Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Thousands of Scots drivers could exploit LEZ loophole and have fines quashed

Story by Mary Wright

Thousands of motorists could escape fines from ­Scotland’s first Low Emission Zone – because the notices were sent out incorrectly.

Dozens of drivers have already appealed the penalties, issued as part of Glasgow’s LEZ, because they were not sent by recorded delivery.

All 38 challenges so far have been upheld by the Transport Appeal Tribunal for Scotland.

Glasgow City Council’s LEZ was introduced in June and has penalised more than 20,000 motorists in four months, boosting the authority’s coffers by almost £500,000.

Now council chiefs are scrambling to close the legal loophole that could entitle thousands of drivers to have their fines quashed.

Alba MP, and former Kenny MacAskill, said: “This failure is potentially catastrophic, driving a coach and horses through the plans.

ALBA's Kenny MacAskill says the mistake is a 'nonsense.'

“They’ll either need to reissue or abandon. What a nonsense.”

Under the LEZ, non-compliant vehicles are banned from areas of the city centre and face a fine of £60, doubling with each subsequent breach, rising to £480 for cars and LGVs, and £960 for buses and HGVs.

Similar schemes are expected to be introduced in Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen next year.

Glasgow City Council has now changed how LEZ fines are sent out in light of the tribunal rulings – but intends to challenge the decisions.

It is appealing to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland against what is described as a “key ­decision” and that case is currently being reviewed.

The rulings forced the council to send out all LEZ penalty notices using recorded delivery, which will add considerably to its costs.

A spokeswoman for the city council said: “All LEZ PCNs will now be sent by tracked delivery.

“Our view is that those involved in these cases remain liable to pay their fines and we are appealing the decision.”

A spokesman for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service said: “The tribunal has issued 38 ­decisions in relation to LEZ appeals and all have been allowed.

“The first decision on a LEZ appeal was issued on October 11, 2023 and has been identified as a ‘key decision’.”

Glasgow City Council confirmed it had received 2758 appeals against fines, with 876 successful to the end of September.
The new two-way 'ultra' speed camera drivers must watch out for! What they look like and how they work

The Jenoptik VECTOR-SR is the latest speed camera tech being used in the UK
Doubles as a red-light camera and can also catch drivers without a seatbelt or using a phone at the wheel
The camera doesn't flash and it can snap motorists travelling in both directions

By ROB HULL UPDATED: 11:39, 16 November 2023

There is a new 'ultra' speed camera being installed at the side of roads across the UK that is the most advanced of its kind yet.

The device can identify speeding drivers travelling in both directions, doesn't flash when it snaps and can also catch motorists not wearing a seatbelt or handling a mobile phone at the wheel.

Having received approval for use in Britain, it looks and works very differently to typical roadside cameras - which means many drivers will be blissfully unaware of what they are.

Motorists in Manchester need to be clued up on them, as more than 100 have been installed across the city already.

The 'ultra' speed camera that could be coming to a road near you: This is the new Jenoptik VECTOR-SR - a camera that can catch speeders travelling in both directions, doesn't flash and can even be used to enforce secondary offences, such as no seat belt or using a phone

Called the VECTOR-SR, it is the latest in 'spot camera' technology from German manufacturer Jenoptik Traffic Solutions.

The company is already known for producing the SPECS average-speed cameras often seen at the side of motorways or mounted to overhead gantries to calculate if motorists are exceeding the national limit.

However, its latest device - dubbed the 'ultra camera' - is very different.

The VECTOR-SR can double for both speed and red-light enforcement, making it one of the most versatile cameras on the market today - and one that will be very attractive to cash-strapped police forces and local authorities.

It uses a video-based system that works in tandem with an intelligent virtual grid to judge if a driver is speeding.

Measurements from Jenoptik's radar technology is then validated by secondary independent and image-based evidence.

That means there is no need for road markings - which have typically been one of the biggest tell-tale signs to let drivers know the whereabouts of speed cameras.

The system uses infra-red technology which allows images to be captured via still photos and video recordings, which eliminates the need for a camera flash, even at night and in bad weather.

As such, they will be in operation 24 hours a day, 365 days a week, and drivers won't be aware they've been snapped by the tech.

And because the camera records footage of a driver breaking the limit, any visual evidence showing motorists driving without a seatbelt or using a mobile phone can be used for further offences.

Driving or carrying passengers without a seatbelt can be penalised with a fine of £500 per person, while using a handheld device at the wheel now carries a penalty of six points and £200.

Unlike previous cameras which only capture vehicles travelling in left-hand lanes, the new model captures up to three lanes of traffic going in both directions. This means one installation can enforce an entire section of road.

It will also be able to identify speeding vehicles and their owners quickly, too, as it has built-in Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) tech.

Described by the manufacturer as an 'integrated' camera system, the devices can be attached to existing roadside furniture or a pole and do not need to be hard-wired into the existing road network with sensors installed into the carriageway - making them a cost-effective solution for authorities.

While they will be painted yellow, as is the requirement for speed cameras, they are far smaller than conventional devices and likely more difficult to spot on the move.

The VECTOR-SR received Home Office Type Approval for use as a speed camera in Britain in 2019 and for red-light enforcement in the spring of 2021, with Geoff Collins, Jenoptik Traffic Solutions UK’s deputy managing director, saying

 'This is the product our customers have been waiting for – a modern, digital and non-invasive Red Light enforcement system.

'We can now offer fair and accurate Red Light, Spot Speed and Average Speed solutions using a common core of known, reliable components, providing responsible drivers a safer journey.

'Supported by Infra-Red illumination, lightweight enough to mount on a passively safe pole or existing street furniture and with no need for in-road sensors or signal head connections, VECTOR SR represents a step forward in Red Light enforcement technology.'

Where are these cameras already being used?
Having received type approval, the cameras are already being put to use across the country.

And this week it has been confirmed by Greater Manchester Police that more than 100 of the speed cameras have been installed in the city, having received funding through the Mayor’s Challenge Fund (MCF) to improve road safety and support Greater Manchester’s commitment to 'Vision Zero' - its target of eliminating all road fatalities and serious injuries.

Superintendent Gareth Parkin of Greater Manchester Police’s Safer Transport Team said: 'The new and upgraded speed cameras across the city-region will ensure that drivers adhere to road speeds and do not engage in reckless or anti-social driving.

More than 100 of the VECTOR-SR speed cameras have been installed across Greater Manchester

'Speed limits are put in place to ensure our roads are safe. Excessive speeds increase the chances of driver error, increase the time it takes for a vehicle to stop and can also increase fatalities in the event of a collision.'

Peter Boulton, transport for Greater Manchester’s head of Highways, added: 'By investing in these safety cameras, we are underlining our commitment to Vision Zero, our ambition to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our roads, therefore making Greater Manchester a safer place for pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and motorists.

'However education is just as important as enforcement when it comes to tackling speeding, and I would strongly advise drivers to consider their behaviour when on the road to keep themselves and others safe.'

And it's not only Manchester where motorists need to keep an eye out for the next-gen cameras.

Transport Scotland has signed a contract worth nearly half a million pounds to install them in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Chief Inspector Mark Patterson from Police Scotland Road Policing said the cameras 'should remind drivers of the importance of travelling within the speed limit at all times,' adding they 'will ultimately result in improved speed limit compliance and a reduction in collisions at these sites'.

Cornwall Council and Devon & Cornwall Police have also been using the new tech on their roads, with the reports in August that it had caught thousands of speeding drivers within a fortnight.

The four cameras were put in place on routes with a history of problems with collisions and speeding vehicles and it was reported that 3,280 drivers were issued with tickets in the first two weeks.

Incredibly, one of the bi-directional cameras was activated on average around 120 times per day.

There are installations in place in Deeside and Wales. too.
Laughter greets council advice on paying for parking when phone signal fails

Pressure continues to replace card and cash payment machines

By Sarah Booker-Lewis - local democracy reporter  Friday 6 Oct, 2023 at 7:47PM

The council’s advice for people unable to get a phone signal when trying to pay for parking is to move around until they find one.

The advice was given in response to a question at a council meeting and prompted laughter from the public gallery.

The question followed a number of complaints by people who have struggled to pay to park since Brighton and Hove City Council scrapped its hundreds of parking machines.

The machines, which relied on 3G mobile phone technology, were decommissioned in May because the council said it would be too expensive to upgrade them to 4G or 5G.

At the town hall meeting, Hove resident Carol Wilson asked councillors to bring back parking machines and provide a better alternative to the current system of online or phone payments.

She addressed the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee on Tuesday (3 October) after being given a parking fine in May.

She asked what steps the council had taken to ensure residents and visitors could easily access shops with PayPoint machines to pay for parking when phone signals failed or batteries ran out.

Her suggestions included putting stickers on signs to show people where they could find the nearest PayPoint outlet while the council’s suggestions – such as texts or online maps – required a working smartphone.

Labour councillor Trevor Muten, who chairs the committee, said that anyone struggling for a phone signal should move to another location, prompting laughter from the public gallery.

Councillor Muten also said that if the council’s pay-by-phone system was out of action, then drivers would not be able to pay using PayPoint either – and parking enforcement would be suspended.

Ms Wilson said: “Residents or visitors have the opportunity to appeal – so is this policy approach effectively trapping people into receiving a PCN (penalty charge notice) and forcing people to be at the mercy of a subjective decision from the parking department?

“Is this fair? Is it equitable? And is it acceptable? This same situation happened to me. I had valid grounds and (my appeal) was rejected – and the charge went up to £70. It is happening to a lot of people.”

Outside the meeting, Ms Wilson said that she wrote to her ward councillor Jilly Stevens and the fine was eventually withdrawn.

Councillor Muten said: “We do want to address this to make sure we have a system that works and then people have good communication. We are keen to communicate where the PayPoints outlets are.

“We’re working with other agencies such as Visit Brighton and other support charities to try to enable better publicity of those PayPoint outlets.”

Since cash payments ended, several people have reported not being able to pay for parking because they did not have a smartphone.

In other cases, PayPoint machines in shops were not working or staff were unable to get the system to work.

Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh told the meeting that Rottingdean had no PayPoint outlets for those visitors who were unable to use the pay-by-phone smartphone app.

Councillor Bridget Fishleigh

It was the third time this year that she has formally raised the issue during a council or committee meeting.

She said that the problems were compounded by the reduced mobile phone coverage in Rottingdean after a mast was removed from the roof of the White Horse pub for refurbishment work.

The committee also received a petition signed by 200 people, calling for the council to bring back parking machines and a return to cash and card payments.

Yesterday (Thursday 6 October) a report to the council’s Strategy, Finance and City Regeneration Committee forecast a shortfall of £941,000 in revenues from “parking tariff and permit fees increases”.

This was up from an £830,000 projected shortfall three months earlier when council leader Bella Sankey criticised the some of the proposed increases – more than 300 per cent in places.

Councillor Sankey said: “So flawed was the approach to parking by the last administration, we are not convinced that the projected income from these increased parking charges would be realised.”

Bella Sankey

Councillors agreed to more modest parking charge increases – closer to the rate of inflation – but a senior council official said yesterday that the rising cost of living appeared to be driving changes in behaviour.

Fewer people were renewing permits for second and third cars, for instance.

Visitor numbers had not yet fully recovered from the loss of business resulting from the coronavirus pandemic restrictions.

Referring to parking and other revenue budget forecasts, the report said: “Targets will only be achieved if demand returns fully to pre-covid levels including paid parking, tourism and venues incomes.”
The success story continues.   <Owned>  :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:


How we beat Gatwick and Heathrow airport drop-off charges

How lawyers helped to overturn one man’s fine for failing to pay a £5 fee at Gatwick when he was collecting his parents

Saturday September 30 2023, 12.01am, The Times

Simon Fullerton, 47, was taken to court for failing to pay Gatwick parking charges

A landmark court ruling could make it easier to contest fines for those who fall foul of costly airport drop-off fees.

“Kiss and fly” charges are now common at airports, charging drivers up to 60p a minute to drop someone off at the terminal.

But the system at Heathrow and Gatwick has been called into question after a £5 drop-off charge spiralled into a £250 demand from debt collectors.

Simon Fullerton, 47, was taken to court for failing to pay the charge at Gatwick. While most airports take payment by cash or card when you leave the drop-off zone, at Gatwick and Heathrow your registration plate is scanned and you have to pay online by midnight the next day. At Gatwick £5 buys you ten minutes and it costs £25 if you stay longer while at Heathrow you pay £5 per drop-off and there is no time limit.

Fullerton, a children’s entertainer from Lewisham in south London, had collected his parents after they flew in from Belfast on October 14, 2021. He went online to make the payment that evening but never got an email receipt.

The following week when he took his parents back to the airport and paid the fee without issue, he called NCP, which operates the parking zone, to ask about his first payment. NCP said that he had missed the cut-off but offered him the chance to pay £15, which he refused. He was issued a penalty notice of £100, which would be reduced to £60 if he paid within 14 days. “I felt I had been hit with this fine through no fault of my own — I had paid the £5. So I put my foot down,” said Fullerton.

When he didn’t pay, the charge was passed to BW Legal, a debt recovery law firm. By the beginning of this month it had risen to £250 and Fullerton was being taken to Bromley county court.

Luckily, he had help from Richard Evans, a partner at the Memery Crystal law firm, and Edward Levey, KC, a commercial barrister, who decided to act for him free of charge after they also received drop-off penalties.

Levey said: “When I told the parking company that I was planning to take the matter to court, they cancelled the ticket without me even asking them to. It seemed unfair to me that so many people in a similar situation were being pressured into paying, which is why I offered on Twitter to act pro bono for anyone taken to court.”

On September 20, the deputy district judge Hannah Brookfield ruled that Fullerton’s parking charge was unfair under the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. Fullerton had had no opportunity to consider the terms and conditions of the parking contract before he entered Gatwick’s drop-off zone and became liable for the £5, she said. The debt collectors’ claim was thrown out and the firm’s lawyers were told that an appeal was unlikely to succeed.

While a county court ruling does not set legal precedent, it is hoped that this could give others who fall foul of airport charges hope of a successful appeal.

Private parking firms, which run the drop-off zones at airports as well as thousands of other car parks across the country, issued 9.1 million penalty charges last year and only 20 per cent of motorists appealed against the fines, according to the British Parking Association (BPA), a trade group. More than half those appeals were successful, though.

It is not known how many fines were issued in airport drop-off zones.

“I think most people pay because they don’t think they have any other option,” Levey said. “But if I could just get one court to say it’s unfair, that would at least send a message to the parking companies that the charges may not be enforceable, and it might help others in a similar situation.”

Gatwick and Heathrow, which were visited by almost 100 million people last year, introduced drop-off charges in 2021. The airports made a combined £244.7 million from all parking in 2022.

“It feels completely stacked against the consumer,” Fullerton said. “There are plenty of signs with pound signs on them saying that you have to pay, but they didn’t say the amount or that there was a penalty.

“By the time you can read the terms and conditions you’re in the drop-off zone. You can’t reverse out as it’s a one-way road and you’re not supposed to leave your car. It’s a farce.

“When you get these debt letters, it sounds very serious, I hope people start questioning these letters. You’re a consumer, not a criminal.”

BW Legal and NCP said they were considering whether to appeal.

NCP said: “Gatwick uses a free-flow ANPR system to enable motorists to safely drop passengers off and exit the zone safely with no delays.”

It said that a September 2022 audit by the BPA found its drop-off zone signage was “adequate”.

Apcoa, which runs parking at Heathrow, said: “There is clear and extensive signage prior to entering any forecourt that the drop-off charge is in place, how to comply and where to pay.

“There are options/routes to exit all of our forecourt areas without paying if you mistakenly enter or decide that you no longer want to drop off a passenger — as long as the vehicle does not stop.”

How to challenge a fine

● You have the right to appeal against a penalty notice, whether it is issued by a council or a private firm, and the success rate is good. Include any evidence, for example a screenshot showing that you tried to pay, or photos of confusing signs. You can find sample letters to use online at

● If your appeal to a private firm is rejected, you have 28 days to appeal to the independent service Parking on Private Land Appeals. If you lose at this point, your only option is the small claims court, but this can be expensive. There is a claim fee of about 5 per cent of your claim, a £40 allocation fee and a hearing fee of up to £335.
General No To Mob Discussion / Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Last post by The Bald Eagle on 27 September, 2023, 02:36:48 PM »

Bristol Airport £100 fine ‘too ridiculous to be true’ says driver who stopped after crash

He said he had no other choice than to stop because of the crash, but was still fined

ByTanya Waterworth
00:01, 7 AUG 2023

A driver who was involved in a minor crash as he left Bristol Airport's ‘drop and go’ parking, has appealed the £100 fine he received for stopping in a ‘No Stopping’ zone at the airport. He said he had no other choice than to stop because of the crash.

Steve Usher, a private hire driver from Bradley Stoke, said the collision which saw his vehicle being rear-ended, happened on June 27 when it was particularly busy at the airport. He said: “It was really busy, there were queues to get in and out. When I got out of the exit barrier of ‘Drop and Go’, it was gridlocked.”

The collision took place as Mr Usher was trying to leave the airport. Driving the bigger of the two vehicles, Mr Usher said: “I couldn’t pull away or my vehicle would have torn off the front of the other car.”

He said that while they were trying to free the smaller car and he was exchanging insurance details, “the airport car with the camera actually stopped to see if we needed help or if anyone was hurt.” He received the £100 fine for stopping in a ‘No Stopping’ zone about a week later.

“They fined me £100 for being hit up the backside, it’s too ridiculous to be true. There’s no phone number to call anyone when you get the fine, but I appealed it straight away,” he said.

Mr Usher said he had received another fine in the ‘No Stopping’ zone about 18 months ago when he was dropping a passenger off at the hotel airport. He said: “You get a ticket for the hotel parking which you can get validated.

“But the barrier into the car park was not working, apparently due to heavy rain at that time. So I let my passenger out and took his payment which was timed on the camera as 47 seconds. I received a £100 fine two days later.”

He said after months of ‘appeals and stress’ during which time the fine had risen to £491, the matter went to court in February this year. He said the case was dismissed and he was awarded costs in the amount of £129.

Often dropping passengers off at the airport, Mr Usher said he could go to the airport up to four times a day. He said : “I do agree with the red lines and zebra crossings, they are good rules and I know not to stop on the red lines, but there has to be some leeway,” he said.

While the road management around the airport is provided by a third party provider and the airport is unable to comment on individual fines, a spokesperson for Bristol Airport said: “All of the internal roadways at the Airport have experienced a longstanding issue with vehicles stopping in unsafe areas, particularly on pedestrian crossings. This poses a high risk to the safety of our customers, colleagues and business partners and causes delay and congestion to other road users.

"We conducted research with other airports around the UK and investigated the use of an external company providing us with an enforcement service. Signs across the site further underline the message to all customers. Drivers breaking the rules may face charges which will be enforced through a combination of fixed cameras and mobile patrols.

“Facilities are available close to the terminal for vehicles picking up (Short Stay and Pick Up) and dropping off (Drop & Go) passengers, and a waiting zone offering free parking for up to 60 minutes is available. The free car park is located by the entrance to Silver Zone and is linked to the terminal by a frequent shuttle bus service" said the spokesperson.
I cannot find a better thread to park this on (admin, please feel free to move it if there is).

Driving into South London last week, mid-morning (10.30ish) I came out of the Blackwall Tunnel and manoeuvred into Blackwall Lane, heading South. I had spotted the pre-bus lane sign and start sign and read them both as 7am-10am as I approached the stationary traffic about half way down the lane, I recalled the signs and thought, OK I'll use the bus lane if nobody else is going to.... About 2/3 the way down there is a repeater sign (which amazingly wasn't facing the wrong way) and there I noticed the time on the bus lane is actually 7am - 10pm WTAF!!!!!! How the he11 are you supposed to see p for a where at no other bus lane EVER has there been a 10pm cut off??? Also note this bus lane EXCLUDES bikes as well.

The Google Maps image is out of date but expect them to milk the cash cow for a while anyway!

Useful Posts/Stickies / Re: Photos of enforcement vehicles parked dangerously
« Last post by The Bald Eagle on 16 September, 2023, 07:55:43 AM »
One rule for them, another for us...   <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy: <bashy2> :bashy:

(click on image to enlarge)
Quote from the article above. “It speaks volumes that TfL were given an opportunity to produce evidence that these signs were compliant with the Traffic Signs and Directions 2016 and they completely ignored it."

However, it appears that TfL do have authorisation for the non-standard traffic signs, but for some reason it did not produce it as evidence at Mr Willcox's hearing.

And you can bet your sweet bippy that anyone relying on the Willcox case as a precedent when appealing a ULEZ fine in the future will be met with this particular brick wall.
  <bashy2> :bashy:
General No To Mob Discussion / Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Last post by Web Admin on 30 August, 2023, 07:37:59 AM »

Fury over parking fines handed out to elderly drivers unable to use complicated apps

ANGER is mounting over fines given to elderly drivers unable to fathom complicated parking apps.

13:12, Wed, May 25, 2022 | UPDATED: 13:13, Wed, May 25, 2022

The issue was underlined by Pete Paphides, an author and broadcaster who sent out a tweet about his late father who died last month. After he passed away his son found unpaid fines of £100 rising to £170 for parking violations.

Other members of the public were quick to add their stories of being “digitally excluded” by parking apps.

Mr Paphides told Radio 4 that his father had struggled to pay for parking while attending a friend’s memorial service earlier this year.

The machine on site didn’t accept cash or a card and the only option was to use an app.

Not wanting to call an automated payment line, the elder man called his son in some distress for advice.

Many older drivers are unable to use the latest parking apps, preferring to pay in cash

Mr Paphides told The Times: "My dad was unsure what an app was and his bank details were not on his phone.

"He saw that there was a camera, he knew that he would probably be liable for a fine. He was anxious, it was playing on his mind."

Not wishing to miss the service, Mr Paphides’ father parked anyway and asked his son to take care of the fee.

However Mr Paphides said that he was only able to fill in a form on a website, to which he received no response.

Sadly his father then passed away and it was while Mr Paphides sorted through his belongings that he discovered the unpaid fines.

Mr Paphides said that the parking company “didn’t believe me” when he told them his father had died.

Regarding the response and the issue of elderly drivers’ frustration, Mr Paphides said: "In a way I'm not that surprised — these people just don't have a voice.

“The tragic thing is, a lot of them don't even expect to have a voice. They think they have been forgotten and no one is listening."

Many car park operators have an automated line to call in order to pay

Consumer champion Dame Esther Rantzen has taken the issue on and asked ministers to intervene to stop elderly drivers being forced to use the apps.

She said the problem was so bad that it was stopping some elderly people from leaving the house.

She told the Mail: “Because parking your car means independence, it means that somebody can get out and about who otherwise might be imprisoned at home.”

There are currently 13 councils in the UK who have moved to completely cashless car parks.

Dame Esther, 81, admitted to having not paid for parking in the past due to the convoluted systems.

She said: “I have been slightly irreverent and thought, well, if they don't care about me, I don't care about them.

“If you're making a demand for payment without offering any alternative or someone on the end of a phone, then if the other person is 55-plus, they should not be liable to prosecution.”

Since the start of last year, cashless council car parks have collected £257million in fines.
General No To Mob Discussion / Re: Proof that ANPR cameras in car parks don't work
« Last post by Web Admin on 30 August, 2023, 07:26:31 AM »

Driver with three parking fines overturned tells others how to avoid being ‘ripped off'

AN ELDERLY driver is warning other motorists of parking fines and how they can avoid them after he had three tickets overturned.

04:00, Thu, May 26, 2022 | UPDATED: 08:27, Thu, May 26, 2022

Malcolm Scothern, a disabled 81-year-old army veteran, has successfully appealed against parking fines on privately-owned car parks in Nottinghamshire. The driver, who was awarded the British Empire Medal, is now warning drivers how they can successfully overturn a parking ticket.

The army veteran, from Kirkby in Ashfield, was first fined after his car was spotted by cameras at a car park in Mansfield.

Malcolm had parked at St Peter’s Retail Park for 75 minutes, paying £2 at the designated machine.

Despite this, he was sent a significant £60 fine from CP Plus, who claimed he had parked without payment.

The determined former member of the 17th/21st Lancers (now the Queen’s Royal Lancers), an Army cavalry regiment, wrote to the car park company, claiming he thought the machine had been faulty.

Fortunately, he had kept his parking ticket to prove his case.

CP Plus responded by saying: “This parking charge has been cancelled in full. No further action will be taken.

“We apologise sincerely for any inconvenience caused in this matter, and can confirm that the case has been closed.”

Speaking after the fine was quashed, Malcolm said drivers should keep a hold of their parking tickets and receipts just in case.

He told Mansfield and Ashfield Chad: “There was no explanation that anything had gone wrong, which proves my point that these companies just send out the fines and hope the recipients have disposed of their ticket and so pay up.

"I feel there is a danger that the public are being ripped off terribly.

"I don’t suppose many people keep their receipts and so, to save a lot of trouble, they automatically pay the fine immediately.”

Malcolm’s previous parking fine successes were at the Festival Hall in Kirkby around ten years ago.

The second was at the Commercial Gate car park in Mansfield in February 2022.

It came after the ticket machine refused both cash and card and Malcolm's complaint was upheld by the Parking On Private Land Appeals service.

Citizens Advice recommends to drivers that they should not pay a parking ticket they intend to appeal.

Usually, paying is seen as admitting the ticket was right, meaning they won’t be able to appeal it once they’ve paid.

If they are worried about paying, they should call whoever gave them the ticket and ask them to confirm that they shouldn’t pay if they are appealing.

Most parking tickets will either be a penalty charge notice, a parking charge notice, or a fixed penalty notice.

Depending on which fine a driver receives, the appeals process will be different. has contacted CP Plus for a comment.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10