parking ticket - I was wrong, he was right, but he was so wrong too :(

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think watching the Mocas V's Robert Saunders show on parking violations is going to be "interesting"...


popcorn-female-girl-happy-smiley-emoticon-000533-large.gif
 
Unnecessary Comments and against our Rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a very pleasant suggestion, I think a Jeremy Kyle solution is the answer

Edit
On second thoughts I'd rather pull my teeth out
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know - its a lovely thought though.
 
Mr Saunders, as I understand it, the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) devolved responsibility for enforcement to local authorities, but it still refers back to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) in terms of defining contraventions.

No; it was RTA91 that did that. And you now contradict yourself by referring (now correctly) to contraventions.

I'm well aware what is contained within the various Schedules of the RTRA84.

In an area where CPE is not operating then local police will enforce said offences through their criminalised process(es). Seeing as we are referring to a PCN for a decriminalised authority then we must not get ourselves confused by referring to alleged contraventions incorrectly as offences (and the contraventions are alleged at this time, to perhaps be found valid under a balance of probability assessment).

If one is attempting to be pedantic, then please accept that some may know more than thou
 
Last edited:
I appreciate that this is becoming a pedantic exercise, but you fired the first shot by stating that this was a contravention rather than an offence. (Let's leave the "alleged" part to one side for a moment, as the OP has already admitted to it.)

I have never denied that it was "contravention", so I have not changed my position. I merely pointed out that the RTRA states that it is an offence to contravene a TRO.

I'm not an expert in this field and I'm not claiming to be; nor am I claiming to be right. I'm simply posting my opinion based on what the relevant legislation says. You pointed me towards the TMA, and that led me right back to the RTRA, which is where I started. It is also where the (alleged) contravention is defined.

Perhaps you could clear this whole thing up by simply stating which legislation does apply in the OP's case. I'm happy to be corrected, but I would like to learn why I am wrong.
 
All PCNs are alleged - that's the trouble with pesky civil law processes. Damn the balance of probability and all its nonsense.

As for legislation, for the lay-person, continue to refer to such transgressions as offences. As a professional I shall refer to them correctly, for I have to when faced with a Tribunal adjudicator. They can be so pedantic too.
 
Well, of course the PCN is alleged - it's based on the evidence of the enforcement officer. That's a red herring here, though, because we're talking about what the 'transgressor' has said himself, not the PCN.

There's no point getting uppity about this being your profession. All I'm asking you to do is to tell me which legislation states that a contravention of a Traffic Regualtion Order is not an offence, please.
 
I appreciate that this is becoming a pedantic exercise, but you fired the first shot by stating that this was a contravention rather than an offence. (Let's leave the "alleged" part to one side for a moment, as the OP has already admitted to it.)

Quoting from the PCN the alleged contravention / offence the OP is charged with is "stopped in a restricted area outside a school" located in "Station Approach, Dorridge."

Could you please show me where in this thread he's admitted doing that?
 
Quoting from the PCN the alleged contravention / offence the OP is charged with is "stopped in a restricted area outside a school" located in "Station Approach, Dorridge."

Could you please show me where in this thread he's admitted doing that?

There is no disputing the fact that John did stop outside a school, etc,etc...only the address was wrong on the ticket. This may invalidate the ticket eventually, no doubt, but this is not the argument currently being debated by RS and Mocas.
 
Well, of course the PCN is alleged - it's based on the evidence of the enforcement officer. That's a red herring here, though, because we're talking about what the 'transgressor' has said himself, not the PCN.

There's no point getting uppity about this being your profession. All I'm asking you to do is to tell me which legislation states that a contravention of a Traffic Regualtion Order is not an offence, please.

Surely if the signage is incorrect it's therefore not covered by TRO
 
Last edited:
Quoting from the PCN the alleged contravention / offence the OP is charged with is "stopped in a restricted area outside a school" located in "Station Approach, Dorridge."

Could you please show me where in this thread he's admitted doing that?

neilrr, you do seem to love going round in circles. In fact, I'm surprised you ever get anyhwere at all.

We've already decided that the PCN is invalid due to the error made in issuing it. However, that doesn't mean that the offence, contravention, call it what you will never occurred; just that the PCN cannot be enforced (though I still think the council should just be allowed to correct tickets if they make a mistake).

Next you'll be telling me that if a tree falls down in a forest with no-one there to witness it, it never really fell in the first place. :rolleyes:
 
Next you'll be telling me that if a tree falls down in a forest with no-one there to witness it, it never really fell in the first place. :rolleyes:

I suspect it will have fallen, but the question is usually would it make a noise. There are some lengthy discussions about this and the "fact" that no, a noise was not forthcoming...but I digress...:p
 
neilrr, you do seem to love going round in circles. In fact, I'm surprised you ever get anyhwere at all.

We've already decided that the PCN is invalid due to the error made in issuing it. However, that doesn't mean that the offence, contravention, call it what you will never occurred; just that the PCN cannot be enforced (though I still think the council should just be allowed to correct tickets if they make a mistake).

Next you'll be telling me that if a tree falls down in a forest with no-one there to witness it, it never really fell in the first place. :rolleyes:

MOCAS, since we are now bandying about mild insults I suspect the priests got ahold of you at a tender age & installed in you a very real sense of guilt, which still haunts you.

You seem determined to find the OP guilty of an offense he clearly did not commit. He wasn't in Station Approach at the time he's accused of stopping on zig zag lines which do not exist in Station Approach outside a school which does not exist in Station Approach.

I'd hate to find you on any jury!
 
Mr Saunders, I stand corrected - it seems that schedule 8, rather 7, of the TMA applies to local authorities that have taken up DPE, of which Solihull is one.

I also take back the :p emoticon from my previous post, which on reflection was a little intemperate of me regardless of the outcome.

Are we at least agreed that, on the basis of the OP's evidence, the contravention took place, regardless of status of the subsequent ticket?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom