SAFETY issues or actual obstruction problems may justify use of the camera car, indiscriminate roving for victims to fine does not.

In Mark Jury’s case (Echo February 22) it is difficult to see how any reasonable person could refuse his appeal.

As the deputy parking manager has effectively ruled out the possibility that the legislation does not permit mitigation by saying that full consideration is given into all individual cases and that mitigating circumstances are taken into account, it might assist readers if she would give examples of mitigating circumstances that would be accepted by her (sudden death, perhaps).

It would also be helpful if she could state how many pleas for mitigating circumstances (as distinct from those on technical grounds) have been received and how many have been accepted.

However, do not be surprised to learn that no such statistics exist.

It seems that those responsible for the administration of this spiteful but profitable legislation, whether by instruction or not, have adopted a ‘hard line no excuses’ policy.

Finally the reference to the Independent Adjudication Service to request consideration of mitigating circumstances does not appear appropriate because the paperwork seems concerned only with technical matters.

NAME SUPPLIED Bournemouth