Traffic Warden dissmissed for not issuing parking tickets!

[Igurisu]

Sometimes topical and a subject close to many of our hearts.

" A traffic warden, who preferred to warn motorists that they had parked illegally, rather than automatically issue a ticket, was found to have been unfairly dismissed by his employer who had “trumped up” charges in order to dismiss him."

That says it all really, even if the enforcers want to use common sense they are not allowed to. He was pulled and eventually sacked for not reaching his target of 9 tickets per hour.

Full story here, Plotted against traffic warden unfairly dismissed

There are other things involved like his union activity, but the fact remains they are expected to acheive a quota of tickets per hour

 

[neilrr]

Repost - http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/1369760-post103.html

 

[flying haggis]

So he was expected to issue 9 tickets per hour at say £60 a time, so in the course of an eight hour day that is £4320 per warden!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who says the motorist isnt seen as an easy touch.

 

[neilrr]

so he was expected to issue 9 tickets per hour at say £60 a time, so in the course of an eight hour day that is £4320 per warden!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who says the motorist isnt seen as an easy touch.

Mocas.

 

[MOCAŠ]

mocas.

:d

 

[Dieselman]

So he was expected to issue 9 tickets per hour at say £60 a time, so in the course of an eight hour day that is £4320 per warden!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who says the motorist isnt seen as an easy touch.

There is an argument that says if motorists would stop abusing the system they wouldn't get fined.

They do have a choice.

 

[cammy]

There is an argument that says if motorists would stop abusing the system they wouldn't get fined.

They do have a choice.

So is it ok then for "parking attendants" to illegally park their crew bus in a space with no parking ticket on it whilst they book "illegally" parked cars?
This happens daily in Glasgow.

 

[Dieselman]

So is it ok then for "parking attendants" to illegally park their crew bus in a space with no parking ticket on it whilst they book "illegally" parked cars?
This happens daily in Glasgow.

I think you will find the law says it is...ergo, it is...

 

[cammy]

I think you will find the law says it is...ergo, it is...

No markings on the crew bus to indicate it is a council vehicle,so a member of the public would not know it was being used as a work vehicle.
They park in a restricted parking area taking up a parking bay and walk down and book cars illegally parked.
If i was to park at the same time as they park and do as the do and walk away without putting a ticket on my vehicle would i get booked?

 

[MOCAŠ]

No markings on the crew bus to indicate it is a council vehicle,so a member of the public would not know it was being used as a work vehicle.

Why should it be of any concern to a member of the public?

They park in a restricted parking area taking up a parking bay and walk down and book cars illegally parked.
If i was to park at the same time as they park and do as the do and walk away without putting a ticket on my vehicle would i get booked

Sounds like you'd have a pretty good chance of getting booked, especially if he PEOs return to their bus before you return to your car...

 

[cammy]

Why should it be of any concern to a member of the public?

The concern is that if a member of the public sees the unmarked vehicle illegally parked in a restricted parking area they may think its ok for them to do the same.(bearing in mind that there is no road markings only signposts which are few and far between but just legal)

Or even just the fact that these hypocrites think its acceptable to book unsuspecting member of the public for doing exactly the same thing they do.

Sounds like you'd have a pretty good chance of getting booked, especially if he PEOs return to their bus before you return to your car...

Why is that acceptable? is the law different for them than me?

 

[MOCAŠ]

Why is that acceptable? is the law different for them than me?

Well, that's a different question.

In short, t's acceptable because the bus belongs to the local authority that employs the PEOs and sets the parking regulations; it's therefore the local authority's prerogative to decide which expemptions apply.

Moreover, as the reason they are there is to enforce parking regulations, it could be argued that the single space they take up is outweighed by the overall benefit, although I realise that will be like a red rag to a bull to some.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Well, that's a different question.

In short, t's acceptable because the bus belongs to the local authority that employs the PEOs and sets the parking regulations; it's therefore the local authority's prerogative to decide which expemptions apply.

Moreover, as the reason they are there is to enforce parking regulations, it could be argued that the single space they take up is outweighed by the overall benefit, although I realise that will be like a red rag to a bull to some.

So in other words; do as I say, not as I do?

And councils etc wonder why they get so much stick.

 

[MOCAŠ]

So in other words; do as I say, not as I do?

And councils etc wonder why they get so much stick.

The clue's in the word "authority" (which I know is anathema to you).

 

[Deleted member 37751]

The clue's in the word "authority" (which I know is anathema to you).

Hahahaha!

In this case, just like many of the threads that involve the police, do you not see the point that to uphold the law/rules you have to be at least seen to beyond reproach?

The older I get, the more I realise that it's just the way of the world though; power (in pretty much most forms) corrupts and then they start taking liberties and abusing those powers.

 

[cammy]

Well, that's a different question.

In short, t's acceptable because the bus belongs to the local authority that employs the PEOs and sets the parking regulations; it's therefore the local authority's prerogative to decide which expemptions apply.

Moreover, as the reason they are there is to enforce parking regulations, it could be argued that the single space they take up is outweighed by the overall benefit, although I realise that will be like a red rag to a bull to some.

Yes me lol
They are supposed to be a private parking company hence they are parking attendants in opposed to wardens who are regulated by the police and actually have some authority.

 

[brucemillar]

My Daughters school has (over the years) seen new housing developments totally surround it. The homeowners do not like cars picking up or dropping of their children so have objected to the local Council. The council have now placed no parking, or stopping regulations and enforce with a Mercedes SMART car with camera on a pole.

The SMART car parks every day on the Red Route lines and films between 08:00 - 09:00 then 15:00 - 16:00. This has absolutely infuriated parents and leads to ugly scenes and multiple complaints. We now have the Police patrolling to protect the occupants of the camera car.

What is perhaps even worse is that parents in an effort to avoid getting tickets are finding more creative ways of deploying and picking up their kids out of sight of the camera.

There are so many wrong's in this with no right at all.

Buy a house next door to a school then complain that there is a school next door to your house?

Ticket parents dropping of their children but remove school buses (lack of money).

Now pay Police to protect wardens.

I am told that sales of double sided tape and show number plates have increased dramatically in the area.

 

[markjay]

Hahahaha!

In this case, just like many of the threads that involve the police, do you not see the point that to uphold the law/rules you have to be at least seen to beyond reproach?

The older I get, the more I realise that it's just the way of the world though; power (in pretty much most forms) corrupts and then they start taking liberties and abusing those powers.

What are we discussing here...?

The parking companies' policy of minimum number of tickets per hour? This has two sides. Some might say that it is simply a money-making scheme, others will say that this is a legitimate way for companies to set targets to ensure that their employees actually carry-out the work they are paid to do rather than linger in the local coffee shop.

Or are we discussing the acrimonious working relations between the company and the employee, culminating in the tribunal? The employee would say that he was unfairly set upon because of his Union-related activities, while the employer is likely to see him as a professional trouble maker that they can ill afford to keep in their employment.

But I am not sure that the two issues are necessarily related, other than in the employee's mind (and in the press).

I would say though, that sadly in a tribunal both sides will say almost anything, so I would not rely on the traffic warden's 'good nature' being the real cause of this work dispute, nor do I believe that the company was an innocent victim to scheming employee.

 

[renault12ts]

The problem I see with a 9 tickets an hour policy is that there is an assumption that they (the enforcers) are having no effect on modifying the behaviour of motorists, and the rules will always be broken.

So, they are in effect...ineffective.

 

[markjay]

The problem I see with a 9 tickets an hour policy is that there is an assumption that they (the enforcers) are having no effect on modifying the behaviour of motorists, and the rules will always be broken.

So, they are in effect...ineffective.

That is not very scientific...

The counter claim is that traffic wardens keep the bad behaviour at bay at 9 tickets per hour - i.e. that if they were not there, there would have been many more offences committed. In the same way as the fact that police keeps arresting people does not mean they police officers are redundant...