this was clearly not simply a case of loading or unloading some boxes. The council did not take the steps it should have done, and that is why I find that there was a procedural impropriety.
"The council's letter should have said what the individual circumstances were. It should have dealt with the specifics of the pain relief, and taken into account that you were parked in an empty taxi rank – there was no obstruction, and no harm caused.
"The council would have seemed pretty heartless if it had actually articulated its reasons for rejecting your initial appeal.
"I don't believe the council properly demonstrated the discretion it should have exercised."
Mr Robinson later added, in his written judgement, that the earliest possible application of pain relief for someone in the final stages of life might have been critical for other family members hoping to have a final conversation with a relative.
Cornwall Council, which had earlier refused to disclose how much it had spent trying to pursue Ms Irwin, apologised and accepted that it had misjudged the case.
"We will review our procedures in the light of this decision, but would assure people that we already have the freedom to consider any case as a medical emergency."