Day I was robbed by Stirling Council

Dear Editor Last month I was robbed – not by some desperate criminal but by Stirling Council.

I had a quantity of weighty items to donate to charity shops so, being over 80, suffering from COPD and other health ailments, I therefore drove into Stirling city centre.

The place where I wanted to park was occupied by a long line of idle taxis. The opposite side of the street was clear, though also poorly designated, this time as a loading bay (so presumably ‘unloading’ as well) so I stopped there, causing no obstruction and displayed my blue disabled badge on the windscreen.

Having humped some of my goods across the street, a sudden call of nature slightly delayed me . Returning to my car I was shocked to find a parking ticket stuck on its windscreen.

I appealed on humanitarian grounds and drew attention to the fact the yellow painted road markings were not up to the legal standard requirements of the Parking Act, to which I received a negative reply from Stirling Council (via Northampton) with a photograph of a crooked sign at the site plus another which actually proved my point regarding the yellow road marking. They ignored reference to the latter but nevertheless did re-paint the markings a few days after.

I also pointed out the parking notice itself was not strictly legal since it had not been signed. The council claimed a signature didn’t matter as they could identify the issuing person by a code number on the ticket. I pointed out their code number did not allow me to identify the person who stuck it on my window.

That very week a media item reported a Government document had been declared illegal due to being unsigned and even two sets of initials were not sufficient.

Unfortunately due to delays in receiving replies to my complaints, the time limit of a lower fine payment was running out so I was daft enough to pay the extorted amount first demanded, but under duress and in the expectation and trust the sum would be refunded once the council agent realised and admitted their claim was illegal on several counts.

However, it has become obvious that the council, or at least their agents, are not an honourable body to deal with as without the courtesy of answering the points raised they brusquely declared the matter closed.

In future I would suggest anyone presented with a fine or claim from Stirling Council which they have reason to feel is unjust should pay by cheque but don’t sign it. Meanwhile, the charity shops of Stirling will no longer receive my donations nor in future will any of the town’s remaining shops, businesses or events benefit from my custom.

Charles M Methven Tullibody