The council has paid tens of thousands of pounds defending the Low Emission Zone in court, figures show.

A Freedom of Information Request submitted by the Glasgow Times reveals the full cost to date for Glasgow City Council defending the LEZ in court is £71, 342.64 (inclusive of VAT) for externals and counsel.

It comes after the Court of Session in Edinburgh dismissed a petition brought on by William Paton, director of Paton's Accident Repair Centre in Townhead challenging the legality of the LEZ scheme.

The campaign, known as the LEZ Fightback, was supported by other motor trade firms in the area and attracted a major donation of £100,000 from drummer Paul McManus, of the band Gun.

The council, which has a duty to protect the public purse, has asked the court to rule on whether it will be granted expenses, a spokesperson confirmed.

A decision is expected in due course.


'Ghost town' claim as firm loses fight to scrap Glasgow LEZ

Glasgow LEZ: Drivers may not have to pay fines after ruling

How much Glasgow City Council is owed in unpaid LEZ fines

We approached the spokesperson for the LEZ Fightback campaign who did not wish to comment.

A spokesperson for Glasgow City Council said: “Glasgow’s Low Emission Zone is an important public health measure, aimed at reducing levels of harmful air pollution that has blighted the city centre for decades.

“The recent decision of the Court of Session to dismiss a petition for Judicial Review of Glasgow’s LEZ, found the scheme to be both lawful and proportionate.

“Whilst legal expenses were unavoidably incurred in defending this legal challenge, recovery of such expenses would ordinarily be subject to future assessment by the courts.”

Since coming into effect in June, Phase Two of the LEZ has resulted in more than 20,000 fines.

Glasgow City Council is owed £830,070 in fines racked up in the first four months of the scheme and has recovered £478,560.

We previously reported that dozens of drivers have had their penalty charges cancelled after a Transport Appeal Tribunal decision because the council did not issue the fines using recorded or registered post.

A spokesperson for the council said: "Our view is that those involved in these cases remain liable to pay their fines and we are appealing the decision in these cases to the Upper-Tier Tribunal."