Basingstoke Gazette
By Patrick Knox
Tuesday 10th November 2009
DRIVERS were wrongly issued with fines after experimental parking controls were found not to be valid.
Motorists were issued with tickets, totalling £1,375, for parking in controlled areas in the Penrith Road area of Brookvale, Kings Furlong and North Whitchurch.
But officers in Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council introduced the controls under the wrong legislation – meaning they could not be lawfully enforced. So far, no driver hit by a fine has been reimbursed.
Councillor Clive Sanders, Cabinet member for community safety and development, made the disclosures after being quizzed by Whitchurch borough councillor Keith Watts at a full council meeting on the total value of the fines.
Cllr Sanders said: “The professional advice available was that there was a possibility that the orders could be flawed and it was inappropriate for the council’s enforcement officers to continue issuing the fixed penalty notices.”
Of the 53 penalty notices, Cllr Sanders said 27 have been paid with a total value of £950. But he added the council has not refunded those who had paid up because it did not have enough details and was not allowed to access the DVLA database to obtain vehicle owner details. Those who have not paid have had their fines cancelled, he said.
The controls, which came into force in March, included areas of no or restricted waiting, controlled parking zones and a residents’ parking scheme.
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council introduced the restrictions as “experimental traffic regulations” in response to parking problems in the area.
But council lawyers spotted that fines could be challenged because the controls should be enacted under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act of 1984. Parking attendants enforcing the restriction were then told to stop issuing penalty notices on September 18.
Now the council is seeking to introduce a permanent traffic order in Brookvale and Kings Furlong, Whitchurch, and the Penrith Road area of Beggarwood.
Cllr Watts, who represents the Whitchurch ward, said afterwards: “Anyone who has paid a fine should be tracked down and refunded.”
Showing posts with label invalid PCNs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label invalid PCNs. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wycombe District parking fines revealed
Bucks Free Press
MOTORISTS have been hit with more than £300,000 worth of fines in four months after Wycombe District Council took control of traffic wardens, it has been revealed.
The council has billed 5,223 drivers since taking over enforcement duties from the police in October, worth £338,410.
Of these just 3,434 tickets have been paid, worth £125,867.
Catherine Spaltion, press officer for the council said as most people paid the fines within 14 days – during a 50 per cent “discount period”. This means the fine actually paid often falls below the amount officially charged by the council.
The full value of each ticket is £50 or £70, depending on the offence.
The council said none of its officers worked on an incentive, commission or target led basis.
It said reasons for unpaid tickets could include a vehicle's owner not being traceable, a disabled driver having been verified, or a successful appeal against the ticket. Some cases may have gone to formal adjudication or even be at the court stage.
MOTORISTS have been hit with more than £300,000 worth of fines in four months after Wycombe District Council took control of traffic wardens, it has been revealed.
The council has billed 5,223 drivers since taking over enforcement duties from the police in October, worth £338,410.
Of these just 3,434 tickets have been paid, worth £125,867.
Catherine Spaltion, press officer for the council said as most people paid the fines within 14 days – during a 50 per cent “discount period”. This means the fine actually paid often falls below the amount officially charged by the council.
The full value of each ticket is £50 or £70, depending on the offence.
The council said none of its officers worked on an incentive, commission or target led basis.
It said reasons for unpaid tickets could include a vehicle's owner not being traceable, a disabled driver having been verified, or a successful appeal against the ticket. Some cases may have gone to formal adjudication or even be at the court stage.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Should a yellow line have a t-bar? Is the adjudication service independent?
Parking adjudicators will have you believe that the law doesn't concern itself with trifles BUT it isn't a trifle when you get walloped for a £120 fine.However, there is a High Court case pending which could re-establish the rule of law and ensure that local authorities comply with the law. Adjudicators (funded by the local authorities who have repeatedly failed to comply with the law ... the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002) have seized on the phrase 'substantial compliance' with the interpretation that if a sign 'looks' like a sign (or line) then 'no reasonable motorist' could have been misled.
That is not how the law is written. TSRGD 2002 is explicit and sets out the dimensions (and permitted variants) for road traffic signs. Any deviations from prescribed signage requires Special Authorisation from the Secretary of State.
Don't take my word for it ...
Here is the British Parking Association's submission to the House of Commons Transport Committee:
TRAFFIC SIGNS
30. Traffic and parking regulations are given effect by traffic signs and markings. In the UK signs are prescribed precisely in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction TSRGD (SI 2002/3113) and if a sign or marking does not comply with TSRGD then the regulation has no effect. We believe that it is important that, particularly for parking, where drivers are expected to comply with regulations, that the precision of signing is preserved and enforced. Where a driver is at risk of a financial penalty, or worse, signs cannot be "about right".
Not convinced?
Check out the statement of the DETR (now the Department for Transport) in relation to the requirement to have t-bars terminating double and single yellow lines reported by the BBC here:
One of the main problems, he claims, is when double yellow lines are painted without a T-bar finishing off the lines at each end.
The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) confirmed that with single or double yellow lines there must be a block painted at a 90-degree angle at the end of the lines.
A spokesman said: "If this end line isn't there then the lines have been laid out incorrectly by the local authority and you would have grounds to challenge the ticket in court."
In the above case North Yorkshire Police admitted:
We have been open and honest about this matter from the beginning and we have admitted we were in the wrong
North Yorkshire Police
One has to ask the question when was the law allowed to be 'dumbed down' and by whom?
Well, it seems to be that adjudicators are applying their own interpretation to the law (TSRGD 2002) ... and just remember that the adjudicators are appointed by the Joint Committee and are remunerated by the Joint Committee.
Who are the Joint Committee? The Joint Committee comprises of members from the councils participating in Civil Parking Enforcement.
To ensure that all the lines and signs comply with the law is an expensive business ... hence the reason for 'dumbing down.'
Apparent bias in the Judicial context. Lord Goff of Chieveley cited the dictum of Blackburn J in R and Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230, 232:
“Any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject of inquiry, does disqualify a person from acting as a judge in the matter.”
Once it is realised by the motoring public that the 'independent' adjudication services are remunerated on a per ticket basis (60p per PCN in the case of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal) then the more tickets issued the more money they receive.
Successful technical defences based on councils failure to comply with TSRGD 2002 reduce the amount of PCNs that can be issued and enforced.
Any rocket scientists care to comment?
Oh, the case of Glenn Dickinson v Hull City Council has been given leave for Judicial Review on the grounds that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal are not independent and signs must be as prescribed in law. Looks like Herron v The Parking Adjudicator (independence of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and TSRGD points) and Pendle v The Parking Adjudicator (TSRGD points) are likely to follow the same route after being refused at written stage are now both moving towards an oral hearing.
In the meantime, anyone with a ticket on an incorrectly terminated yellow line or coming before the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and raising concerns over their independence can request that their case be 'stayed' sine die pending the outcome of Dickinson.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Parking still not fine in Camden ... when will the truth come out?
We expect more whistleblowing and revelations soon. Will be interesting to know how 'aware' the council has been with regard to the unlawful restrictions it has been enforcing whilst embarking on the programme of corrections.
Hats off to Richard Osley at the Camden New Journal for the story below ...
Six months on the meter, and the man brought in to make parking fairer for motorists has gone‘Errors of judgement’ claim as parking department’s star signing exits the Town Hall
THE Town Hall last night (Wednesday) claimed a parking chief appointed to make Camden’s flagging parking system fairer had made “errors of judgement”.
In an unexpected move, John Meyer left the council service in the final working week before Christmas – just two months after a New Journal investigation into the council’s much-maligned warden service.Mr Meyer had previously been expected to keep the post of interim parking manager until the summer at least.But his contract has not been renewed and he cleared his desk on the Friday before the festive break.
The Town Hall said there had been actions “not compatible with the public profile of the post”.
Officials confirmed that Borough Solicitor Andrew Maughan was last month asked to investigate anonymous allegations that Mr Meyer had awarded himself a permit allowing him to park on yellow lines and in residents’ bays across Camden – although it did not lead to any disciplinary action.
A spokeswoman said: “We investigated the allegation. It identified some minor issues but the investigation is closed and no disciplinary action was taken.”As a matter of course, Camden investigates all complaints against staff. It was pointed out yesterday how accusations are often made unfairly against officials, particularly those in high office. The council spokeswoman added that directors believed Mr Meyer had contributed to improvements.
Last night, Mr Meyer, 37, declined to comment, beyond confirming that a six-month contract had expired on December 19 and that he was now working on a fresh challenge elsewhere. He is understood to have felt he performed well and got on well with senior colleagues during a drive to reorganise the department, taking backbiting among some members of the team in his stride.But the sudden decision to part company has left the parking department without a head just as it enters its most crucial period for four years and with critical decisions over who should run the borough’s warden service in the future to be resolved.
Camden is planning to offer its biggest-ever deal to private contractors at the start of next year and is preparing the ground before going out to tender on the lucrative opportunity. The winning bidder could take on all of Camden’s parking enforcement operations for eight years. At the same time, the Town Hall is struggling to understand why cash raised from parking tickets is down by £4million, with bosses ordering an internal investigation and a search for “quick wins” to improve performance. A council spokeswoman said yesterday: “At the end of Mr Meyer’s contract, the position was jointly reviewed with him and it was decided not to renew the contract. The decision has absolutely nothing to do with contracts or parking tickets.” She added: “During his time with Camden, John has played an important role in the council’s review of the service to make parking more transparent and fair. There were, however, some errors of judgement on his part that we believe were not compatible with the head of service role or the public profile of the post. No further action is necessary.”
Mr Meyer has forged a reputation as a top operator in the specialised world of parking enforcement and has advised other councils and large parking companies on their operations. But, as the New Journal revealed in an investigation in October, his appointment in Camden was the source of staff unrest from almost his first day. A group of staff took the unusual step of writing to their superiors – albeit anonymously – to advise caution. While some of his new colleagues at Camden raised the possibility of a conflict of interest over Mr Meyer’s private company HHCT Limited, which repairs hand-held computers used by wardens, and his brother Simon’s post at one of Camden’s contractors, council chiefs stood by their man.In a briefing organised in response to the New Journal investigations, environment department director Rachel Stopard insisted there would be no conflict in terms of his private interests and that he had given up a position he had held in the Conservative party. And in a private memo, Robert Scourfield, her deputy, confidently announced Mr Meyer’s appointment to staff, introducing him as a star signing and suggesting he would be in post until June 2009.
Officials at the Town Hall stressed last night that the “errors of judgement” did not relate to Mr Meyer’s business interests. Senior officers told last year how they need to make the parking service “fit for purpose”, although initial moves to hike builders’ permits by 267 percent have not engendered much confidence among motorists. Unresolved internal investigations into two suspended, well-liked managers have, meanwhile, further angered staff. The department was already unsettled by the departure of Rudy Bright, the last permanent parking manager, who left last year with a redundancy package soon after he had been lampooned by protesters in a You-Tube video condemned by the council.
Camden’s Labour group leader Councillor Anna Stewart said: “This a blow to the Camden Parking Service, which is in a demoralised and volatile state. There is a massive financial shortfall looming this year and staff will be under pressure to bring in ever higher charges for residents. Parking must be fair and effective for local people.”A council spokeswoman said: “The process of recruiting a new permanent head of parking services is under way, and short-term arrangements have been made to cover the post temporarily.”
Hats off to Richard Osley at the Camden New Journal for the story below ...
Six months on the meter, and the man brought in to make parking fairer for motorists has gone‘Errors of judgement’ claim as parking department’s star signing exits the Town HallTHE Town Hall last night (Wednesday) claimed a parking chief appointed to make Camden’s flagging parking system fairer had made “errors of judgement”.
In an unexpected move, John Meyer left the council service in the final working week before Christmas – just two months after a New Journal investigation into the council’s much-maligned warden service.Mr Meyer had previously been expected to keep the post of interim parking manager until the summer at least.But his contract has not been renewed and he cleared his desk on the Friday before the festive break.
The Town Hall said there had been actions “not compatible with the public profile of the post”.
Officials confirmed that Borough Solicitor Andrew Maughan was last month asked to investigate anonymous allegations that Mr Meyer had awarded himself a permit allowing him to park on yellow lines and in residents’ bays across Camden – although it did not lead to any disciplinary action.
A spokeswoman said: “We investigated the allegation. It identified some minor issues but the investigation is closed and no disciplinary action was taken.”As a matter of course, Camden investigates all complaints against staff. It was pointed out yesterday how accusations are often made unfairly against officials, particularly those in high office. The council spokeswoman added that directors believed Mr Meyer had contributed to improvements.
Last night, Mr Meyer, 37, declined to comment, beyond confirming that a six-month contract had expired on December 19 and that he was now working on a fresh challenge elsewhere. He is understood to have felt he performed well and got on well with senior colleagues during a drive to reorganise the department, taking backbiting among some members of the team in his stride.But the sudden decision to part company has left the parking department without a head just as it enters its most crucial period for four years and with critical decisions over who should run the borough’s warden service in the future to be resolved.
Camden is planning to offer its biggest-ever deal to private contractors at the start of next year and is preparing the ground before going out to tender on the lucrative opportunity. The winning bidder could take on all of Camden’s parking enforcement operations for eight years. At the same time, the Town Hall is struggling to understand why cash raised from parking tickets is down by £4million, with bosses ordering an internal investigation and a search for “quick wins” to improve performance. A council spokeswoman said yesterday: “At the end of Mr Meyer’s contract, the position was jointly reviewed with him and it was decided not to renew the contract. The decision has absolutely nothing to do with contracts or parking tickets.” She added: “During his time with Camden, John has played an important role in the council’s review of the service to make parking more transparent and fair. There were, however, some errors of judgement on his part that we believe were not compatible with the head of service role or the public profile of the post. No further action is necessary.”
Mr Meyer has forged a reputation as a top operator in the specialised world of parking enforcement and has advised other councils and large parking companies on their operations. But, as the New Journal revealed in an investigation in October, his appointment in Camden was the source of staff unrest from almost his first day. A group of staff took the unusual step of writing to their superiors – albeit anonymously – to advise caution. While some of his new colleagues at Camden raised the possibility of a conflict of interest over Mr Meyer’s private company HHCT Limited, which repairs hand-held computers used by wardens, and his brother Simon’s post at one of Camden’s contractors, council chiefs stood by their man.In a briefing organised in response to the New Journal investigations, environment department director Rachel Stopard insisted there would be no conflict in terms of his private interests and that he had given up a position he had held in the Conservative party. And in a private memo, Robert Scourfield, her deputy, confidently announced Mr Meyer’s appointment to staff, introducing him as a star signing and suggesting he would be in post until June 2009.
Officials at the Town Hall stressed last night that the “errors of judgement” did not relate to Mr Meyer’s business interests. Senior officers told last year how they need to make the parking service “fit for purpose”, although initial moves to hike builders’ permits by 267 percent have not engendered much confidence among motorists. Unresolved internal investigations into two suspended, well-liked managers have, meanwhile, further angered staff. The department was already unsettled by the departure of Rudy Bright, the last permanent parking manager, who left last year with a redundancy package soon after he had been lampooned by protesters in a You-Tube video condemned by the council.
Camden’s Labour group leader Councillor Anna Stewart said: “This a blow to the Camden Parking Service, which is in a demoralised and volatile state. There is a massive financial shortfall looming this year and staff will be under pressure to bring in ever higher charges for residents. Parking must be fair and effective for local people.”A council spokeswoman said: “The process of recruiting a new permanent head of parking services is under way, and short-term arrangements have been made to cover the post temporarily.”
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Not about revenue? Check out Edinburgh's nice little CPZ earner
Controlled Parking Zones lead to more fines ...
Car parking nets council £20m from motorists
The Scotsman
18 October 2008
By ALAN RODEN
EDINBURGH'S parking rules and regulations have handed the city council a record-breaking £20 million from motorists.
The income from fines, pay-and-display tickets, and residential parking permits soared by more than £3m in the last financial year, according to new figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The increase is largely the result of an expansion of the "controlled parking zone", which now takes in several city suburbs.
Critics today accused the council of using drivers as an "easy target" to help tackle its financial woes. The local authority insisted, however, that all money is ring-fenced for transport improvements in the Capital.
Between 2003 and 2007, the council's parking revenue rose marginally from £16.6m, before last year's sudden 18 per cent increase. The largest source of income came from pay-and-display tickets – up from £9.88m in 2006-07 to £11.58m last year.
Bruce Young, Lothian and Borders co-ordinator of the Association of British Drivers, said: "Far fewer people are driving into the city centre, so this is because there's been an extension to the controlled parking zone."It's actually less about controlling parking, and more about bringing in as much money as possible to recoup the losses from the congestion charging plans. They have not forgiven us for that."In all honesty, this is because the council is desperate for cash and motorists are an easy target."
The council has a contract with NCP to enforce parking rules, and last year that cost £4.48m. On top of that, the council paid out over £400,000 to maintain ticket machines.
The income included £6.75m from fines – over £1m more than the previous year, but less than the three years before that. Many city centre streets, including George Street, Chambers Street and Melville Street, recorded big drops in the number of penalties, while less congested roads away from the centre emerged as the new ticket hotspots. Council leaders believe the drop is down to better use of Edinburgh's variety of parking options, but business leaders say the falling number of city centre shoppers is the real explanation.
Nigel Duncan, vice chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses Edinburgh, said: "The council is getting a windfall, but that's to the detriment of the number of people coming to the city centre."Anything that stops people coming in is not good for Edinburgh's economy. If you look around the streets, there's a lack of people vying for parking spaces, and people from the outside won't come because they think the blue meanies will get them. This sends out the wrong signal."
City transport leader Phil Wheeler said: "The income from parking is ring-fenced and goes straight back into improving the condition of our roads and pavements. This council has budgeted £20m a year over the next three years to address the backlog of repairs and upgrades required for the benefit of people in the city."
Car parking nets council £20m from motoristsThe Scotsman
18 October 2008
By ALAN RODEN
EDINBURGH'S parking rules and regulations have handed the city council a record-breaking £20 million from motorists.
The income from fines, pay-and-display tickets, and residential parking permits soared by more than £3m in the last financial year, according to new figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The increase is largely the result of an expansion of the "controlled parking zone", which now takes in several city suburbs.
Critics today accused the council of using drivers as an "easy target" to help tackle its financial woes. The local authority insisted, however, that all money is ring-fenced for transport improvements in the Capital.
Between 2003 and 2007, the council's parking revenue rose marginally from £16.6m, before last year's sudden 18 per cent increase. The largest source of income came from pay-and-display tickets – up from £9.88m in 2006-07 to £11.58m last year.
Bruce Young, Lothian and Borders co-ordinator of the Association of British Drivers, said: "Far fewer people are driving into the city centre, so this is because there's been an extension to the controlled parking zone."It's actually less about controlling parking, and more about bringing in as much money as possible to recoup the losses from the congestion charging plans. They have not forgiven us for that."In all honesty, this is because the council is desperate for cash and motorists are an easy target."
The council has a contract with NCP to enforce parking rules, and last year that cost £4.48m. On top of that, the council paid out over £400,000 to maintain ticket machines.
The income included £6.75m from fines – over £1m more than the previous year, but less than the three years before that. Many city centre streets, including George Street, Chambers Street and Melville Street, recorded big drops in the number of penalties, while less congested roads away from the centre emerged as the new ticket hotspots. Council leaders believe the drop is down to better use of Edinburgh's variety of parking options, but business leaders say the falling number of city centre shoppers is the real explanation.
Nigel Duncan, vice chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses Edinburgh, said: "The council is getting a windfall, but that's to the detriment of the number of people coming to the city centre."Anything that stops people coming in is not good for Edinburgh's economy. If you look around the streets, there's a lack of people vying for parking spaces, and people from the outside won't come because they think the blue meanies will get them. This sends out the wrong signal."
City transport leader Phil Wheeler said: "The income from parking is ring-fenced and goes straight back into improving the condition of our roads and pavements. This council has budgeted £20m a year over the next three years to address the backlog of repairs and upgrades required for the benefit of people in the city."
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Crashed Ka gets a parking ticket ...
... and the stock answer is 'Well, you can always appeal.'
Crashed car gets £50 parking ticket
Metro
August 14, 2008
A stunned motorist was dealt a double blow when she found her parked car had been shunted into a tree – then given a £50 parking ticket.
Joanne Billington's Ford Ka was hit by another motorist, then slapped with a ticket by an overzealous warden.
'I was absolutely devastated,' said the 27-year-old. 'I just couldn't believe what had happened. It was obvious the car had been crashed into but I still got a fine. It's unbelievable that the attendant had the gall to issue one.'
Amazingly, despite the front end of the car being in the bushes, the traffic warden claimed he thought it had been parked that way.
'Nobody parks their car like that,' added Ms Billington, from Halifax.
An Oldham Council spokesman said the penalty had since been written off. 'At the time of the incident the attendant did not know that the vehicle had been forced out of the bay.'
Crashed car gets £50 parking ticketMetro
August 14, 2008
A stunned motorist was dealt a double blow when she found her parked car had been shunted into a tree – then given a £50 parking ticket.
Joanne Billington's Ford Ka was hit by another motorist, then slapped with a ticket by an overzealous warden.
'I was absolutely devastated,' said the 27-year-old. 'I just couldn't believe what had happened. It was obvious the car had been crashed into but I still got a fine. It's unbelievable that the attendant had the gall to issue one.'
Amazingly, despite the front end of the car being in the bushes, the traffic warden claimed he thought it had been parked that way.
'Nobody parks their car like that,' added Ms Billington, from Halifax.
An Oldham Council spokesman said the penalty had since been written off. 'At the time of the incident the attendant did not know that the vehicle had been forced out of the bay.'
It's a fine time for everyone ...except the motorist
The penny is starting to drop ... everyone connected with the 'parking industry' is financially dependent on the number of tickets issued.
Mike Waters writes below ...
AS if traffic wardens didn’t already have a bad enough reputation, you may have heard that the Department for Transport admitted that at least 80 councils in England and Wales had issued parking tickets that did not comply with regulations.
Motors Merseyside
Aug 11 2008
Mike Waters
This admission is untimely for the government having recently updated parking laws to make the ticketing system in England fairer.
The plan is that the changes will remove inconsistency and reduce confusion for motorists. This rebalancing has created two different levels of fine, with reduced punishment for lesser offences, so the fine for offences deemed as minor is falling, while punishment for major offences will increase.
The tickets in question were judged to be invalid because of incorrect road markings, poor signage and other similar issues. A particularly aggravating example involved tickets which were issued to cars which overran marked bays, despite these bays being too narrow.
Tickets were also issued without the correct documentation, or without a date of the claimed offence, which is contrary to guidelines. It is thought that many motorists may have already paid the fines unnecessarily, and many more may have the right to appeal tickets.
This enforces the point that although you should never park in restricted areas or for longer than they are allocated, parking adjudicators depend on a revenue stream from tickets so can not be relied on to be impartial. It is also telling that only a small number of people in England challenge fines, even when they have a strong case, and of those that do appeal the success rate is reasonably high.
With changes to the law and the increased use of CCTV enforcement, drivers will need to keep their wits about them to avoid legal fines, let alone bogus ones. Under the new system there is a real chance that drivers will be caught without even realising it, only to receive a ticket issued by post weeks after the incident.
Everyone makes mistakes, whatever line of work you operate in and traffic wardens are no different so the advice is, think carefully about where you park and do everything that you can not to get a ticket in the first place.
But if you do get caught and genuinely feel that the ticket is unjust don’t just write it off as you may have a compelling case for appeal.
Mike Waters is head of market analysis at Arval, Europe’s leading fleet and fuel management company.
Mike Waters writes below ...
AS if traffic wardens didn’t already have a bad enough reputation, you may have heard that the Department for Transport admitted that at least 80 councils in England and Wales had issued parking tickets that did not comply with regulations.Motors Merseyside
Aug 11 2008
Mike Waters
This admission is untimely for the government having recently updated parking laws to make the ticketing system in England fairer.
The plan is that the changes will remove inconsistency and reduce confusion for motorists. This rebalancing has created two different levels of fine, with reduced punishment for lesser offences, so the fine for offences deemed as minor is falling, while punishment for major offences will increase.
The tickets in question were judged to be invalid because of incorrect road markings, poor signage and other similar issues. A particularly aggravating example involved tickets which were issued to cars which overran marked bays, despite these bays being too narrow.
Tickets were also issued without the correct documentation, or without a date of the claimed offence, which is contrary to guidelines. It is thought that many motorists may have already paid the fines unnecessarily, and many more may have the right to appeal tickets.
This enforces the point that although you should never park in restricted areas or for longer than they are allocated, parking adjudicators depend on a revenue stream from tickets so can not be relied on to be impartial. It is also telling that only a small number of people in England challenge fines, even when they have a strong case, and of those that do appeal the success rate is reasonably high.
With changes to the law and the increased use of CCTV enforcement, drivers will need to keep their wits about them to avoid legal fines, let alone bogus ones. Under the new system there is a real chance that drivers will be caught without even realising it, only to receive a ticket issued by post weeks after the incident.
Everyone makes mistakes, whatever line of work you operate in and traffic wardens are no different so the advice is, think carefully about where you park and do everything that you can not to get a ticket in the first place.
But if you do get caught and genuinely feel that the ticket is unjust don’t just write it off as you may have a compelling case for appeal.
Mike Waters is head of market analysis at Arval, Europe’s leading fleet and fuel management company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
