MOTORIST Roger Macarthur was convinced that drivers in Bury were being given illegal parking fine notices. But Bury Council refused to listen.

So a determined Mr Macarthur parked his Citroen Saxo in the town centre to prove his point.

A parking warden duly slapped a £60 fine notice on it but this week car parking "judges" scrapped the fine, opening the way for hundreds of other local drivers to demand a refund. The ruling could cost the council tens of thousands of pounds.

Council parking officers are to hold an emergency meeting with their legal team to discuss how to deal with a possible flood of complaints from angry drivers.

Mr Macarthur's suspicion about the legality of the penalty charge notices (PCNs) was sparked after his wife, Janet, received a fine in August, 2003, for failing to pay-and-display when a ticket machine was out of order. She successfully appealed against the fine.

He explained: "I had heard that the wording on PCNs elsewhere was wrong and motorists had appealed successfully. From my research it appeared that National Car Parks (NCP) wardens in Bury were issuing tickets which could be overturned on appeal because they were worded incorrectly. For the past 18 months I have been trying to bring this to Bury Council's attention, but they just did not want to know."

So Mr Macarthur (42), of Riverside Road, Radcliffe, parked his car in an on-street pay-and-display bay on Market Street, Bury, near to The Robert Peel pub. He didn't bother getting a ticket.

He gleefully accepted his £60 fine notice and took it along to the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) last September. This week adjudicator Terence McNeill ruled in his favour.

The issue of the validity of PCNs centres on the way they are worded. According to Mr Macarthur, the PCN should state: "This penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice". Whereas the notices issued in the borough read: "You are therefore required to pay the sum of £60 within 28 days". The crucial detail is the absence of a date.

Bury Council argued it had issued the PCN in line with Department of Transport guidelines.

Mr McNeill insisted it was up to Bury Council to ensure the PCNs were worded in accordance with the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and not simply that they conform to Department of Transport guidance.

Mr Macarthur said: "It is very much a technicality that won the appeal, but technicalities can overthrow court cases, so they are important."

Motorists who have already paid their parking fines can not appeal as there is a 28-day appeal period. Any motorist who has recently been issued a PCN with the incorrect wording can appeal if the 28-day period has not expired.

Mr Macarthur added: "As most councils have followed the Department of Transport guidance when drafting their own PCNs this adjudication could have an impact on councils across the country."

John Foudy, the council's parking services manager, said that regardless of the ruling, NCP wardens would continue to issue tickets as normal until the council decided what action to take..

Motorists wishing to challenge PCN notices can contact Mr Macarthur by emailing him on buryparkingchallenge@btinternet.com