Having read this story, I can not understand why Mr. Lada feels let down that his appeal to the fine was dismissed. All drivers should be fully aware, loading bays, are only to be used for the purpose of carrying heavy or bulky goods to and from the vehicle and is not to be used by motorist to pop to the bank or to pop to a shop for a few minutes as this is unfair to a genuine driver who's work may have been delayed due to this space being used incorrectly.
Mr. Lada appears to me to be abusing the purpose of the loading bays in order to avoid making a payment just like the rest of the general public.
I also believe that for the Buck Free Press to publish this type of story and to try to give it credence by mentioning irrelevant items like his limping and that the traffic lights were out of order is irresponsible journalism. As it must know that Mr. Lada's was committing a traffic offence but it appears to be putting forward extraordinary circumstances in order to justify it.
A far as I can see, the fact that the fine was subsequently cancelled has nothing to do with the facts of this case, and this appears to have been done because it was found at a later stage that the observation times stipulated by the Council to the contractor had not been observed.
I trust that following this incident, Mr. Lada will no longer use the loading bay incorrectly and pays for his parking like the rest of us.

In reply to the above comment the writer is mistaken and I was not abusing a loading bay. Unfortunately the Midweek misprinted the location of the incident as I was parked on Easton street, the first space available from the traffic lights near to the old Art Shop. If you look at the sign it is a 10 minute free parking bay and/or a 20 minute loading/unloading bay. I was parked there legally up to the 10 minute period. The traffic warden saw me as I left the vehicle as I even got back into the car and drove forward to make sure that the back of the car did not hang over the edge of the bay so the positioning of the car was legal. My appeal was due to advise I was given by the parking office staff a few minutes after the incident and after I handed over my credit card to pay for the fine. I was told that I did not have to pay until after the appeal hearing and to include medical notes with the documentation. When my appeal was not upheld I paid the fine and to me that was the end of the matter. It was only after seeing last weeks Midweek that Parking Attendents had been sacked and the article listed a number of grace periods that I rang the paper to ask them what the grace period was for overstaying a 10 minute bay as I had received a letter from the council that my "Penalty Charge Notice has been issued incorrectly. The Coucil is therefore cancelling this PCN. Your payment of £30 will be refunded to you shortly". I did not get any explanation from the council of why it was issued incorrectly, but following the article I wanted to know if it was due to the handheld computers. When I spoke to the reporter I mentioned to her that in my letter to the council I mentioned that on a couple of occassions I had asked traffic wardens as I parked at the same spot what was the maximum time allowed to park at this spot. I was told that although it was a 10 minute parking bay it was also a 20 minute loading bay. There they would only issuse ticket after the 20 minutes just in case someone was loading. In reply to this the council manager stated " loading/unloading must be seen within the first ten minutes by the Parking Attendant. It should also be constant and adjacent to the location and not include any other activity." I mentioned this to the reporter and queeried this. Does that mean that you are not allowed to load/unload unless an attendant actually sees you in the first 10 minutes? You could be waiting a long time until one came down the street. Does adjacent also mean that couriers or delivery drivers can only load/unload to premises next to the bay? If that is the case the sign should make this clear. As in my letter to the council I stated that in the past I used that bay for carrying items back from Argos but within the 10 minute parking allowed. I'm dissappinted that someone feels that that I used a loading bay incorrectly and that I should be pay for my parking like everyone else. I can assure you that I do and that if you knew me you would never think that I was capable of doing what you imply. I did not want to do the article but after being asked on a number of occassions that it would be follow up to the original story and it would help others to know that there was a grace period. I also wanted to point out that it is strange that 5 parking attendants were sacked but a manager seemed not to know the council guidelines as in his letter he stated "the PCN was issued after eleven minutes constant observation" proving that the attendnt was waiting next to my car and not other cars that were parked before I parked and were still there when I came back but were not ticketed. I don't know why these attendants were sacked when a manager did not follow council rules until an audit of their system picked out the mistakes. Having read your comments it has just confirmed to me that what I have been told that's it best not to get involved and try to help others - but because of the person I am I will not change and will hopefully be one of the first to outstretch a helping hand.

Jan Lada

In reply to Mr Lada note above and on the basis of the new information given, Is clear that I was mislead by the original article and want to send him my apologies. As Mr Lada has pointed out that the bay was intended to be used for 10 minutes normal parking and loading and unloading, my original observations are clearly wrong.
Sorry Mr. Lada

Manny Rasores

Thank you Manny