Ticket for being 4 mins past bay restriction

[Bailiffchaser]

Beats me. what is warden trying to say ?

[seylectric]

No idea, but the last time I requested photos of the alleged "offence" I got 4 photos back. One was of the car's VRM, the second was a picture of a windscreen (could have been any windscreen) with a yellow and black parking ticket envelope on it; the third was a picture of a road sign with the parking restrictions on it and the fourth was a picture of some double yellow lines. Not one photo conclusively placed my car at "the scene of the crime".

 

I did have a parking ticket envelope on my car windscreen on that same hot summer's day, the glue on it left a sticky residue on the windscreen. I couldn't clean it off and had to get a taxi home as the residue was in my line of vision - it's an offence of course to drive with an obscured windscreen. Is it an offence for someone to deliberately obscure my line of vision with a parking ticket envelope? Hmmm....

 

Just wondering how much to invoice them for the taxi home, my time, the price for a local garage to collect the car, clean off the residue professionally and deliver it to me...

[The Warden]

Ok...what i meant to say but didn't clearly say it, was if a VDA occurs then a VDA is selected as how the ticket was distributed after printing. E.g. Your on yellow lines, i take a photograph of your tax, the car on the yellow lines with maybe a shop in the background (to give some idea of location as well as contravention), any other photograph that maybe neccasary i.e. timeplates, no parking signs, etc..etc... and then i go on to take the ticket details to produce the ticket. If the ticket gets printed and no sign of driver, i place in an envelope (yellow & black = K&C) place on windscreen then take a photogrpah of the ticket on the windscreen with the tax disc all in one photo so it couldn't be any other windscreen. If the VDA happens, then i select VDA, pocket the ticket until i get back to base, before carrying out the paperwork using the pocketed ticket to fill in the VDA sections of all PCNs issued where the VehicleDroveAway.

 

[phew!]

 

In other words, the act doesn't apply to the the car as it is no longer stationary so my options are not hand it to driver or affix to vehicle as the cehicle isn't there.

If this act doesn't apply to this situation i would select VDA where the athorities would follow the procedure (if) as all evidence is present to verify that the vehicle was in such a place, at such a time, contravening.

 

(This probably still isn't clear to some - but i know what i'm trying to say )

 

BTW, i didn't once say I would take a picture of a moving vehicle which proves anything to a parking offence. If you take a photograph of a car parked on a double yellow line and that photograph is timestamped and dated, and is backed up by the same details in your notebook/DAP, and is archived...then why would it be fictisious? Ok, you could alledgedly make it ficticious, but then going around, day-by-day doing the opposite of your job is a) going to get the police involved and b) end you up in a lot of hot water....so why do anything other than what you've been trained to do?

i.e. a still of a car timestamped on double yellow lines would prove that the car was parked on double yellow lines.

[seylectric]

But a still picture could be one of a moving vehicle! Only a video would show whether the car was moving or not, unless it's blurred (and everything else in the pic isn't).

 

Also a pic of a ticket envelope on a windscreen proves nothing - the envelope could be empty (this has actually happened to me)

 

Dates and times can be manually set too on every digital camera I have ever seen. Is there any sort of check before and after use to say the date and time set is correct?

 

We all know there are targets to meet, we all know there is overtime to be had (even in ticket processing offices), let's just say that anything can happen and probably does in some cases.

 

For example, literally millions of tickets are issued illegally, e.g. when there are breaks in the yellow lines, and probably 99% of people are unaware of the regs, don't have the time/knowledge to pursue it and don't need the hassle so pay up. No such thing as a unscrupulous warden breaking the rules? Why then, (in this example), are they issuing tickets when no contravention has occured because the lines are broken?

 

Most if not all tickets issued in these circumstances can be successfully challenged, but the point is that they should not have been issued in the first place and councils etc. are cashing in on tickets that are not challenged but, if the warden was doing his job according to the law, they should never have been issued in the first place!

[The Warden]

But a still picture could be one of a moving vehicle! Only a video would show whether the car was moving or not, unless it's blurred (and everything else in the pic isn't).

 

That's one of the criteria on taking photos...it PROVES the car isn't in motion as there are at least three photographs of the same car parked in the same place without anyone in the vehicle....i.e. photo taken from the rear of the car showing no one in driver/passenger seat, the VRM, and it's location, i.e. contravention. Another from the front of the vehicle, with the obvious notion that you are not going to get run down by an empty vehicle, the VRM, the location i.e. contravention. The PCN taken with highest resolution (around 4-5megapixel) on macro setting showing there is a PCN in the envelope and it's also in the same shot as the tax disk.

If i take a picture of my car, it generally shows a still of a stationary vehicle as cameras these days are such high resolution that you can tell the differnece between someone in the car, and no one in the car.

 

Also a pic of a ticket envelope on a windscreen proves nothing - the envelope could be empty (this has actually happened to me)

 

Dates and times can be manually set too on every digital camera I have ever seen. Is there any sort of check before and after use to say the date and time set is correct?

 

 

I feel bad that someone took a photograph of your windscreen with an empty PCN envelope, but as a rule, generally the photo is taken to show where the PCN was affixed to vehicle. You can't rule out the fact that someone could have taken the ticket from the vehicle, i'm not saying they did, but i'm not saying they didn't either...there are many factors to why there maynot have been a ticket in the envelope, but the photograph is meanto to display that the ticket had been placed on the vehicle. If the issuer of PCN took full notes, then he should have a printed ticket (with PCN Number) which would match his notes. You must admit for someone to print up a PCN conpile his notes and paperwork at the end of the day, it would seem odd for him to take all the necasary action to print out a ticket, take photographs and then not put the ticket in the envelope, or take the ticket out of the envelope before walking away.

 

Date/Time stamps can be changed yes, but in briefing at the start of the day, times on cameras and watches are checked for syncronisation (for obvious reasons). This isn't to say that the time on camera can not be changed, it can. But the time on the ticket machine can not. The machines we use are called DAP, and run by Microsoft operating systems...It's linked to a realtime database, and restrictions on the DAP are limited to just the running of the PCN software. If someone was to change the time on his cmaera to 1 hour earlier, then he must have issued a ticket one hour earlier to a car he knew was going to be taking a photogrpah of one hour later, if that makes sense. Just seems pointless.

 

We all know there are targets to meet, we all know there is overtime to be had (even in ticket processing offices), let's just say that anything can happen and probably does in some cases.

 

Your not wrong there...but generally it isn't worth getting caught, and sooner or later you will be. I've seen it happen...so yes things happen which there not supposed too...but you could say that of any occupation, including the suggestion of theft from a part timer at a newsagents. There will always be regulations and people willing to break them. But for the majority of us sane people, we know it isn't worth getting caught for.

 

For example, literally millions of tickets are issued illegally, e.g. when there are breaks in the yellow lines, and probably 99% of people are unaware of the regs, don't have the time/knowledge to pursue it and don't need the hassle so pay up. No such thing as a unscrupulous warden breaking the rules? Why then, (in this example), are they issuing tickets when no contravention has occured because the lines are broken?

 

I think 99% is a bit high isn't it? But you got your point accross. In training you are aware that some tickets will be issued unfairly, not because your out to gain a couple of ticket to your quota...but merely out of technicality. Similar to what you suggest and was brought up in training...take this scenario as an example.

You get a long street like Oxford Street, and there's DYL (Double Yellow Lines) running the way through it. There is however on this day 20 cars pared along the DYLs, and you can clearly see that they are parked up...but your at one end of O.St. Question....do you walk the entire length of O.St. to see if there is a tbar at the other end before you issue a ticket? Or if your in the middle before cars drive up and blaintly park in front of you....do you walk to one end, then walk to the opposite end in which time the cars could have driven away?

It's this kind of technicality which gets the motorist off the ticket...but needless to sayyour average run of the mill warden won't check...especially if the street he's on is 5miles long (for argmuents sake - you know what i mean.) This scenario could also be true if there are t-bars at either end, but on the broken part of the yellow, a vehicle maybe covering it, or the warden is inexperienced, or...all wardens do it on this particular street, and tro not issue 20 or attempt to issue the 20 tickets you won't be in a job very long....in all fairness if you are aware of the DYL broken or not T'ed at the end, why walk up there? Well, there maybe 01 offences (blocking traffic - doesn't have to be parked along the DYL) could be a 01e - Doubel Parked though CPZ hours, could be a 62 offence, parked on the footway. But if you didn't see and of these except for the 01 DYL contravention, would you say "screw it", and walk away from the possible 20 tickets, and out that street into another only for another warden to claim the tickets?

 

Most if not all tickets issued in these circumstances can be successfully challenged, but the point is that they should not have been issued in the first place and councils etc. are cashing in on tickets that are not challenged but, if the warden was doing his job according to the law, they should never have been issued in the first place!

 

Again...true to some extent. Like the example i gave, law doesn't depict the officer to walk both ends of a 5mile street before he gives out a ticket...if you walk on average 4 miles an hour, it could be 2 hours before he issues a ticket in which case...and that's just stupid.

If the ticket is wrongly issued, then you won't have any problems getting it cancelled.

 

.....In theory anyway

[Guest xipetotec46]

To nail this debate in the head please see the following.

 

Lamina v Transport for London

Case No. 2050307012 PCN Number: GF01291318

Parked on a Clearway

Transport for London state that this Penalty Charge Notice was served by post because the driver "prevented the parking attendant from serving the PCN by ignoring him/her and driving the vehicle away."

Driving away does not of itself amount to preventing the Penalty Charge Notice being issued, as Transport for London should know well.

Considering all the evidence before me carefully I am not satisfied that, on this particular occasion, the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

The Adjudicator is aware that this is not the first time the Transport for London have attempted issued Penalty Charge Notices in such circumstances. Repeated attempts to resist an appeal might be deemed to amount to acting vexatiously.

Henry Michael Greenslade

Adjudicator

1 November 2005

[seylectric]

Thanks for the considered replies Warden.

 

I think my particular "beef" is that all too often these days d/y lines are put down in areas where there is no real reason for them, other than (as far as I can see) to raise revenue when drivers are caught. All too often there simply is nowhere else to park, and the councils know this and are cashing in.

 

I could quote dozens of such places in my locality, but a classic example is the cul-de-sac with no houses in it, no access to anything and has double yellow lines painted both sides. No need at all - I suspect the fact that there is a council run car park nearby has something to do with it.

 

I hate the double standards too - town centre streets regularly patrolled for example whilst there are outlying areas that have probably never seen a warden. Easy killings, nothing more, nothing less, which is all the proof you need that it's all about money and little to do with keeping the streets clear.

 

The punishments don't fit the crime either, and take no account of ability to pay unlike court fines.

[micia]

I have now noticed the ticket has no contravention code just says " in circumstances giving me reasonable cause to believe that the vehcile was stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)"

It has a date of notice and says my vehicle was seen ON date but no date of contravention..I'm going to appeal on the contravention code aside from the ridiculous 4 minutes without grace (3 if you take into account the minute I was standing with him while he printed it). Any further advice?

[Michael Browne]

From the Department for Transport website:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_027631.pdf

 

Drive-aways:

12.11. Some motorists will inevitably arrive back at their vehicle as the PA is writing out the PCN and will drive away before it can be issued. The Secretary of State’s view, shared by the parking adjudicators in London, is that local authorities cannot post these PCNs to the motorist and take steps to recover penalty charges. PCNs must be issued by a PA either attaching one to a vehicle or giving one to the person appearing to the PA to be the vehicles owner (see section 66(1),RTA 1991). PCNs posted to a motorist are invalid and cannot be enforced

 

[seylectric]

micia, I don't think there is a legal requirement to allow any period of "grace" so I would personally leave that one alone, although others may not agree with me on this. However if there is no date of contravention and no contravention code you have a reasonable case, the only potential pitfall is if it says the vehicle was seen on (date) that possibly amounts to the same thing.

[The Warden]

From the Department for Transport website:

 

 

With all due respect...The Secretary of State’s and the parking adjudicators in Londons views are different to that of the local authorities and with the local athorities view being differently, it however gets mailed out via the aid of DVLA.

 

Micia, seylectric would be right in saying to forget persuing the matter reguarding grace period, as the MET and PAs do have different methods and allowances to when they can issue. As far as the contravention code not being provided, as long as the ticket has notified you into the reason why you got the ticket... i.e.stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) then to argue there was no contravention code would be pointless...it is making it clear why. The reason why people would complain regarding contravention code is because the ticket would give the wrong code. Example, 62(4) instead of a 01, in this instance the ticket would be saying you were parked on a footway with all 4 wheels off the road, but the actual code 01 would be relevant as you were parked on DYLs. This is when you would say that the contravention code is incorect and the ticket invalid. Did you actually stop on a red route or clearway? If you didn't but got given this reason for the ticket, then your chances for appeal are high.

[patdavies]

With all due respect...The Secretary of State’s and the parking adjudicators in Londons views are different to that of the local authorities and with the local athorities view being differently, it however gets mailed out via the aid of DVLA.

 

 

However, since the parking adjudicators are the appeal path for council PCNs, thier views trump those of any local authority.

 

For evidence of the arrogance and wrongheadedness of LAs, you have only to look at the whole matter of the necessity for there to be two dates on a PCN. Despite losing cases at appeal and despite the parking adjudication service contacting councils following Moses v Barnett, councils still attempted to enforce void tickets.

[seylectric]

However, since the parking adjudicators are the appeal path for council PCNs, thier views trump those of any local authority.

 

For evidence of the arrogance and wrongheadedness of LAs, you have only to look at the whole matter of the necessity for there to be two dates on a PCN. Despite losing cases at appeal and despite the parking adjudication service contacting councils following Moses v Barnett, councils still attempted to enforce void tickets.

 

Indeed they do, Blackpool Council are still sending bailiffs round to collect unpaid parking fines that I owe despite being warned by Neil Herron MP that they are looking at legal action being taken against them if they continue to do so having lost several cases at NPAS because their tickets were illegally worded, giving a "date of Offence" rather than a "Date of Contravention".

 

I mentioned this to the bailiff last time he visited and he said they knew nothing about it. I suggested that he contact the council for clarification, no doubt they haven't even bothered to do so but still they continue to send enforcement letters etc.

 

The council should stop any further action immediately and the bailiffs should also stop enforcement until the situation is claified but no doubt they will continue and claw in as much as they can before anything changes. Neither party even bothers replying to any letters sent, it's a waste of time.

[Bailiffchaser]

send them a sar and also look at this link its a summons where i have claimed back the charges by ccs enforcement services ltd. also have a look around at the files available. they should help everybody on this thread.

 

 

bailiffchaser/CCS THE SUMMONS - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

[GSMGuy]

OMG - what an involving thread..... Just a quickie to further add to the mix...

 

I was discussing this a day or so ago with a PA (liverpool) as I arrived back at my van, she was writing a ticket as I had (admittedly) parked on double yellows to unload tools - She said the van was closed and no evidence of unloading was to be seen, so she had printed a ticket and was putting in the envelope.. I approached her, and she was very pleasant, I asked her "what if I jump in and drive off now?" Her reply? Well if you leave before I afix it to your vehicle, the PCN will not be deemed to have been served and will be cancelled... I said, thanks and opened my door - she then whilst smiling said - "Just be thankful I am a PA and not a Police Traffic Warden, or you'd be getting it in the post" She then smiled and walked away as I pulled off.....

 

Mike

[The Warden]

I said, thanks and opened my door - she then whilst smiling said - "Just be thankful I am a PA and not a Police Traffic Warden, or you'd be getting it in the post" She then smiled and walked away as I pulled off.....

 

 

What a refreshing change! Obviously a PA thats had their quota of PCNs!

In all fairness though, on DoubleYellowLines, a van doesn't need to be seen loading/unloading. they have 20 minutes specifically for that (unless there were curb markings indicating a loading ban). Now a car...that's a different story

 

 

However, since the parking adjudicators are the appeal path for council PCNs, thier views trump those of any local authority.

True...but my posting was trying to imply that unless you knew what i quoted you saying just now, alot of people wouldn't bother appealing...they'd take it for as-is.

[patdavies]

What a refreshing change! Obviously a PA thats had their quota of PCNs!

 

No, one who has been properly trained in the law regarding the powers of PAs

 

In all fairness though, on DoubleYellowLines, a van doesn't need to be seen loading/unloading. they have 20 minutes specifically for that (unless there were curb markings indicating a loading ban). Now a car...that's a different story

 

I'm sorry, but a car is not a different story. Loading/unloading is NOT restricted to certain class(es) of vehicle.

 

PATAS's own published cases make this point very, very clearly

 

 

True...but my posting was trying to imply that unless you knew what i quoted you saying just now, alot of people wouldn't bother appealing...they'd take it for as-is.

 

Which is the problem with the whole system. It relies on the ignorance of motorists who simply pay up without question. The more who find out about this ongoing fraud, the sooner it will stop.

[The Warden]

I'm sorry, but a car is not a different story. Loading/unloading is NOT restricted to certain class(es) of vehicle.

 

NCPs Parking allowance for Westminster

Class of Vehicle-ALL: 20 minute on resident bay; shared use bay; P&D machine; meter-including OutOfOrder; national disabled bay. Active signs of loading/unloading must be seen (not necessary for commercial vehicles).

 

Maybe not where you are, but boroughs and counties have different rules.

[GSMGuy]

Well, if it proves anything... It shows that some PA's/Traffic wardens are not jobsworths......

 

Mike

[patdavies]

NCPs Parking allowance for Westminster

Class of Vehicle-ALL: 20 minute on resident bay; shared use bay; P&D machine; meter-including OutOfOrder; national disabled bay. Active signs of loading/unloading must be seen (not necessary for commercial vehicles).

 

Maybe not where you are, but boroughs and counties have different rules.

 

I'm sorry, but this quote actually reinforces my point. Loading/unloading is not restricted to certain classes of vehicle. The quote merely points out in parenthesis that NCP would not look for evidence of activity for commercial vehicles (a term, btw, that has no legal standing)

 

We come back to boroughs and counties having different rules

 

1) there is NO scope whatsoever to have different rules beyond the granting of non-statutory guidance and allowances (e.g. 5 minutes grace);

 

2) Counties do not operate DPE. There is no case of DPE operating across an entire county.

[The Warden]

Loading/unloading is not restricted to certain classes of vehicle.

Ok...but the PA wouldn't ticket a commercial vehicle on SYL/DYL, he'd just take note of the time he/they arrived.

He would however ticket a car if parked on DYL with no signs of unloading, i.e. a car boot up, guy walking to and fro, from the car.

 

there is NO scope whatsoever to have different rules beyond the granting of non-statutory guidance and allowances (e.g. 5 minutes grace);

I beg to differ, where the borough of Kensington and Chelsea will give you a 5 minute grace period after your meter expires, Westminster give you a 2 minute grace period. (this is just one example of time frames, d/bays resbays, DYL, etc etc have different periods)

[tara brewster]

Do Parking enforcement establishments keep records of tickets issued against a driver? I would like to try and claim back all of my charges - like I am doing with unlawful bank charges if possible. I recently was (so I thought) dead on time, returning to my car, which was parked outside a school in Islington (who have extremely mean and determined wardens) and I got a ticket for being 1 minute late back. I am appealing on the grounds of a time discrepence, as I know I was on time. I was told by the independent appeals officer that the warden would have had to start the ticketing process before my time was up, for him to have had time to complete it. He told me it would normally take about 5 minutes to take all the details of my car and then print it off. They are chargeing me money for nothing. Even if I was 1 minute late back, how can they justify charging me £50. How have I cost them this money? Anyone know if I can succeed.

[The Warden]

I was told by the independent appeals officer that the warden would have had to start the ticketing process before my time was up, for him to have had time to complete it. He told me it would normally take about 5 minutes to take all the details of my car and then print it off.

 

No offence, but the independant appeals officer is lying.

I can walk down a street, see a contravention and if it warants an immediate ticket, i could have it printed, signed, folded in the envelope and on the car within 60 seconds of me taking the photographs of the contravention.

[tara brewster]

Please tell me why the appeals officer would lie to me - what would he gain from telling me lies?

 

It sounds as though you may be one of those eager beevers hanging around our Islington streets.

[demon_x_slash]

The Warden is a traffic warden. I'm sure s/he knows how long it physically takes to print a ticket, dear.