Ultimate punishment for refusal to pay parking fine

[spellboy]

I think the OP has made it clear why he doesn't have a pass as he does not as a rule use the road. That is why I was saying that this case would be a candidate for the "discresionary" cancellation with a lecture that the council will not repeatedly cancel tickets for the OP and if he intends parking there again he should obtain a pass.

 

You've got it exactly right. I live alone, just me in the house, only one car, usually in my garage or on the drive. If my sons visit from abroad they don't bring cars with them, they use mine. Therefore under normal circumstances I don't need a permit to park in the street. This whole mess was down to a moment's lack of concentration not a deliberate attempt to use something I did not want to pay for. I stated from the start that I made a stupid mistake.

 

£120 or even £60 is, I feel, too much for a (one-time only) small error. What real harm did I do?

 

If my son had not been in the car I would have driven straight into the garage as I usually do. I had to pull up in the road to let him out and.....you know the rest.

 

So I guess it's his fault and he should pay the fine!

 

I've explained all this in my grovelling letter to the council. Their answer as reported earlier is 'a contravention has occurred' in other words 'pay up £60 or risk losing the whole £120'.

 

I then see red when they claim on their web-site that they apply 'common sense' to Parking Rules.

 

I guess it comes down to what your definition of 'common sense' is.

Edited April 24, 2009 by spellboy

[spellboy]

I got this comment from a friend when he heard my story.

 

'You should have stayed indoors when you saw the CEO and waited till she disappeared. Then written to the council and told them that your son was driving and he parked the car. Give them his Spanish address and I bet nothing else would have happened to you or him'

 

Obviously I would never have done that but it makes you think that maybe cheats do prosper.

 

I've already twigged that the meek will not inherit!

Edited April 24, 2009 by spellboy

[patdavies]

I got this comment from a friend when he heard my story.

 

'You should have stayed indoors when you saw the CEO and waited till she disappeared. Then written to the council and tell them that your son was driving and he parked the car. Give them his Spanish address and I bet nothing else would have happened to you or him'

 

Obviously I would never have done that but it makes you think that maybe cheats do prosper.

 

I've already twigged that the meek will not inherit!

 

Neither would it have worked as the owner - not the driver - is ultimately responsible

[spellboy]

Neither would it have worked as the owner - not the driver - is ultimately responsible

 

If my son gets caught on camera doing 40 in a 30mph area while driving my car in the UK am I the one who gets fined and have 3 points on my licence if he's back in Spain when the summons comes to my address as the registered owner?

Even when I tell them that he was driving not me?

 

Not actually happened....I am just curious to know the answer.

Edited April 24, 2009 by spellboy
additional question

[patdavies]

If my son gets caught on camera doing 40 in a 30mph area while driving my car in the UK am I the one who gets fined and have 3 points on my licence if he's back in Spain when the summons comes to my address as the registered owner?

Even when I tell them that he was driving not me?

 

Not actually happened....I am just curious to know the answer.

 

No, because that is a criminal offence (RTA 1988) and not dealt with by decriminalised parking enforcement (TMA 2004)

 

And there is no such thing as a registered owner. DVLA records the registered keeper and makes it very clear on the V5 that this does not mean owner

[spellboy]

No, because that is a criminal offence (RTA 1988) and not dealt with by decriminalised parking enforcement (TMA 2004)

 

Wow....you really know your stuff!

 

It's an interesting thing though to find out that I am responsible for how he parks but not for how fast he drives.......amazing!

 

thanks again

[Jennyfive]

Hi I've just skimmed through this thread and I just want to say I think you're absolutely right spellboy, it's insane that they should try and charge you £60/£120 for a 60 second error. It's as bad as when banks charge you £40 for going 15 pence into an unauthorised overdraft - no less than blatant attempts to rob people of their money. That whole "pay half the fine of you pay now"... it's no different from the concept of "limited time offers!!" in shops that psychologically scare people into buying... and I find it appauling that the government would employ such profit mongering tactics.

 

I really hope you win in this. Let us know how it goes, I'll be crossing my fingers for you (and raising the middle one should I see the one who gave you that fine!).

[the_freedom_trail]

Obviously I would never have done that but it makes you think that maybe cheats do prosper.

 

Sadly,from what I see, it appears to be nothing but the cheats that prosper in this country!

 

TFT

[spellboy]

Sadly,from what I see, it appears to be nothing but the cheats that prosper in this country!

 

TFT

 

Well that would be the start of a thread that could run forever. There's so much scope..........especially in this current government.

 

If 'Spitting Image' was still on TV they would have a field day!

Edited April 27, 2009 by spellboy
grammar

[pin1onu]

Well that would be the start of a thread that could run forever. There's so much scope..........especially in this current government.

 

If 'Spitting Image' was still on TV they would have a field day!

But we've already got our own version of the Muppet Show already so we don't need Spitting Image.

[spellboy]

Details for bay markings and dimensions here Diagram (b)

 

Those (1028.4) are the only lines allowed for parking that goes across the verge or footway.

 

It would appear that the lines you have are incorrect, but you will need to take this to a formal challenge to NtO or the adjudicator. You should be aware that at this point, should you lose (you shouldn't), there will no longer be a discount.

 

It will be worth checking the line dimensions (in mm) as well as just relying on the misplaced 'L'

 

The council emailed me this link when I asked them to show me any authorisation from the DoT to vary/change markings/signage.

 

http://www.havering.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=13251

 

Its a lot to wade through but I could not see anything to allow them to change from the approved drawing.

 

I would value your opinion. I have one day left to pay up within 14 days.

 

Council have taken time and been evasive about providing this information

Edited April 28, 2009 by spellboy
wrong link

[lamma]

they are playing brinkmanship to get you to fold.

I refer you to pat's post.

 

Ask the DfT for a copy of any authorisations. My bet is that there are none and the council knows it.

[spellboy]

they are playing brinkmanship to get you to fold.

I refer you to pat's post.

 

Ask the DfT for a copy of any authorisations. My bet is that there are none and the council knows it.

 

My inclination is to fight because hardly any of the bays in my area have the correct markings as shown on pat's post. With regard to the bay I parked in; almost all the white lines and spaces beteen were not in accordance with approved drawings.

 

The evasive reaction from the council and reluctance to produce confirmation makes me inclined to your opinion too

Edited April 28, 2009 by spellboy
grammar

[spellboy]

I have just had a phone call from the woman who finally gave me the council link.

 

She said 'I've had a word with Parking about the lines and things being wrong. They agree not everything is exactly right but it's not enough to convince an adjudicator to overturn the PCN'

 

I may not have it word for word but that's the gist of her statement.

 

I am even more inclined to believe they are bluffing now.

 

Any opinions?

[lamma]

I agree - they just want your money.

 

I really hope that you recorded that call.

 

 

Its your decision whether to fight on or pay up not ours......

[spellboy]

I agree - they just want your money.

 

I really hope that you recorded that call.

quote]

 

Unfortunately not. I don't have the equipment to do it anyway

[lamma]

argos do really cheap devices for this.

[spellboy]

 

Its your decision whether to fight on or pay up not ours......

 

I am aware, however it's good to have some feedback.

 

If I hadn't found this forum I wouldn't have known that I had even the slightest chance of fighting these PCN's.

 

All the info ref. signs, markings etc is completely foreign to me.

 

It seems that some councils are relying on the average person's lack of knowledge in orderto get money out of them. This is disgraceful and should be exposed nationwide.

 

Maybe it has been....it's just that one doesn't know about such behaviour until one becomes a victim.

Edited April 28, 2009 by spellboy
spelling

[spellboy]

argos do really cheap devices for this.

 

Knowing me I'd forget to switch it on!

[patdavies]

I have just had a phone call from the woman who finally gave me the council link.

 

She said 'I've had a word with Parking about the lines and things being wrong. They agree not everything is exactly right but it's not enough to convince an adjudicator to overturn the PCN'

 

I may not have it word for word but that's the gist of her statement.

 

I am even more inclined to believe they are bluffing now.

 

Any opinions?

 

She's bluffing.

 

The lines significantly do not conform to the required (and lawful) dimensions.

 

The may try to argue de minimis (de minimis non curat lex - the law does not concern itself with trifles) but the doctrine of de minimis rightly applies to not prosecuting for 'trifles', rather than a prosecuting authority being able to ignore such errors in their case.

 

The adjudicator may also try to argue that the lines convey the necessary restrictions to a reasonable man. Case law removes any test of reasonableness for road signage (which includes lines). The case is Davies v Heatley; if the signs are not as prescribed then they cease to have effect.

 

Some adjudicators will claim that Davies v Heatley is criminal law and therefore does not apply to decriminalised parking. However, so is de minimis - they can't have it both ways. Either prior case law applies or it doesn't.

[lamma]

I agree.

[crem]

I have just had a phone call from the woman who finally gave me the council link.

 

She said 'I've had a word with Parking about the lines and things being wrong. They agree not everything is exactly right but it's not enough to convince an adjudicator to overturn the PCN'

 

I may not have it word for word but that's the gist of her statement.

 

I am even more inclined to believe they are bluffing now.

 

Any opinions?

 

Write the conversation down as a true memory of the call. Whilst not as good as a recording I think if you refer to it in an ajudication it will carry more weight than if you are just trying to recall a conversation from many months ago.

[Jayen4]

Hello everyone...I've just joined this forum.

 

Now,I would say,having looked at those bay markings,that the ticket you got is un-enforceable,becuse the bay markings do not conform. And if they do not conform,they might as well not exist at all ! Plus ,I do not think that you can have a parking bay which is half on the pavement. There is a specific reference to to exactly this on Pepipoo. They have access to the TSRGD which includes all the prescribed forms of bay markings. I have a copy myself around here somewhere. I'll have to dig it out. There may also be failings on the actual ticket.....I have only skimmed through the thread. Some good advice given on here already (pat davies),but I would be tempted to go over to Pepipoo. They are rather hot on this sort of subject....I've seen them in action !! lol . If this was my ticket,I'd be taking it all the way.

 

Generally tho',this looks like a very useful forum.

[patdavies]

Plus ,I do not think that you can have a parking bay which is half on the pavement.

 

Yes you can - as long as the TRO supports it

 

There is a specific reference to to exactly this on Pepipoo. They have access to the TSRGD which includes all the prescribed forms of bay markings. I have a copy myself around here somewhere.

 

TSRGD is available to anybody here

[spellboy]

Another question I'd like some help on is whether bay markings should continue over dropped kerbs.

I would have thought that the bays should be stopped where a dropped kerb occurs and then continued after them.

Most people know not to park in front of a dropped kerb.

However is it a requirement that the bays should be marked out to show where you can actually park?

Is it possible that the bays are illegal as a result of this?

Here are some examples from the bays outside my house.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2009 by spellboy