Parking Ticket Madness

[prprandall51]

Whilst I can understand your annoyance when you present the case the way you have, I don't think your position is justifiable.

Firstly, our council car parks where I live all state that "it is an offence not to display a valid ticket...., not to park within the confines of the indicated bays"...etc. so I am surprised that this is not stated somewhere. However, even if it is not stated, it is obvious that a bay is drawn out for a single vehicle and that to park in multiple bays is not considered correct use of the car park.

Regarding your argument that it was quiet and that the other bays were not in use: suppose that, at some point in time after the time that you had parked but before you returned to it, there had been a public event of some sort that had attracted a large number of people to the car park, then your parking style would be preventing another council-tax payer from using the council-provided public facility.

Like you, I abhore dents in my doors - my previous car was covered in them after 4 years of multi-storey parking. However, as has already been stated, you could have driven to a far corner and occupied a single space and you would have not received a ticket and you would have been minimising the risk of damage to your car. You had that option.

Finally, it is interesting to note that you did get a ticket. That means that the council feel it is worth sending an enforcement officer into a multi-story car park on a day when no parking fees are levied. One might conclude that they do this because there are more than a few people who park across multiple bays (I can't think of any other parking contravention that would be enforcable on a free-parking day). If that is the case, it seems likely that multi-bay parking is actually more of a problem that you realise.

 

[Alps]

fairly simple, 1 car 1 ticket for 1 space. even if you overhung by a bit they may not have given you a ticket, but blatent taking 2 spaces you deserved one!

maybe it was empty when you got there, but how annoying if it filled up and the only space was the half a space you had taken up?

sry , i think its a loosing battle. pay up and dont do it again

 

[oldcro]

O

Am i right in what i am saying? Where do you think i stand with my appeal to the council? Or should i just shut up and be a law-abiding 'sheep' and pay the fine??

Thanks, (and sorry for the long post!!)

First point:- You were wrong.
Second point:- Your appeal has no chance (in my opinion).
Third point:- I strongly object to you calling myself and all the other law-abiding members here 'SHEEP' for showing consideration for other drivers.

 

[Rovinghawk]

I strongly object to you calling myself and all the other law-abiding members here 'SHEEP' for showing consideration for other drivers.

If you check his earlier post, he describes himself as completely law-abiding; so who's the sheep?

RH

 

[robert.saunders]

It's always worth an informal challenge, assuming it's a PCN. You may find the policy allows for write-off on first occasion, with reminder not to park in that manner again.

Who's the issuer?

If it's a PCN it should be code 86, which is a lower level charge, £50 as mentioned.

 

[raymont]

Finally, it is interesting to note that you did get a ticket. That means that the council feel it is worth sending an enforcement officer into a multi-story car park on a day when no parking fees are levied. One might conclude that they do this because there are more than a few people who park across multiple bays (I can't think of any other parking contravention that would be enforcable on a free-parking day). If that is the case, it seems likely that multi-bay parking is actually more of a problem that you realise.

......or maybe they just see it as a revenue opportunity.

 

[robert.saunders]

......or maybe they just see it as a revenue opportunity.

Depends on the policy of the issuing authority really doesn't it. In Peterborough, it's a write-off first occasion. I wonder if that's the case for this PCN too

Peterborough's policy, for reference & info:

http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page-15165

 

[kjay]

Have to say ... I've got a bit more sympathy than some of the replies.

I hate useing car parks. I always park in the 'emptiest' area to hopefuly avoid the numpties who open their door regardles. Though sometimes, despite 10 empty spaces either side, some idiots still park right next to me. .

Ultimately though, if a traffic warden spots you taking two spaces, he's obviously going to issue a ticket.
As RS says...try an informal challenge. You might get lucky.

.

 

[garethh]

I have parked in the furthest space away from superstore, I would be the only car for yards and yet some idiot will still park next to me!

 

[raymont]

Depends on the policy of the issuing authority really doesn't it. In Peterborough, it's a write-off first occasion. I wonder if that's the case for this PCN too

Peterborough's policy, for reference & info:

http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page-15165

If that's the case why not put a warning on the car?

I think I know the answer, maybe it's because most people won't contest the ticket, which probabaly has some sort of incentive to pay quickly, and the revenue is duly raised.

 

[robert.saunders]

If that's the case why not put a warning on the car?

I think I know the answer, maybe it's because most people won't contest the ticket, which probabaly has some sort of incentive to pay quickly, and the revenue is duly raised.

Simple - the technology isn't powerful enough to register on the handheld computer every vehicle that's ever had a warning issued, therefore no-way of knowing how many warnings have been issued for the same contravention, or for different warnings issued for a multitude of contraventions.

We use software developed by ICES and this is pretty much an industry standard, alongside Civica etc

 

[raymont]

Simple - the technology isn't powerful enough to register on the handheld computer every vehicle that's ever had a warning issued, therefore no-way of knowing how many warnings have been issued for the same contravention, or for different warnings issued for a multitude of contraventions.

We use software developed by ICES and this is pretty much an industry standard, alongside Civica etc

Maybe an enhacement could be requested?

Capability is almost there with 'write-off first occasion. '

Anyway, if the system has the ability to identify a first occasion the miscreant could be informed by post rather than having to contest in order to be let off.

I suspect there isn't much enthusiasm for this though.

 

[Swiss Toni]

Maybe an enhacement could be requested?

Capability is almost there with 'write-off first occasion. '

Anyway, if the system has the ability to identify a first occasion the miscreant could be informed by post rather than having to contest in order to be let off.

I suspect there isn't much enthusiasm for this though.

I'd feel narked-off if the previous owner of my car had been given a warning, so I got a ticket.

 

[robert.saunders]

Maybe an enhacement could be requested?

Capability is almost there with 'write-off first occasion. '

Anyway, if the system has the ability to identify a first occasion the miscreant could be informed by post rather than having to contest in order to be let off.

I suspect there isn't much enthusiasm for this though.

Enhancement? No, what's the point? There isn't one. The system works fine. It's only policy of my LA to write-off first occasion, not all do, so I doubt the software company will be much interested unless we pay through the nose for it, and frankly I'm not going to waste tax money on it.

The back-office system is powerful enough to identify history against a VRM. It's funny you offer the solution through the post, but sadly the law doesn't allow a PCN to be served by post for this type of contravention purely because it seems "fairer" in your view. A PCN can *only* be served by post if the enforcement officer is prevented by some person when serving the Notice to attach to the car, or the vehicle is driven off before the Notice can be attached to the car. Equally, this type of contravention cannot be enforced by CCTV enforcement, as it's not an 'instant' PCN.

So, in reality, it isn't as simple as you might think. So, before you rattle off about enthusiasm or lack-of, have a thought that perhaps the law as it stands doesn't allow as much leeway as you may hope for.

I don't make the rules, I enforce 'em

 

[robert.saunders]

I'd feel narked-off if the previous owner of my car had been given a warning, so I got a ticket.

That is a genuine problem

 

[raymont]

Enhancement? No, what's the point? There isn't one. The system works fine. It's only policy of my LA to write-off first occasion, not all do, so I doubt the software company will be much interested unless we pay through the nose for it, and frankly I'm not going to waste tax money on it.

The back-office system is powerful enough to identify history against a VRM. It's funny you offer the solution through the post, but sadly the law doesn't allow a PCN to be served by post for this type of contravention purely because it seems "fairer" in your view. A PCN can *only* be served by post if the enforcement officer is prevented by some person when serving the Notice to attach to the car, or the vehicle is driven off before the Notice can be attached to the car. Equally, this type of contravention cannot be enforced by CCTV enforcement, as it's not an 'instant' PCN.

So, in reality, it isn't as simple as you might think. So, before you rattle off about enthusiasm or lack-of, have a thought that perhaps the law as it stands doesn't allow as much leeway as you may hope for.

I don't make the rules, I enforce 'em

I don't want to issue the PCN by post. When the back office system spots it's a first offence could you not withdraw, or whatever the phrase is, the PCN by post.

VRM are easily linked to owners, It's done all the time.

What's the point? A proportionate response not a revenue grab.

'I don't make the rules, I enforce 'em' Does that prevent you having views on how they might change?

My underlying view (held by someone who hasn't had a parking ticket in the last 15 years or so,) is that parking fines are very often disproportionate to the offence and are focussed on rasing revenu rather than facilitating an efficient parking environment.

There may well be problems with what I have suggested, but if the will to solve them existed I'm sure it would be possible. The will is absent because of the revenue generated.

 

[robert.saunders]

I don't want to issue the PCN by post. When the back office system spots it's a first offence could you not withdraw, or whatever the phrase is, the PCN by post.

No. That won't achieve anything, other than cost money.

VRM are easily linked to owners, It's done all the time.

Under Traffic Management Act 2004 part 6 for civil enforcement of traffic contraventions we can rely on DVLA keeper records for enforcement as the vehicle keeper rather than driver is liable for a PCN, but we may only approach DVLA per contravention and may not maintain a keeper database with regard to a local "first occasion policy". That can only be relevant to the stored data which is the VRM which can, of course, suffer a change of keeper that we have no need to know of, as we are simply not permitted to.

'I don't make the rules, I enforce 'em' Does that prevent you having views on how they might change?

My underlying view (held by someone who hasn't had a parking ticket in the last 15 years or so,) is that parking fines are very often disproportionate to the offence and are focussed on rasing revenu rather than facilitating an efficient parking environment.

There may well be problems with what I have suggested, but if the will to solve them existed I'm sure it would be possible. The will is absent because of the revenue generated.

Sure I have views, but it ain't gonna change anything. My point is, the points raised in this thread cannot be described with a wide-brush that enforcement is about revenue raising when clearly it is not, despite your assertion. Do we know the policy of the enforcing council? No, we do not. Complete speculation at this point, but if you're going to insist that it's all revenue raising then I'm afraid I am not going to agree with you, and I applaud your 15 year absence of a parking ticket, whereas I rely on my near-10 year experience of working within parking enforcement to pass comment

 

[crockers]

These extra sized parking bays marked parent and child ....can you be fined for using them? Do you need to take a child with you to use them? If you leave the kid at home ......is that ok as it doesn't say parent and accompanying child.

Just why should anyone having a child with them have extra parking and safer parking from poor door opening than those without a child?

 

[219]

Just why should anyone having a child with them have extra parking and safer parking from poor door opening than those without a child?

For the very simple reason that to get a child in an infant carrier in or out of a vehicle requires doors to be opened to their fullest extent and also requires more space to the side of the vehicle than is needed for a normal able-bodied person to get in or out . Space is also needed to set up a pram/travel system/baby buggy or whatever and I , for one , would certainly not contemplate placing this at the end of the vehicle with my infant son in the path of passing cars , many of which are driven at inappropriate speeds even in car parks .

I have NEVER used a disabled or parent & child space when not entitled to do so and recently challenged a misuser who casually parked in the last parent & child space outside my local Tesco when I was arriving with my 20 week old son in the back - turned out the mother in the adjacent car to him had also pointed out the misuse to the lone driver but had been ignored , perhaps my technique of blasting the horn and shouting across the car park so that numerous people heard had something to do with it ? He moved anyway .

The same criticisms apply to selfish morons who park in disabled spaces thus blocking out wheelchair users and others with mobility problems .

Getting back to the original topic - I agree that it is selfish to deliberately park across two spaces just because your car is somehow more 'precious' than all the others in the car park . Whenever I see this sort of selfish behaviour I take great delight in leaving my shopping trolley very close to , but not touching , the 'precious' vehicle . Please remember that any car , no matter how humble , might be soemone else's pride and joy and all they can afford .

I do make a distinction between vehicles that are deliberately badly parked in the selfish manner described above and vehicles which simply do not fit into inadequately sized spaces : if someone has parked as neatly as possible but overhangs a space because their car is longer or wider , it is hardly their fault . I also own a 500SEL and sometimes have the problem that it is longer than some parking spaces ( I will normally leave the nose sticking out rather than encroach on a space behind , but also tend to try and park in less busy areas of car parks both so as not to inconvenience others and also to avoid damage to my own car ) . There are occasions , such as when I take my car with trailer down to B&Q to pick up larger items , that I may have no option other than to take up two spaces lengthwise , but that will only happen when it is unavoidable .

I am aware that in the case of on-street parking it is not permitted to take up two spaces lengthwise ( for a car plus trailer or even a long vehicle such as a 600 Pullman ) and simply pay for both spaces either on parking meters or by purchasing two tickets , so I would imagine the same would apply in a private car park .