Joe public bunch of moaners

[kiptower]

the law is simple no signage no bay , typical example is residential parking bays, which DO NOT HAVE A TMO, yet wooden heads still try to issue against these,

 

if a Council want to have a parking scheme then they have to maintain it , full stop, the amount of Councils markings that do not comply with the law in London is beyond belief, the Law is clear to enforce a restriction the signage must comply , not excuses "oh vandal's have removed it",

 

its simple council dont comply then its un-enfourceable, in our borough , over half the so called wardens cannot speak plain english, often students from abroad doing partime work.

 

and yes i am a disabled driver and obey any proper signed bays.

[noomill060]

In which case, yes I would.

 

I would receive all my costs back. I relish taking legal actions which I know I can win. Such a buzz!

[rff04]

Maybe the point is that signs should be done away with and the lines on the road are all the legal requirements that are needed. How about that?

 

And to pass your test you need to know what the road markings mean.

[noomill060]

Where would the fun be in that?

[crem]

You better believe it would have it slapped on your window within thirty seconds and yes it would be quashed but you know what I wouldnt care cause it would cause you alot of hassle and just because its not enforceable does not make it morally right for you to do it. And if you did park in it I hope a disgruntled member of the general public lets all you tyres down

 

 

So you would issue an unenforceable and therefore illegal parking fine. Knowing the bay should be marked as disabled only, does not make it morally right for you to issue an illegal fine.

 

Where did your moral high ground go now rff04 that you were spouting earlier in the thread?

[rff04]

Exactly what costs are you going to get back from the appeals process on a council issued PCN?

[noomill060]

Maybe the point is that we all need to obey the law, public and public servants.

[noomill060]

I would sue the authority for all damages suffered as a result of your unlawful act, calling you as a witness at the hearing.

[rff04]

Its not an illegal fine its and unenforceable fine. What criminal act have i committed? Am sure I could find a technicality that would let me get away with it

[kiptower]

what do away with signs ,,

 

they are required by law and under the Road Trafffic Act, they only thing would be total confusion to what was legal and what was not, if they were removed , so how would you show diffent restriction that apply respective of the time off day , introduce Pink lines etc etc, !!!!!!

 

no we are not going to make it easy for the public to be scammed by so many Councils / CEO,

 

quote > Its not an illegal fine its and unenforceable fine

 

i suggest you read a lot more of the law

there are several criminal offence if you do so aiding and abetting to obtain money by by faulse protences ( simple explination of it ) to start with

Edited February 2, 2009 by kiptower

[rff04]

I would sue the authority for all damages suffered as a result of your unlawful act, calling you as a witness at the hearing.

 

What are you talking about? What criminal act have i committed for issuing a unenforceable PCN? What damages and why would I be called as a witness?

[noomill060]

You sound a little worried now.

 

The witness box can be a very lonely place.

[rff04]

Quite simple DYL no parking 24/7, SYL no parking Mon-Sat 8am to 6pm UK wide.

[noomill060]

Dont forget, Ive just had my appeal upheld, had my tyres slashed and Im out for blood.

 

And I blame you. Im going to make your life as miserable as legally possible.

[rff04]

Not worried in the least cause i think you have watched too many episodes of Rumpole of the Bailey and think you are an oracle about everything legal and parking related.

[lamma]

rff04, Aren't you supposed to report missing signs and lines as part of your duties ? do you ?

[noomill060]

Youre cocky now, but in the witness box..

 

But hey, you havent committed an offence, but I would want you in the box to confirm what you did. I would sue the authority for all losses suffered as a result of your actions. I'd call you as a witness just to have you admit your sins in front of a judge and to confirm my side of the story.

 

The judge wouldnt be impressed with you, but apart from looking down his nose at you, theres not much he could do to you

[rff04]

Didnt say anything about your tyres being slashed did I. You wouldnt make a very good witness if you where in the box making stuff up.Its a wonder you got your appeal quashed cause you probably took down the signage in the first place so you could park closer to blockbuster to rent more episodes of rumpole of the bailey. If I didnt witness the act of your tyres being let down what would you like me to say "your honour sorry to say I didnt see anything"

[rff04]

rff04, Aren't you supposed to report missing signs and lines as part of your duties ? do you ?

 

that would be post 20

[noomill060]

oh dear, oh dear....it like arguing with a bread pudding!

 

Night rff04- welcome to CAG

 

Stick around, you'll learn something.

[rff04]

Lets hope your 4,675 posts before this one were much better and thank you I have already learned something................. about you

[rff04]

what do away with signs ,,

 

they are required by law and under the Road Trafffic Act, they only thing would be total confusion to what was legal and what was not, if they were removed , so how would you show diffent restriction that apply respective of the time off day , introduce Pink lines etc etc, !!!!!!

 

no we are not going to make it easy for the public to be scammed by so many Councils / CEO,

 

quote > Its not an illegal fine its and unenforceable fine

 

i suggest you read a lot more of the law

there are several criminal offence if you do so aiding and abetting to obtain money by by faulse protences ( simple explination of it ) to start with

 

Go ahead Ironside you tell me what I would exactly be charged with for issuing a PCN incorrectly because a sign was missing in a disabled bay (we are not talking about any other type of bay cause thats a different matter where common sense might be used) First you would have to prove that I knew the sign was missing before I issued the ticket when all i have to do is say i forgot to look sorry. Second how to you think the local press would re-act when I tell my side of the story that a non blue badge holder who parked in a disabled spot which is clearly visible with the words "disabled" and a huge three foot picture of a stick man in a wheel chair painted on the bay is taking me to court and trying to sue the council for damages. Catch your self on

[lamma]

that would be post 20

 

Post 20 does not answer the "Do you ?" question. And what was that about requiring a large team of people out checking the signs - we have that already, its the CEOs. The casual reader my want to think about asking their local council for the missing lines report especially when there are known illegal bays and signs and the council is still dishing out PCNs at them. Hands caught in the cookie jar and all that...

[rff04]

Post 20 does not answer the "Do you ?" question. And what was that about requiring a large team of people out checking the signs - we have that already, its the CEOs. The casual reader my want to think about asking their local council for the missing lines report especially when there are known illegal bays and signs and the council is still dishing out PCNs at them. Hands caught in the cookie jar and all that...

 

Yes I do and the council then informs us what we can still enforce and guess what its still quite a lot. I guess if the sign was missing from your residents bay and somebody else was parked in it you wouldnt mind would you?

[kiptower]

It’s very clear you do not know the difference between a compliant bay and a courtesy bay, a courtesy bay has NO TMO and therefore no pole with signage, as for the wheelchair logo and the word disabled painted in it , still does not make it an offence to park in it, by anyone, and the reason its not compliant , because the Council’s will not pay for the TMO for them , which cost something in the region of £400 per application, they would rather spend the money on their splash out lunches for the Councillor’s.

 

All CEO can check if its a compliant bay before they issue the ticket , that what the radio/phone is also supplied for, don’t try and make excuses because procedure is not applied, as it should be in Law.

 

Its up to the Councils to get their act together if they want to CASH IN on this Cash Cow , because its nothing more than fund raising, it might deter a few but not the majority.

 

Typical was the London Borough of Greenwich when the Dome was put up , they went around putting yellow lines everywhere ( and many of them without a valid TMO ) and went as far trying to stop Disabled drivers not from Greenwich parking in the Borough, when the residents almost revolted there was a massive back peddle by the Council, Councilors’ relised they would lose their support and votes, and the crowning glory was when the Dome failed, after the Council bragged about the £8M per year they expected to make from parking, went down the drain.

 

Above is just an example of why there needs to be more regulation of the Councils Parking Scheme’s ( or more scams ) and independent checking and monitoring of what they actually do when an appeal is raised, not just some Office Junior making decisions, as happens with most Councils, Management rarely look at appeals until it goes to the Adjudicators, just check how many appeals are upheld by the Adjudicators in London alone, and which 4 Councils are at the top of the list for Adjudication Appeals.

Edited February 2, 2009 by kiptower