parked adjacent to dropped kerb

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

OK, so let's take what you two say as a fact, since I can't be bothered to argue it.

I really don't care. You are wrong. Any arguing on this point will just make you look like a bigger fool than you do already.

Car parked illegally - let's remove the element of doubt over this. It's on double yellow lines, within 10 metres of a junction, by a dropped kerb. But for the basis of discussion, the car is parked illegally and no technicality will circumvent this.

There's plenty of doubt. It is entirely relevant that what matters is whether the contravention that is stated on the PCN is the one that occurred and there is scope to argue that. The yellow lines are irrelevant to that.

The registered keeper of the car was not driving at the time - hell, for argument's sake, let's say he wasn't even present (in this case, he was, but this scenario is hypothetical).

A total red herring.

A PCN is served on the car for parking illegally and sent to the registered keeper - who by your arguments is liable and cannot pass liability on to who was driving.

Not us it's the law

Why should the registered keeper have to take the penalty, when 1. he can prove that the offence was not committed by him, as he knows who the driver was at the time and 2. he has no means of passing the PCN over to who was driving.

Cos it's the law!

Other than the obvious, this has a few other implications - 1. in the case of hire vehicles the registered keeper is unable to pass on the fine to who was driving at the time (since you cannot name the driver and you have responsibility). 2. in borrowed vehicles the driver can park anywhere knowing he/she is not liable since the registered keeper is solely responsible for any contraventions; in either case, would the registered keeper enforcing the payment of the fine from the driver become an unenforceable civil invoice?

Quite so, chose your friends. Many friendships will have broken-down on this.

Hauling this back on-topic, does this not dead-end the OP? The registered keeper is liable so cannot pass this on to the driver. The registered keeper is too unwell to defend it - the driver would be more than capable mentally of doing so. The markings are compliant and the PCN is valid (they would win the appeal were they not). A contravention occurred, it is who has to pay it...

Just questioning, with a certain degree of devil's advocate.

What markings are relevant to this contravention?

There remain solutions. The LA have the discretion to accept representations made on behalf of the RK. The OP may have POA. The RK may still sign documentation.

It may be that it will be best for the OP to pay but that is their decision.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I'm thinking out loud here:

 

It has occurred to me that ForestChav is simply having a laugh. You know the kind of Troll who just likes to wind people up and string them along.

 

Any thoughts?

[dragonkeeper]

 

 

:)Hi I have received a ticket for parking adjacent to a dropped kerb.

 

 

.

 

 

 

All the way back to post #1

The O P states he received the TICKET not the owner or RK therefore he has not questioned who was liable and did not ask for advice to whom paid the ticket.

[ForestChav]

I really don't care. You are wrong.

Then prove it rather than telling me.

 

There's plenty of doubt. It is entirely relevant that what matters is whether the contravention that is stated on the PCN is the one that occurred and there is scope to argue that. The yellow lines are irrelevant to that.

 

A total red herring.

 

Not us it's the law

 

Cos it's the law!

You entirely miss the point, well done. I was talking about a completely hypothetical situation, not the situation in this thread.

 

Quite so, chose your friends. Many friendships will have broken-down on this.

Agree totally. Only lend the car to who you think is responsible enough to pay any contraventions they incur, if you have to take them on your own financial clout! Doesn't disassociate itself from that scenario, though, does it?

What markings are relevant to this contravention?

There remain solutions. The LA have the discretion to accept representations made on behalf of the RK. The OP may have POA. The RK may still sign documentation.

It may be that it will be best for the OP to pay but that is their decision.

Indeed, and provided he has good reason I rest my case on my initial judgement that he should, regardless of any nit picking we can come up with - at the best, he'll waste time.

I think the entire concept of forums has eluded you? Why not pop over to the CAG banking forum and suggest they all go see an accountant?

The point of forums is for people to exchange their views on these situations. You cannot presume anyone advising you on a forum is any more than a lay person in front of google. There is a complete lack of veritability from any pseudonym on a forum, you have no idea what expertise, knowledge, contacts or whatever any user has on these forums, or indeed, how able they are to convert this into advice. Hence if in doubt you need to seek the advice of someone who can show they know what they are about...

I have proffessional qualifications in parking/traffic management and cctv enforcement amongst other things and am probably more qualified than most solicitors as far as decrim parking is concerned.

But anyone who has no / few posts cannot see that this is the case. You should probably contact the site team if you have professional (NOTE) expertise in this field to see if there is any way that they can flag your profile to reflect this - without knowledge of this, it makes you look like an amateur from an outsider's view. We have representatives from companies (mainly mobile networks) who have verified this with the site team and their status reflects this...

Who in their right mind is going to pay for a solicitor to get off a £30 ticket?

I'd pay it. It's £30, that's a couple of hours' work to fight it, I suppose that's what they're banking on. But then, I can see how that is precisely how a skint government might want to make money, as a cynic....

The keeper is liable because its his car and is therefore liable for any penalties it gets, no penalty points are issued so the only penalty is a financial one. The law is well known to most people and anyone with any common sense would ensure that they only allowed someone to drive the car if they agreed to pay any fines they got.

As I said, this is a fair cop, I'd only lend a car I own in such circumstances, and as it is only a fine rather than points I can see how there may be a distinction. But I don't see how the notice cannot - out of fairness - be passed on to the person who committed it. Presumably all this is recorded?

[ForestChav]

I'm thinking out loud here:

 

It has occurred to me that ForestChav is simply having a laugh. You know the kind of Troll who just likes to wind people up and string them along.

 

Any thoughts?

Bearing in mind that I stated that an appeal would be unsuccessful, which turned out to be the case... you perhaps should notify the site team, if you believe this to be the case.

 

Unless contrary is proven we are all amateurs advising amateurs how to proceed. My signature shows that what I post is my opinion and that I have no legal qualifications.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Then prove it rather than telling me.

I've quoted you the law but here's a link:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910040_en_1

If you are still not satisfied read this court of appeal:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/francis-v-wandsworth.pdf

If you are still unconvinced then there really is no hepling you!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Bearing in mind that I stated that an appeal would be unsuccessful, which turned out to be the case.

 

Actually you are getting ahead of yourself here. All that has been rejected are informal representations and it's not rocket science to anticipate that they will be rejected.

 

As for alerting the site team. I think I will sleep on that but it's a thought.

[ForestChav]

right, so who won the appeal?

 

*points at signature*

[ForestChav]

If you are still not satisfied read this court of appeal:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/francis-v-wandsworth.pdf

If you are still unconvinced then there really is no hepling you!

which states:

 

"Miss Francis made representations in respect of each notice to the appellants to the effect that she was not the owner of the vehicle at the material time as she had given it to Mr Baker for repair. The appellants rejected this representation and on 10th July 1995 Miss Francis gave notice of appeal to the Parking Adjudicator who after an oral hearing upheld her appeal."

 

Upheld means she won... Does case law not reinforce my point?

[dragonkeeper]

 

I have received the judgement of an UNOFFICAL appeal conducted by the Council parking dept.

 

It really does go against the grain as I believe I have an excellent case.

 

 

 

Until an offical appeal has been made there is no way to say who is right or wrong.

 

As the O P is paying the ticket the forum will never know.

 

 

 

dk

[ForestChav]

Taking that case as I presently see it - bearing in mind a case will be judged on the merits of the individual circumstances, it is clear that:

 

- the RK entrusted the care of her car to a third party. During this time, contraventions were accrued.

- By the logic of some, the RK is liable for this.

- PCNs were served, the RK appealed on the basis that she had no knowledge of a contravention.

- After the initial appeal being rejected, she took it to a formal appeal which upheld her stance that she was not liable.

 

Bearing this case law in mind, the OP is liable for the fine not the OP's father who is the registered keeper. This case law contradicts the stated view given by unverifiable amateurs that the registered keeper is liable.

 

Using this finding to help the OP, which is the whole point of this forum, the simple statement that the OP was driving and not the registered keeper can pass the ticket on to the OP, who can then be responsible for any defence...

 

If anything, the case law you showed re-inforced what I said.

[ForestChav]

Until an offical appeal has been made there is no way to say who is right or wrong.

 

As the O P is paying the ticket the forum will never know.

 

 

 

dk

But according to the posters here you are WRONG. The OP is NOT paying the ticket as he is not the registered keeper...

[dragonkeeper]

forestchav if you read post #26 posted by dave_cumbria (the O P) and quoted below

 

I have received the judgement of an unofficial appeal conducted by the Council parking dept. It states that my appeal has been unsuccessful. If the owner of the vehicle (my Dad) wishes to make a formal appeal, he can. Now this is where I have a problem. My Dad was run down while walking on the pavement, 16 months ago. He received severe head injuries which required brain surgery. This has left him with brain damage and he is 85. He is in no fit state to receive official letters from the Council. He is also very worried about his wife (my mother) as she has motor neurone disease and is in a sorry state. Since the accident he isn't capable of comprehending my mother's situation and keeps asking me when she will be coming home.

I have therefore no option, to protect my Dad and PAY THE FINE . It really does go against the grain as I believe I have an excellent case.

Many thanks for all your comments.

 

 

 

In my opinion this thread is finished and should be put to bed

 

 

 

 

 

dk.

[ForestChav]

forestchav if you read post #26 posted by dave_cumbria (the O P) and quoted below

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion this thread is finished and should be put to bed

 

 

 

 

 

dk.

In my opinion it was finished from the second the OP posted it. The fine should be paid.

 

I will defend what I think has a case being defended. Here, I don't see any loophole.

[crem]

I'm thinking out loud here:

 

It has occurred to me that ForestChav is simply having a laugh. You know the kind of Troll who just likes to wind people up and string them along.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Me too, but what surprises me is that ForestChav has been a member for 3 years with over 700 posts, but it is only in the past week that his last 50 or so posts have been complete dross. Has someone hacked his account or something or has he just found a new game to amuse himself by winding up CAG members?

[dragonkeeper]

I'm thinking out loud here:

 

It has occurred to me that ForestChav is simply having a laugh. You know the kind of Troll who just likes to wind people up and string them along.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Me too, but what surprises me is that ForestChav has been a member for 3 years with over 700 posts, but it is only in the past week that his last 50 or so posts have been complete dross. Has someone hacked his account or something or has he just found a new game to amuse himself by winding up CAG members?

 

 

 

 

After yesterdays posted responses

 

it's like posting through the looking glass with Alice.

 

Off with his head!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

dk

[Jamberson]

My Dad was run down while walking on the pavement, He is in no fit state to receive official letters from the Council.

 

Hi, Sorry to hear this. I hope he's on the mend soon. Before you pay, I thought it worth enquiring whether anyone (yourself?) has power of attorney over your father's affairs? If so, they can assume the position of appellant and pursue the appeals process on his behalf.

 

If not, I would suggest this may be worth looking into in any case as there could be other (unrelated) matters arising which need dealing with while he's in hospital.

 

This thread now needs to stay on-topic. The vehicle owner is liable - end of.

[lamma]

I agree. Suggested the PoA a while back.

 

RK is liable - unless TWOC'd of course

[dragonkeeper]

 

 

The vehicle -------->owner is liable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------>RK is liable

 

 

 

 

 

---------->Which?

 

At the time of PCN the OP was driving

Does that not mean at the time the OP was the owner (I know it's a PCN and not a NTO or NIP) and Father the RK

 

Power of Attorney needs to be looked at very carefully as the OP's father is responsable for the OP's mother,

therefore in this case PoA is very powerful.

 

My advice is seek legal ADVICE

 

 

 

 

 

dk

[Jamberson]

Right, I'm not going to get drawn into a debate. I will answer your points for clarity, and that will be the end as far as I cam concened. We need to help this guy out. This is the situation:

 

---------->Which?

 

The OWNER should be liable. There is no reliable way to ascertain who that is. So the Local Authority acts on the assumption that the RK is the owner and holds the RK liable unless he/she proves to their satisfaction that the owner is someone else. They can do this because they are entitled to hold liable the person they BELIEVE to be the owner. That person must prove otherwise of continue to be liable. 9 times out of 10, it's the same person.

 

At the time of PCN the OP was driving

 

No they were not. No one was driving. The car was parked up. It is not a driving offence. The owner is responsible for the whereabouts of his/her vehicle.

 

Does that not mean at the time the OP was the owner (I know it's a PCN and not a NTO or NIP) and Father the RK

 

No. The owner is the legal owner, not the person who parked it.

 

 

My advice is seek legal ADVICE

 

Fair enough, but I have had many encounters with solicitors and CAB etc. None of them seem to understand how it works. The knowledge on this forum is almost certainly better, quick and free.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Jamberson

[ForestChav]

Is there any way at all that the OP can appeal to the council, basically explain the situation with his father's health, and request that he has special dispensation, as he was the driver, to handle the appeal? If the registered keeper is liable then they will be relying on goodwill but if there is no way the father is up to handling the appeal himself and the OP does not have PoA then - much as in my personal opinion there's definitely an offence committed here - he has to basically accept this, if he wants to fight it, he can't. (as a totally academic and somewhat irrelevant point which I don't feel discussion-worthy, I do feel this is slightly unfair on the RK that he is responsible and cannot pass the PCN on like they can with a NIP unless there was a hire arrangement; the law seems to be pretty adamant on this point though )

 

As a general point if his father's health is that bad and also they have to deal with his mother as well, power of attorney would be useful in other ways than this.

 

(CAB are useless, really, though. They're just lay people who read fact sheets. I've seen advice given on forums in areas which I am more elucid - e.g. consumer law - where the advice is generally wrong! Consumer Direct are a better port of call, but none is better than actually reading the sale of goods act! Solicitors I am surprised, but then I suppose you're really looking for a Nick Freeman type who is aware of all the loopholes and a solicitor needs to be specialist in that area really. Also, apologies for the argument the other night, but you guys are going to have to get used to the fact that I'm going to need at least a reference to where the law says this, or to paste the relevant parts, I won't accept "you're wrong" like that, just in the same way that I doubt you would if the ball was at your feet like that. I've been on CAG long enough to respect the site and its ethos - but that doesn't mean that I'll back up someone who is clearly in the wrong and just needs to chalk it down to experience and pay the penalty and move on - but no-one on here knows everything and it's a case of showing how someone can improve what they know rather than just mudslinging and namecalling which just gets people banned.)

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

. . . I won't accept "you're wrong" like that, . . .

 

. . . that doesn't mean that I'll back up someone who is clearly in the wrong . . .

 

Ho, hummm!

[ForestChav]

Ho, hummm!

You're not quite getting the point, but it isn't relevant - I think "show, not tell" is probably the best way of explaining it without taking the thread completely off-track again. The second quote is merely a personal belief that if someone has been "got" completely by the book they should be encouraged to just pay for it and chalk it down to experience than go through countless appeals, red tape, and arguments only to be in the same situation just having wasted time. Sure, that requires the same courtesy from the authorities and if signage and paperwork is not compliant with the law, rightly so, it should not be enforced. But I'm not wishing to cause an argument, we're all here to help the people needing advice which means we have to be realistic also.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

No it's not. It's you not accepting that people who know more and better than you can say that you are wrong and you then retaining the right to say that others are when you have come to a hasty conclusion. That's plain hypocrisy.

[ForestChav]

No, what I'm saying is that people who, for example, are caught doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone, by a camera which is correctly calibrated, and served with compliant paperwork, should just accept that they broke the law and were caught out rather than squirming for loopholes. They know they were doing it, the authorities did it by the book, where is the point in not taking responsibility for your actions? That is what I'm on about not defending people who have done wrong. If there is likely no merit in an appeal, an appeal should not be encouraged as the best form of action. If the authorities have served a non-compliant PCN or the offence did not take place, like for example the thread with the box junction seems to be with the extra evidence of the camera footage, then there is absolutely no reason why a conviction should occur on grounds where the person has done nothing wrong or the authorities have misinterpreted the law. Everyone makes mistakes, but no-one should be penalised for someone's mistakes if they have themselves not done anything wrong. In any case, this argument is simply not helpful to the OP's situation, you can PM me if you want to carry on, but I'm not prepared to argue it any more on this thread.