SIXTEEN motorists have had their fines for crossing York’s Lendal Bridge waived after appealing to an independent body, The Press can reveal.

Another 13 have had their fines for driving along Coppergate dropped after appealing to the same national organisation, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The drivers had all turned to the tribunal after City of York Council had dismissed their initial appeals against penalty charge notices, issued for driving along the routes at times when cars are banned.

A tribunal spokesman said the council had decided to concede a total of 29 cases, although seven appeals over Lendal Bridge and 22 for Coppergate were pending and set to go to hearings.

Tony Clarke, the council’s head of transport, said that when appeals were considered by the tribunal, the council was required to submit a detailed evidence pack.

“But on some occasions, limited resources have meant it has not been possible to complete all of this work in the allotted time and so we have decided to not contest these,” he said. “This work has been prioritised and we would advise motorists to continue to avoid using Lendal Bridge and Coppergate during the restricted hours so that they don’t receive a PCN.”

Meanwhile, it has emerged that the council has also decided not to contest a decision by the tribunal to uphold an appeal by motorist Charles Malarkey against a fine for driving along Coppergate.

The Press reported last month that Mr Malarkey argued that signs warning of bus lane restrictions were inadequate but the council insisted the signs were adequate and was looking to see if it could appeal. Darren Richardson, director of city and environmental services, said yesterday that all signage on and leading to Coppergate was designed to the appropriate legal standards and the issue had been about the extent of the evidence supplied to the adjudicator which led to its decision.

He said: “After reviewing the decision made by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, the council has decided that in this case there would be no benefit in attempting to appeal the TPT’s ruling as this is only a technical issue with the evidence supplied, rather then a fundamental problem with the scheme.”