Greedy council costs taxpayers thousands in parking fine farce

Nick Newby, 46, had not spotted pay and display signs as he parked up in a car park in Mirfield, West Yorks while he quickly went to the local library.

Read more...

Parking permit scheme targets polluting 4x4s

The former Royal Marine couldn't believe it when he returned to his car, after the incident in February last year, to see he had a parking ticket for £25.

Despite a letter to Kirklees Council, in which he showed photographs of a 14ft high sign advertising the car park for use by shoppers to the Co-op, they refused to accept his excuse and demanded he pay up.

With a defiant Newby refusing to pay the fine and a determined council pursuing at all costs, the case finally finished after an incredible 20 months, several court appearances, and costs reaching £5,700.

Newby is now celebrating a 'moral victory' as a judge decided that, in law, Nick Newby had lost his case, but because of the council's flaws in showing clear signs, the proper penalty was one of 'absolute discharge' and that he should not pay any costs.

Battling Newby had originally been convicted of non-payment of the fine at Dewsbury magistrates court in December last year.

He was originally fined 50 pounds and ordered to pay 250 pounds towards costs incurred by Kirklees Council in bringing the case.

But the ex prison officer refused to back down and appeared at Leeds Crown Court to appeal against his conviction.

He maintained that there was no way he would have been able to see any signs showing he should have had to pay to park - in a car park which is now, amazingly, free of charge.

The court had heard that any council, in law, does not even have to show signs to show there are charges for off-street parking, but, according to section 35B of the Road Traffic Regulation Act of 1984 'common sense dictates that if charges do apply then it is necessary that the charge be displayed so that parkers know what to pay'.

Newby produced evidence to the court, during the one-day hearing, which showed the only evidence of it being pay and display were two ticketing machines, positioned in opposing ends of the car park and a sign at one exit saying 'have you paid and displayed?'. Judge Rodney Grant accepted that these signs were misleading.

But, he ruled, the council had "extremely powerful matters to take into account", such as the fact that 55,000 tickets had been purchased in that car park over a 19 month period - 55,000 people who had seen and understood the signs. He said: "For that reason, and reluctantly, I rule this appeal would be dismissed."

In summing up Mr Grant said: "The local authority chose to exercise their discretion against the opponent and that was their right, and it's that exercise of discretion that has led to a number of appearances before the criminal court and expense that had incurred also."

Speaking after the case Mr Newby, from Mirfield, West Yorks, said: "I am disappointed at the verdict but I am happy with the judge's order of an absolute discharge, while upholding the conviction.

"This case should never have gone to court. The council had several opportunities to apply common sense but failed to do so.

"As we know, the car park is no longer pay and display, it is a customer carpark for the Co-op - as advertised. The judge had to make a legal point because there's no regulation. But the absolute discharge gives a message that the case was a waste of time and it should not have come to court."

But Terry Brown, Kirklees assistant director for transportation defended the council's actions saying: "This was not an issue about a 10p car parking charge, but an appeal by the motorist concerned against a fixed penalty notice relating to his failure to pay the car parking charge in the pay-and-display car park.

"The amount of the parking charge is not the relevant issue, it is the failure to pay the parking fee, the fixed penalty charge, and the subsequent appeal against the fixed penalty charge notice.

"That appeal was dismissed by a district judge in the magistrates court. The motorist chose to take it to the higher court which today has made its ruling, upholding the original decision of the district judge and dismissing the appeal."

Car parking revenues earn Kirklees Council about 4.5 million pounds per year.