Ticketed at 4.30AM

[Ducati66]

I'm wondering it anyone can help in relation to a ticket I was issued at 4.30AM Sunday morning.

 

On my way back from work, I stopped off to pick up some milk etc ( I was probably gone for about 10 minutes). I parked in a side road (Durham Road N7) - I don't have an issue with what I did, ie; I parked on double yellow lines, figuring at 4.30 in the morning there are no patrols. I question the morality and principles of ticketing people at that time in the morning (Trying to support local businesses by shopping locally.) I parked behind a car that was in a residents box. I was not causing an obstruaction, blocking anything etc.

 

My question is firstly, I have checked Islington website and policy documents and cannot find it anywhere that they carry out 24 patrols - As a resident I was completely unaware of this (and unaware that my council tax is paying for it). I spoke to them at the council this morning and got passed from pillar to post. Surely they must have their hours of operation in their policies?

 

Secondly, the ticket says it is contravention: 01, parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours; Which I believe in incorrect, surely ithe contravention should be related to double yellows???

 

Any ideas? Suggestions???

 

These are the hours:

Zone J Matchday Controls Mon to Fri 8:30am to 8:30pm, Sat 8:30am to 4:30pm & Sundays & Public Holidays 12:00pm to 4:30pm

[Jamberson]

Double yellows are in force 24/7. As I understand your argument, your main complaint is that you did not expect PCNs to be issued at that time of day. It's another way of saying you hoped to get away with stopping there, but I don't see that as any basis for an appeal.

 

Contravention 01 "restricted street" does mean double yellows. It's just the official term for it, so the contravention is correctly stated.

 

Your only slender hope I think is to argue that you were collecting goods or something. You can use yellow lines to do that. How long was the vehicle observed for, according to the times on the PCN? If it was five minutes or more, I think you're out of luck.

[Ducati66]

To be honest I make you right, there is a slim to zero chance - I know that I was in the wrong - I'm just apoplectic on the morality and principle of it, didnt expect for them to be around that time in the morning (I work as a paramedic and the only council I know who are out in force 24/7 are Westminister) After I posted the above, I checked out the contravention code, as that was really my last hope, unfortunately as you say, it's correct - Guess I'd better just pay up and swallow it . I think I just wanted somewhere to vent my spleen and see if ther was an outside chance ....Alas.....Thanks for your contribution, much appreciated.

[rebel11]

Hi Ducati66

 

What was the lighting like? Were the yellow lines clearly visible?

[porkyp1g]

Course they were as the op has stated he knew they were double yellows.

[Jamberson]

You were unlucky. Ironically, if you'd parked in the residents' bay, you'd have been alright as they aren't in force overnight.

[rebel11]

There isn't always as much lighting as there should be, the lines aren't always as clear as they should be, just checking.

 

Course they were as the op has stated he knew they were double yellows.

[Ducati66]

Unfortunately they were quite obvious. Its a shame people are rudely jumping in and answering on my behalf. As rebel11 said, the lines arent always clear, the lighting isint always great, and traffic wardens can 'see' lines sometimes that arent always obvious to the mere public. So, unless you were there,rude presumptive answers are uncalled for.

[Ducati66]

I know, hindsights a wonderful thing! (having done a long shift with the drunk public I couldnt be bothered to park further up and walk back, again, wrongly assuming there were no traffic wardens around at 4.30 in the morning... should have known , they are a species unto themselves and can come out of cracks in the pavements!)

[rebel11]

Hi Ducati66

 

TW have targets, there isn't much traffic at 4.30a.m., so they are pretty much stationary watching the only 'hotspot' around, near a 24/7 shop.

 

The TW should have hung around instead of skulking off, it would have been good to explain to him/her what you do for a living and used some common sense.

 

I know, hindsights a wonderful thing! (having done a long shift with the drunk public I couldnt be bothered to park further up and walk back, again, wrongly assuming there were no traffic wardens around at 4.30 in the morning... should have known , they are a species unto themselves and can come out of cracks in the pavements!)

[green_and_mean]

Hi Ducati66

 

TW have targets, there isn't much traffic at 4.30a.m., so they are pretty much stationary watching the only 'hotspot' around, near a 24/7 shop.

 

The TW should have hung around instead of skulking off, it would have been good to explain to him/her what you do for a living and used some common sense.

 

CEOs do not enforce 'traffic' contraventions they enforce 'parking' contraventions and unsurprisingly most vehicles are 'parked' at 4.30am so they would have plenty to do as many people wrongly assume they can ignore restrictions during the night/early morning. Why would they hang around they have issued a PCN so why wait around they probably just drove off to find another vehicle parked in breach of the parking regulations?

[rebel11]

I've explained in my previous posts. If they've got a constant stream of people parked who want to use the store they are likely to hang around.

 

CEOs do not enforce 'traffic' contraventions they enforce 'parking' contraventions and unsurprisingly most vehicles are 'parked' at 4.30am so they would have plenty to do as many people wrongly assume they can ignore restrictions during the night/early morning. Why would they hang around they have issued a PCN so why wait around they probably just drove off to find another vehicle parked in breach of the parking regulations?

[renegadeimp]

I would chalk this one up to a bad experience and pay the fine before they increase it. At least you know that you can be caught anytime on double yellows now, so make sure you are careful in the future.

[Conniff]

(and unaware that my council tax is paying for it)

 

 

It's not your council tax paying for it, they make tens of millions from the motorist and at 04:30, if any further proof were needed, they are all about making money and not keeping the roads clear.

[Jamberson]

In fact, whatever you think of the parking regimes in this country, the Council Tax argument is the worst. Not only are CEOs usually paid by a private company, their activities bring money into the council's coffers. Without the revenue stream which PCNs have become, there would pressure on council tax to go up!

[rebel11]

PCN's shouldn't be there to cross subsides the council spend, revenue can be generated in many different ways. Just look when someone builds an extension or has building work done. The pavement is left in a mess, all broken because someone has hired a skip. The council fix it without charging the home owner. There should be a 'skip pavement charge' tagged on to skips, it would be miniscule to the spend. There are loads of other ways to generate revenue.

 

It's the fact that there's infrastructure and the councils have become overzealous.

 

Also virtually every council has got a load of art works etc locked up, were talking about millions, e.g. Manchester has got £321m worth of art just hidden away doing nothing, get visitors to pay to look at it.

 

In fact, whatever you think of the parking regimes in this country, the Council Tax argument is the worst. Not only are CEOs usually paid by a private company, their activities bring money into the council's coffers. Without the revenue stream which PCNs have become, there would pressure on council tax to go up!

[green_and_mean]

PCN's shouldn't be there to cross subsides the council spend, revenue can be generated in many different ways. Just look when someone builds an extension or has building work done. The pavement is left in a mess, all broken because someone has hired a skip. The council fix it without charging the home owner. There should be a 'skip pavement charge' tagged on to skips, it would be miniscule to the spend. There are loads of other ways to generate revenue.

 

It's the fact that there's infrastructure and the councils have become overzealous.

 

Also virtually every council has got a load of art works etc locked up, were talking about millions, e.g. Manchester has got £321m worth of art just hidden away doing nothing, get visitors to pay to look at it.

 

Councils do charge people for damage to the footway if they know who did the damage and they do charge for a skip licence of its on the highway.

The PCN was issued because the car was illegally parked not to subsidise people with skips. There would seem little point in having 24hr parking restrictions if they only applied at some arbitery time that suits you.

[green_and_mean]

It's not your council tax paying for it, they make tens of millions from the motorist and at 04:30, if any further proof were needed, they are all about making money and not keeping the roads clear.

 

Thats a rather perverse argument, if no one is about at 4.30am then they would not make any money and instead work at a loss. The fact is as is shown by the OP people in London do use the roads 24hrs a day and if the restriction is 24hrs its there for a reason.

[rebel11]

If they do, it's not consistent, maybe it's too hard. They should find out, maybe a skip sitting on a drive is a big clue or maybe sat nav tracking, it's not that difficult.

Where exactly have I said that? Don't put your own interpretation on what I say. They don't always hand out PCN's, that's a fact.

 

Councils do charge people for damage to the footway if they know who did the damage and they do charge for a skip licence of its on the highway.

The PCN was issued because the car was illegally parked not to subsidise people with skips. There would seem little point in having 24hr parking restrictions if they only applied at some arbitery time that suits you.

[Jamberson]

The skip argument is just absurd. How much revenue do you think could be gained from skip charges or clean-up charges, compared to the mountains of parking PCNs they churn out. I don't like it, but it's precisely because it's a cash cow that the councils do it! Skip charges are like loose change by comparison.

[rebel11]

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it absurd. Skip charges and a lot of other charges. Penalty charges for gum on the pavement. There is surely more gum on the pavement then car's parked illegally? It's amazing how you've focused in on skip's.

 

The skip argument is just absurd. How much revenue do you think could be gained from skip charges or clean-up charges, compared to the mountains of parking PCNs they churn out. I don't like it, but it's precisely because it's a cash cow that the councils do it! Skip charges are like loose change by comparison.

[green_and_mean]

People regularly get fined for dropping gum, littering, fly tipping, not picking up dog poo etc the difference is those that get caught on the whole do not go around bleating on about it being a 'tax'.

[Jamberson]

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it absurd. Skip charges and a lot of other charges. Penalty charges for gum on the pavement. There is surely more gum on the pavement then car's parked illegally? It's amazing how you've focused in on skip's.

 

No, you're right. Armies of PCN-issuing pavement gum police is not absurd at all.

[rebel11]

There's a lot of gum on the pavement, £80 a PCN, councils should be raking it in, 'Pavement Gum Police' excellent idea, PGP.

 

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/10727908.Dropping_chewing_gum_in_the_street_could_cost_you___80/?ref=rc

 

No, you're right. Armies of PCN-issuing pavement gum police is not absurd at all.

[Jamberson]

But why would you want to issue PCNs for gum instead of poor parking? Even if what you say is correct, it only shifts the issue sideways. You're now suggesting doing what a little while ago you thought was unacceptable:

 

PCN's shouldn't be there to cross subsides the council spend