A bus gates campaigner believes drivers fined for going through the gates may be due their money back.
The man, who did not wish to be named, claims penalty charge notices (PCNs) imposed on those who have driven through the bus gates have been given illegitimately.
This is due to a typographical error he unearthed in Kirklees Council’s Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), a legal document needed to back up a traffic system.
He spoke out after winning a case on July 28 behalf of his mother, who passed through a gate on Market Street on April 5 and was charged £30 but was let off the fine by the independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal due to the mistake.
The man appealed after looking through council documents covering the bus gate system.
Kirklees Council has since corrected the error.
He said: “In the order, the council stated that schedule seven had been revoked when in fact schedule eight should have been.
“The independent adjudicator ruled in my favour due to this.
“I believe that each and every PCN that has been issued so far through the bus gate system has been issued incorrectly.
“I think people who have been fined could challenge their PCN, as they were issued it before the error was corrected.”
The council is now considering challenging the decision made on his mother’s case.
The man said: “I think someone at Kirklees Council has become a little unnerved and is considering a challenge because I think other people fined before the correction was made could appeal and win on the same basis.”
Kirklees Council has disputed his claim.
A spokesman for Kirklees Council said: “This appeal was upheld by the tribunal after long consideration because of a typographical error in the traffic regulation order.
“While the error could be said to be minor, we accept that it happened.
“Once we had the ruling, we immediately corrected the error and have amended the order.
“At this stage we are considering whether to appeal – the offence is a technical one and has not affected the outcome of previous appeal hearings where the council has won.
“This time, the adjudicator ruled in [the man's] favour, and this is the first time in 16 completed appeals that an adjudicator has raised the issue of the validity of the order.
“We are now considering the implications of this outcome for the council.”