Drivers told no refunds for Lendal Bridge fines until legal row is settled - but council apologises for email mistake

No more refunds for Lendal Bridge motorists until wrangle resolved - council apologises for email error

No more refunds for Lendal Bridge motorists until wrangle resolved - council apologises for email error

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

NO more refunds of fines for using York's Lendal Bridge will be issued until a legal wrangle has been resolved.

City of York Council has emailed about 150 drivers who had appealed against penalty charge notices given for using the bridge and also Coppergate at times when cars were banned.

Darren Richardson, Director of City & Environmental Services, said that after seeking the opinion of expert counsel, the authority was confident it could successfully challenge a recent ruling by a traffic penalty adjudicator that the authority had no power to issue the fines.

"No refunds will therefore be issued until such time as a definitive conclusion has been reached," he said. "In the event that refunds become necessary, City of York Council will contact you again."

But it has emerged that a serious mistake was made when the email was sent out, in that recipients were all copied in and had sight of other recipients' email addresses.

The drivers have this afternoon received another email from the council, sincerely apologising for the error.

It said: "We are taking this matter very seriously and are investigating how it occurred and ways to prevent recurrence.

"As another version has been sent that does not contain all email addresses, I would ask that you please delete the first email and any copies that you may have received."

The email goes on to advise people that if they wish to make a formal complaint they should contact the customer care centre.

One reader who contacted The Press to say he had received the original email said he believed there had been a data protection breach.

He said that about five minutes after receiving the email, he received another email from the same address attempting to recall it, probably having realised what a mistake had been made.

The bridge was reopened to traffic earlier this month just days after the decision of the adjudicator, who claimed neither the trial bridge closure nor the Coppergate scheme could be "sensibly" described as bus lanes, meaning the authority had no power to issue a penalty charge notice.

The council's appeal against the decision is expected to be heard in the next few weeks.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:54pm Wed 30 Apr 14

bjb says...

Hark I think I can hear the sound of a multitude of Trolls trip trapping over our bridge heading towards The Press website.
Hark I think I can hear the sound of a multitude of Trolls trip trapping over our bridge heading towards The Press website. bjb
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

No surprises here at all!

The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate
to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not.

Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned!
No surprises here at all! The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not. Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned! Cheeky face
  • Score: -14

7:09pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

Sorry, my last message should have said to pay back £5m.

Government locally and nationally are awful. We pay these people!
Sorry, my last message should have said to pay back £5m. Government locally and nationally are awful. We pay these people! Cheeky face
  • Score: -8

7:39pm Wed 30 Apr 14

velvetdixie says...

If the council members who created this travesty were to be held personally liable for the money to refund the penalties they might think before abusing the public again.
If the council members who created this travesty were to be held personally liable for the money to refund the penalties they might think before abusing the public again. velvetdixie
  • Score: -5

8:01pm Wed 30 Apr 14

pault42 says...

York City Council messing something up.... surely not, especially after so much farce around this already. Wonder when they're going to pay a fortune to put on the show 'The Lendal Farce', maybe they could pay some advisors to research it, come up with the answer 'it'll be fantastic - show it on the arts barge', possibly the ones who supposedly gave the advice that the Lendal Bridge closure was a brilliant idea.
York City Council messing something up.... surely not, especially after so much farce around this already. Wonder when they're going to pay a fortune to put on the show 'The Lendal Farce', maybe they could pay some advisors to research it, come up with the answer 'it'll be fantastic - show it on the arts barge', possibly the ones who supposedly gave the advice that the Lendal Bridge closure was a brilliant idea. pault42
  • Score: -23

8:09pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Yorkborneinbse says...

With their oversize shoes, red noses, and half mast trousers. The clowns at the Council are still in the ring
With their oversize shoes, red noses, and half mast trousers. The clowns at the Council are still in the ring Yorkborneinbse
  • Score: -6

8:37pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Lamplighter says...

They should use the first e-mail to contact each other and set up a joint law suit.
They should use the first e-mail to contact each other and set up a joint law suit. Lamplighter
  • Score: -5

9:14pm Wed 30 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
Sorry, my last message should have said to pay back £5m.

Government locally and nationally are awful. We pay these people!
Dream on lady.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: Sorry, my last message should have said to pay back £5m. Government locally and nationally are awful. We pay these people![/p][/quote]Dream on lady. jake777
  • Score: 11

9:17pm Wed 30 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
No surprises here at all!

The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate
to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not.

Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned!
If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: No surprises here at all! The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not. Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned![/p][/quote]If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting. jake777
  • Score: 5

9:19pm Wed 30 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

paddling phil wrote:
Oh, and just for laughs here's my news story for the day that I stumbled across. "Tracey simpson-laing in 1960s magic mushroom binge shocker"

http://www.nouse.co.

uk/2004/01/27/york-c

ouncillor-confession

-after-over-the-cou/



"I used to drink mushroom tea, but it was different back then". And your still tripping now.... What a set of muppets
Ha Ha, haven't had such a laugh in ages!

The council are just procrastinating. They wil eventually have to pay back all the Lendal Bridge fines. If they waste time for long enough they won't be in power when the fines have to be repaid. They can then blame another administration for their c**k-up!

Roll on May 2015 elections.
[quote][p][bold]paddling phil[/bold] wrote: Oh, and just for laughs here's my news story for the day that I stumbled across. "Tracey simpson-laing in 1960s magic mushroom binge shocker" http://www.nouse.co. uk/2004/01/27/york-c ouncillor-confession -after-over-the-cou/ "I used to drink mushroom tea, but it was different back then". And your still tripping now.... What a set of muppets[/p][/quote]Ha Ha, haven't had such a laugh in ages! The council are just procrastinating. They wil eventually have to pay back all the Lendal Bridge fines. If they waste time for long enough they won't be in power when the fines have to be repaid. They can then blame another administration for their c**k-up! Roll on May 2015 elections. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 1

11:08pm Wed 30 Apr 14

jake777sAuntBeryl says...

jake777 wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
No surprises here at all!

The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate
to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not.

Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned!
If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.
Jakey, Jakey, Jakey. Your Mummy reminds me that you are scared of the Troll Under The Bridge story. So much so that she can't read it to you at bedtime any more.

It's funny that this story scares you so much yet you like playing the troll on this website.

You have an English test at school tomorrow so switch off your 'My Little Pony' laptop and get back to your spellings and punctuation.

Night night lambkins. Aunty B.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: No surprises here at all! The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not. Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned![/p][/quote]If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.[/p][/quote]Jakey, Jakey, Jakey. Your Mummy reminds me that you are scared of the Troll Under The Bridge story. So much so that she can't read it to you at bedtime any more. It's funny that this story scares you so much yet you like playing the troll on this website. You have an English test at school tomorrow so switch off your 'My Little Pony' laptop and get back to your spellings and punctuation. Night night lambkins. Aunty B. jake777sAuntBeryl
  • Score: 0

4:34am Thu 1 May 14

Magicman! says...

jake777 wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
No surprises here at all!

The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate
to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not.

Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned!
If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.
Exactly. AND what's more, the road is still restricted to buses, loading and taxi's during the day even now... funny thing is that because people know the cameras at the end of the street aren't operational, they are driving along it. Funny that, how people break the law when they know they won't be punished for it.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: No surprises here at all! The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not. Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned![/p][/quote]If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.[/p][/quote]Exactly. AND what's more, the road is still restricted to buses, loading and taxi's during the day even now... funny thing is that because people know the cameras at the end of the street aren't operational, they are driving along it. Funny that, how people break the law when they know they won't be punished for it. Magicman!
  • Score: 7

8:02am Thu 1 May 14

Digeorge says...

And so this debacle costs more and more money by a simple e-mail sent to everybody so they can contact each other about legal action!
And so this debacle costs more and more money by a simple e-mail sent to everybody so they can contact each other about legal action! Digeorge
  • Score: -29

8:07am Thu 1 May 14

excabbie says...

So, if they aren't doing any refunds until they have exhausted there options to get out of giving them, does than mean I don't have to pay the ticket I didn't get in September?
So, if they aren't doing any refunds until they have exhausted there options to get out of giving them, does than mean I don't have to pay the ticket I didn't get in September? excabbie
  • Score: -33

8:42am Thu 1 May 14

northern1306 says...

That's funny because, I was told 2 weeks ago that no-one could claim any refund because it wasn't proved yet that the council was doing anything unlawful - yet now they're 'not issuing any more refunds'?? Either the council (heavens forbid) were not telling the truth and weren't issuing refund in the first place, or the press is doing the usual 2 weeks behind the story?????
That's funny because, I was told 2 weeks ago that no-one could claim any refund because it wasn't proved yet that the council was doing anything unlawful - yet now they're 'not issuing any more refunds'?? Either the council (heavens forbid) were not telling the truth and weren't issuing refund in the first place, or the press is doing the usual 2 weeks behind the story????? northern1306
  • Score: -44

8:52am Thu 1 May 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

You couldn't make this up....... It's one **** up after another!
You couldn't make this up....... It's one **** up after another! Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: -33

9:11am Thu 1 May 14

Kevin Turvey says...

paddling phil nice one!
Ha ha ha

Gives even more credence to my argument that these people are not fit to serve the community in these roles of trust!
They should resign forthwith namely:
Jimmy ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander.
Tracy Simply very Wrong.
Dave Merret the Ferret.

They are going anyway in 2015 but I and the rest of the public want them gone now before they can do even more damage to York’s fine residents, its council tax payers, the debt level of the council, York reputation and democracy in general.
paddling phil nice one! Ha ha ha Gives even more credence to my argument that these people are not fit to serve the community in these roles of trust! They should resign forthwith namely: Jimmy ‘lend me a tenner’ Alexander. Tracy Simply very Wrong. Dave Merret the Ferret. They are going anyway in 2015 but I and the rest of the public want them gone now before they can do even more damage to York’s fine residents, its council tax payers, the debt level of the council, York reputation and democracy in general. Kevin Turvey
  • Score: -40

9:19am Thu 1 May 14

m dee says...

jake777 wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
No surprises here at all!

The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate
to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not.

Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned!
If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.
jake777 says...
If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.

Jake the vast majority of the fines were to visitors to the City.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: No surprises here at all! The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not. Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned![/p][/quote]If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.[/p][/quote]jake777 says... If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting. Jake the vast majority of the fines were to visitors to the City. m dee
  • Score: -53

9:55am Thu 1 May 14

excabbie says...

m dee wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
No surprises here at all!

The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate
to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not.

Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned!
If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.
jake777 says...
If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.

Jake the vast majority of the fines were to visitors to the City.
Plus a lot of drivers were caught out by the time change, I was caught going through at 18:15 in september, which had been ok for 50 years, and you don't see the sign very well until you've turned left into Coppergate!
[quote][p][bold]m dee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: No surprises here at all! The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not. Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned![/p][/quote]If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.[/p][/quote]jake777 says... If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting. Jake the vast majority of the fines were to visitors to the City.[/p][/quote]Plus a lot of drivers were caught out by the time change, I was caught going through at 18:15 in september, which had been ok for 50 years, and you don't see the sign very well until you've turned left into Coppergate! excabbie
  • Score: -31

9:58am Thu 1 May 14

mmarshal says...

When we add together the cost of erecting the signs, removing the signs, repaying fines, legal litigation and now fines for breach of the Data Protection Act; will the Lendal Folly have been a worthy excercise?.
When we add together the cost of erecting the signs, removing the signs, repaying fines, legal litigation and now fines for breach of the Data Protection Act; will the Lendal Folly have been a worthy excercise?. mmarshal
  • Score: -29

6:31pm Thu 1 May 14

ouseswimmer says...

jake777 wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
No surprises here at all!

The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate
to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not.

Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned!
If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.
Except and this is one of the problems with Coppergate since the new restriction was bought in. The signs are totally incorrect. They are even worse than the original signs which were correct. There is no legal basis on which the current signage can be used to enforce traffic. You clearly have not seen the signs or understood the implications of what they currently state.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: No surprises here at all! The adjudicator backed up my complaint that advance signs re Coppergate were poorly positioned. Have they being moved further away from Coppergate to allow motorists an opportunity to avoid turning in the road too near the junctions? I think not. Camden may have to pack £5m! No wonder the government High streets Minister is concerned![/p][/quote]If you live in york then you know that access is restricted in coppergate, so you deserve a penalty as it has been restricted since the late 60s so stop bleeting.[/p][/quote]Except and this is one of the problems with Coppergate since the new restriction was bought in. The signs are totally incorrect. They are even worse than the original signs which were correct. There is no legal basis on which the current signage can be used to enforce traffic. You clearly have not seen the signs or understood the implications of what they currently state. ouseswimmer
  • Score: -24

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