Apology needed

Apology needed

Apology needed

First published in Letters by

CITY of York Council’s reaction to the traffic adjudicator’s judgement that they do not have the power to issue penalty charge notices in respect of Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, is disgraceful.

Rather than apologising for the wrongful fining of innocent motorists, the council instead doubts and questions the validity of the views of an official expert, by seeking independent legal advice.

This is typical of an authority that will only accept the answers it requires.

If the adjudicator’s opinion is upheld, then not only should the council apologise and refund those fined; it should also sack the officials and members responsible for allowing and implementing an illegal process.

In any other walk of life, these would be the minimum remedies.

Paul S Cordock, Durlston Drive, Strensall, York.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:12pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Jonothon says...

Oh, I get it!

It is OK for a motorist to appeal against the signs and win (good luck to him/her)
However it is NOT ok for York council to do the same, to appeal against a decision they think may be wrong.

What happened to equality before the law Paul S. Cordock?
Oh, I get it! It is OK for a motorist to appeal against the signs and win (good luck to him/her) However it is NOT ok for York council to do the same, to appeal against a decision they think may be wrong. What happened to equality before the law Paul S. Cordock? Jonothon
  • Score: 24

4:56pm Fri 4 Apr 14

wallman says...

going up Coppergate at 10.50 am don't see how you can appeal when its been restricted for years between 8am and 5 pm
going up Coppergate at 10.50 am don't see how you can appeal when its been restricted for years between 8am and 5 pm wallman
  • Score: 19

11:29pm Fri 4 Apr 14

wallman says...

after watching Mr. Rhodes on the tv {I've beenhard done by} then reading his excuse for driving in Coppergate i'm a taxi working for York Wheels a transport charity my heart bleeds for him poor downtrodden man. should not have been there in the first place at 10,50
after watching Mr. Rhodes on the tv {I've beenhard done by} then reading his excuse for driving in Coppergate i'm a taxi working for York Wheels a transport charity my heart bleeds for him poor downtrodden man. should not have been there in the first place at 10,50 wallman
  • Score: -2

2:18am Sat 5 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

Rather than apologising for the wrongful fining of innocent motorists, the council instead doubts and questions the validity of the views of an official expert, by seeking independent legal advice.

So what have all these motorists been doing then when they've been given a fine for driving along a road illegally? did they take it like a man? did they say "it's a fair cop gov'nor"? or did they doubt and question the validity of the official closure and seek independant legal advice in order to be able to drive whereever they like qithout consequences?

This is typical of an authority that will only accept the answers it requires.

I could say the same for every single driver who had appealed against being fined and/or wrote a ranting letter to this paper.

Coppergate has been closed for at least 2 decades. nobody complained about it until the cameras were put up issuing fines to everybody who went along there illegally... and why? because these people could not now break the law and get away with it. simple as that. And if anybody trys saying anything otherwise they are simply only fooling themselves.
[quote]Rather than apologising for the wrongful fining of innocent motorists, the council instead doubts and questions the validity of the views of an official expert, by seeking independent legal advice. [/quote] So what have all these motorists been doing then when they've been given a fine for driving along a road illegally? did they take it like a man? did they say "it's a fair cop gov'nor"? or did they doubt and question the validity of the official closure and seek independant legal advice in order to be able to drive whereever they like qithout consequences? [quote]This is typical of an authority that will only accept the answers it requires. [/quote] I could say the same for every single driver who had appealed against being fined and/or wrote a ranting letter to this paper. Coppergate has been closed for at least 2 decades. nobody complained about it until the cameras were put up issuing fines to everybody who went along there illegally... and why? because these people could not now break the law and get away with it. simple as that. And if anybody trys saying anything otherwise they are simply only fooling themselves. Magicman!
  • Score: -2

10:07am Sat 5 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice?

Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at!
Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice? Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at! CaroleBaines
  • Score: -2

2:26pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

Jonothon wrote:
Oh, I get it! It is OK for a motorist to appeal against the signs and win (good luck to him/her) However it is NOT ok for York council to do the same, to appeal against a decision they think may be wrong. What happened to equality before the law Paul S. Cordock?
May be wrong !

Lets see if it is.....
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: Oh, I get it! It is OK for a motorist to appeal against the signs and win (good luck to him/her) However it is NOT ok for York council to do the same, to appeal against a decision they think may be wrong. What happened to equality before the law Paul S. Cordock?[/p][/quote]May be wrong ! Lets see if it is..... Badgers Drift
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Badgers Drift says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice? Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at!
What about the unfair treatment of York people and businesses and their losses and inconvenience ?

The council took this action despite massive opposition, wasting hundreds of thousands of OUR money, then fleecing 53,000 out of £1.7million.

This council (senior officers and Labour councillors) treat York and its people with utter contempt - they deserve every brickbat heading their way.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice? Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at![/p][/quote]What about the unfair treatment of York people and businesses and their losses and inconvenience ? The council took this action despite massive opposition, wasting hundreds of thousands of OUR money, then fleecing 53,000 out of £1.7million. This council (senior officers and Labour councillors) treat York and its people with utter contempt - they deserve every brickbat heading their way. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 3

7:38pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

wallman wrote:
going up Coppergate at 10.50 am don't see how you can appeal when its been restricted for years between 8am and 5 pm
Because before the cameras were introduced it was enforced sporadically by the Police and that was legal. When the cameras were introduced that was illegal, if you read the adjudicator's report. It's really quite simple.
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: going up Coppergate at 10.50 am don't see how you can appeal when its been restricted for years between 8am and 5 pm[/p][/quote]Because before the cameras were introduced it was enforced sporadically by the Police and that was legal. When the cameras were introduced that was illegal, if you read the adjudicator's report. It's really quite simple. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

7:47pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Pinza-C55 says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice?

Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at!
Carole, the problem here is that the LB restrictions have raked in about £1.3 million. The installation of the scheme plus administration costs have been about £600,000 recouped presumably from the fines.
In a hypothetical situation where COYC go to court and fail they might have to refund £1.3 million + they will have a loss of £600,000 + the cost of the legal advice + the cost of the court case (even though Oxford won they didn't recover their court costs) + the administrative costs of reimbursing the fined motorists. Everything except the £1.3 million will be paid by the taxpayer.
So they are taking a gamble if it goes to court but ultimately it will be "us" who foot the bill if they lose.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice? Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at![/p][/quote]Carole, the problem here is that the LB restrictions have raked in about £1.3 million. The installation of the scheme plus administration costs have been about £600,000 recouped presumably from the fines. In a hypothetical situation where COYC go to court and fail they might have to refund £1.3 million + they will have a loss of £600,000 + the cost of the legal advice + the cost of the court case (even though Oxford won they didn't recover their court costs) + the administrative costs of reimbursing the fined motorists. Everything except the £1.3 million will be paid by the taxpayer. So they are taking a gamble if it goes to court but ultimately it will be "us" who foot the bill if they lose. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 1

8:40am Sun 6 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice? Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at!
What about the unfair treatment of York people and businesses and their losses and inconvenience ?

The council took this action despite massive opposition, wasting hundreds of thousands of OUR money, then fleecing 53,000 out of £1.7million.

This council (senior officers and Labour councillors) treat York and its people with utter contempt - they deserve every brickbat heading their way.
What about answering my question, are they supposed to NOT ask legal advice? You would love that, more fuel for the fire.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice? Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at![/p][/quote]What about the unfair treatment of York people and businesses and their losses and inconvenience ? The council took this action despite massive opposition, wasting hundreds of thousands of OUR money, then fleecing 53,000 out of £1.7million. This council (senior officers and Labour councillors) treat York and its people with utter contempt - they deserve every brickbat heading their way.[/p][/quote]What about answering my question, are they supposed to NOT ask legal advice? You would love that, more fuel for the fire. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 1

5:18pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

wallman wrote:
after watching Mr. Rhodes on the tv {I've beenhard done by} then reading his excuse for driving in Coppergate i'm a taxi working for York Wheels a transport charity my heart bleeds for him poor downtrodden man. should not have been there in the first place at 10,50
None of the restrictions affect you as you drive a taxi, you can even drive down Coppergate and across Lendal Bridge even when not employed in your working capacity, the ANPR camera's recognise your number, so your comments are out of order.
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: after watching Mr. Rhodes on the tv {I've beenhard done by} then reading his excuse for driving in Coppergate i'm a taxi working for York Wheels a transport charity my heart bleeds for him poor downtrodden man. should not have been there in the first place at 10,50[/p][/quote]None of the restrictions affect you as you drive a taxi, you can even drive down Coppergate and across Lendal Bridge even when not employed in your working capacity, the ANPR camera's recognise your number, so your comments are out of order. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 2

5:21pm Sun 6 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice?

Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at!
Who pays for the legal advice, appeal and future challenge through the courts?
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice? Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at![/p][/quote]Who pays for the legal advice, appeal and future challenge through the courts? Igiveinthen
  • Score: 2

5:46pm Sun 6 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice?

Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at!
Who pays for the legal advice, appeal and future challenge through the courts?
Who said appeal etc - this is purely about seeking advice if you read the above. So are you saying they shouldn't seek advice? If not why employ legal experts at all? Maybe you prefer they roll a dice next time legal technicalities need to be decided?
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: Ridiculous letter. I think the Bridge fine debacle has been a farce, but the Council reacting by seeking legal advice to a situation that could land the tax payer with a bill of over £1m, is surely the correct one. What are they supposed to do? Not seek advice? Come on Paul, it seems Council baiting is your pastime, but at least do it in a credible way. It is not as though there isn't plenty of material to go at![/p][/quote]Who pays for the legal advice, appeal and future challenge through the courts?[/p][/quote]Who said appeal etc - this is purely about seeking advice if you read the above. So are you saying they shouldn't seek advice? If not why employ legal experts at all? Maybe you prefer they roll a dice next time legal technicalities need to be decided? CaroleBaines
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Sun 6 Apr 14

wallman says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
wallman wrote:
after watching Mr. Rhodes on the tv {I've beenhard done by} then reading his excuse for driving in Coppergate i'm a taxi working for York Wheels a transport charity my heart bleeds for him poor downtrodden man. should not have been there in the first place at 10,50
None of the restrictions affect you as you drive a taxi, you can even drive down Coppergate and across Lendal Bridge even when not employed in your working capacity, the ANPR camera's recognise your number, so your comments are out of order.
read the report igiventhen he is not a taxi driver according to the appeal no excuse for been there
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: after watching Mr. Rhodes on the tv {I've beenhard done by} then reading his excuse for driving in Coppergate i'm a taxi working for York Wheels a transport charity my heart bleeds for him poor downtrodden man. should not have been there in the first place at 10,50[/p][/quote]None of the restrictions affect you as you drive a taxi, you can even drive down Coppergate and across Lendal Bridge even when not employed in your working capacity, the ANPR camera's recognise your number, so your comments are out of order.[/p][/quote]read the report igiventhen he is not a taxi driver according to the appeal no excuse for been there wallman
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree