Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Today I parked outside my girlfriends university onthe main stretch of road. Parking was very tight due to the area being very busy. I managed to park right on the end of the marking for the area that cars can park in. Both my front and back wheels where parked within this area but behind where i parked was a set of zig zag white lines. The back of my car is a bit big and obviously overhung onto these white lines but both my wheels were inside the box. Had i been in a small economy car i would have fitted perfectly.
18.—(1) The driver of a vehicle shall not cause the vehicle or any part thereof to stop within the limits of a "Pelican" crossing unless either he is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop in order to avoid an accident.
18.—(1) The driver of a vehicle shall not cause the vehicle or any part thereof to stop within the limits of a "Pelican" crossing unless either he is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop in order to avoid an accident.
Assuming OP stopped where he did because there was another car in front, could he not argue that he did so in order to avoid an accident by bumping the car in front. Perhaps not the spirit but within the letter perhaps?
Probably will come down to the photos the PA took.
BTW, do we know that this was a pelican crossing, are the regs the same for a zebra, toucan or puffin if it was one of those?
surely a car infront of me would be a reason that circumstances prevented me from parking correctly due to neglagence of the driver who parked infront. the crossing is a pelican crossing and therefore are controlled by pedestrians. i could fully understand had it been a zebra as my car possibly could prevent a pedestrian being seen when crossing but this isnt the case. if i were to personally attend to pay would i be able to convince a reduced rate from the £50 they want me to pay with 14 days????
What makes you say the driver in front parked negligently?
From what you say you have a £100 penalty reduced to £50 for payment within 14 days. I would say you have zero chance of negotiating a payment below £50. You only get a personal hearing if you go to the adjudicators and if you lose it will be the unreduced £100 plus costs if the adjudicator thinks you are acting frivolously, vexatiously or wholy unreasonably.
At this juncture I would say that a defence solely along the lines of my previous post has a realistic chance of being deemed frivolous.
From the info we have so far I think you will only have a chance if you make now informal representations (this will then give you the probability of getting extended time to pay at the reduced rate and create the possibility of an LA cock-up) and then wait for the NTO to see if that is defective and lodge a formal appeal then (you will then lose the opportunity to pay the reduced rate but again generate a chance for the LA to foul up - there may also be defects on the NTO that make it unlawful).
However, as I said in my first post I thought this was a 3 pointer. In your shoes I would probably think myself lucky to have got a £50 pcn instead.
surely a car infront of me would be a reason that circumstances prevented me from parking correctly due to neglagence of the driver who parked infront.
Two wrongs don't make a right, even if the driver had parked over two bays it does not give you the right to break the law since you were aware of how much space you had to park in and if you didn't fit you should have moved elsewhere.
Traffic Parking Offence ..... apparently
for
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by green_and_mean
