Motorists may take Islington Council to court over invalid parking tickets worth £90mil

Women now make half of Islington Council's executive

Women now make half of Islington Council's executive - Credit: Archant

Angry motorists could take Islington Council to court over an alleged mistake making all parking tickets issued over the last five years invalid.

As reported in the Gazette, up to £90million worth of penalty charge notices (PCNs) may have to be refunded by the council due to wording on the ticket which may not follow legal requirements.

The town hall says there is nothing wrong with the tickets, but some experts say people issued with a ticket since 2008 can challenge the charge.

Albert Herbert, who is spearheading the campaign, said: “The council is behaving very badly over this – they are in an untenable position. Their officers need to go back to school because a child could copy and paste the words, it’s quite clear in the legislation.

“I would encourage anyone who has been given a ticket to join our class action suit, which I expect to generate a lot of interest and could end up in the high court.”

A class action is a type of lawsuit in which a group of people bring a case to court.

The claim surrounds a ticket issued to 35-year-old Sai Wong for parking on a single yellow line which was overturned by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) partly because of a clause which was allegedly missing in the ticket’s small print.

Most Read

The council recently admitted all traffic fines issued between November and April at the new Drayton Park width restriction in Highbury were invalid and agreed to pay back the 10,974 fines – worth £1.4million – to motorists who contacted them.

Mr Herbert said: “They are in an a checkmate situation. They’ve put their hands up over the Drayton park, but they won’t about this because there is too much money.

“This is a fundamental issue and they should suspended all tickets until it’s sorted out. Or if they are so sure of their position the honourable thing would be to refer the whole thing to PATAS.

“Of course, they are scared and this will cost money. They should shut up and pay up, or put up with what follows.”

A spokesman for the council say they haven’t changed their stance and say their legal team had checked that the wording complied with regulations.

He added: “We are happy to check that the wording is as clearly phrased as possible, but our legal advice is clear that the wording complies with regulations.”

The council will also not challenge the adjudicator’s decision, claiming that one decision is not binding on another.

Anyone who wants to contact Mr Herbert can email: