Just out of interest i found this on the Croydon gov site. No woner they are hot!!
___________________________________
Standard CCTV
(Closed Circuit Television) Course
SMILE PLEASE
This foundation course will enable new operatives to effectively monitor and identify traffic and parking contraventions. The training methods will convey the essential knowledge and skills that are practised on Home Office approved CCTV equipment.
£810 per person (5 days)
|
|
|
|
The habit (not necessarily yours I grant ) of driving onto footpaths has led in our small town to at least one injury. Nat west have responded by putting up bollards. Doesn\'t stop the terminally lazy fron driving onto the pavement from further along, tho\' this is the baseball-capped exception. I have had the experience recently of having 3 cars drive at me, whilst walking along the pavement. Driver in one case distracted by kids, and in second/third probably not caring or expecting soft-shelled creature to be there! Why do drivers expect to be rescued from follies of their own making?
|
Thanks for the replies. The situation was not as you lot think. I parked my car on the pavement outside a café the café was where my car was parked so I was not blocking anything. I was less than 30 seconds and delivering something. I doubt I damaged the pavement as I only drive a little Clio. I think I have reasonable grounds because I was parked for less than 30 seconds at the spot it?s not like I left my car
Councils don?t seem to have a problem with Orange/02/TMob sticking up a pole with two or three massive boxes round it taking up over half the pavement. But then it?s one rule for us and one rule for them!
|
|
And it is worth the hassle. I have made them write three letters to me already plus viewed CCTV to waste even more of their time. Wont let these scum bags make any cash out of me. Time people fought back a bit more then the council would not have the audacity to issue a ticket to someone parked in a spot for less that 30 seconds. Although I read a story in the paper the other day of a man issued a ticket whilst asking a parking attendant for directions colleague booked him. London Tonight also reported on Lambeth Council issuing tickets at 3 in the morning - I bet you most of the people who get them pay up en all
|
|
should say cafe sign was where my car was parked above sorry for error
|
|
If they have got a record of you breaking what they say is \"The Law\" I wouldn\'t think you have much of a chance but I don\'t think parking adjudication costs anything. Were you on an errand of mercy, delivering vital medication or something? That might be relevant to your appeal.
|
|
|
Anyway I will show you a copy of the letter I sent to Croydon Parking. My dad said that you could also use the Maudsley argument or something like that ? which has something to do with common sense and reasonableness
I write in relation to the above numbered parking ticket which was issue to my car on 03/01/2004 at 0814 hrs. Firstly I would like to put the offence into context. This was the bank holiday weekend just after New Years Day and traffic was exceptionally light/non existent.
I yesterday viewed the CCTV at your offices and note I was parked at the location in question for no more than 30 seconds. Also where my vehicle had been parked there was a large sign saying café which would have put this particular section of the pathway out of bounds anyway. I ran into the shop and can be clearly seen running in and straight back out of the café premises.
The main point that I am trying to make is the fact that the vehicle was left unattended for less than 30 seconds whilst I stopped to deliver something. I abide by the law as much as I can until the law becomes an ass. In this particular instance the CCTV is clearly being used for blatant money making. I thought these cameras were to be used for catching criminals? This is why people have no respect for the CCTV operation because you just abuse it and issue tickets where common sense has not been used.
I would ask that the ticket be cancelled as I was simply making a quick delivery. I think the council is acting vexaciously? and ?wholly unreasonably to issue a ticket in these circumstances.
If my appeal is not allowed I will be taking the matter to the adjudicator as this is just ridiculous.
Yours sincerely
|
Oh and using terms like
\"I abide by the law as much as I can until the law becomes an ass\" \"CCTV is clearly being used for blatant money making\" \"you just abuse it and issue tickets where common sense has not been used.\"
In a letter to appeal against an offence is GUARANTEED to ensure you recieve a very hostile time an no chance of a fair hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
You should be fined double. It's not "their" time and money you're wasting, and it's not "they" who make any money out of you (I doubt if anybody does as it no doubt costs more to enforce rules than is gathered in fines). It's our, the taxpayers, time and money you're wasting - do you enjoy paying taxes?
Pavements are for pedestrians. Yes I occasionally park on one but if I get prosecuted I'll be bang to rights as you were and pay up.
Why do so many selfish people expect to choose which rules apply to themselves - do they know the meaning of the word society?
If I've taken the trouble to park my car, pay 20p, and walk 300yds to the bank, I expect the anti-social who obstruct road and pavement illegally to pay for it. Ditto the abuse of disabled parking. Stop whining.
|
|
|
|
\"Thanks for the replies. The situation was not as you lot think\"
Errr I think it is. You parked ON the pavement. To get there you DROVE ON the pavement. The pavement is for people, the road is for cars. 30 seconds or parking is not the point.
You got caught fair and square. Pay up.
|
|
Renault family you are being very technical. Do you support the police fining people for low window washer?
|
Thanks for reply damp squid. I do not dispute that I was on footway. But on camera for less than 30 seconds! So I basically am using argument that I did not leave my car. Also the argument of reasonableness given the fact my car was at this spot for UNDER 30 seconds.
|
|
|
|
No its not technical, its a failry fundamantal principal. Thoughtless abuse of pedestrian/car separation gives those car hating tree hugging beaurocrats more excuses to screw the knot on motorists who use the road. If the road was not busy why use the pavement?
|
|
I was there less than 30 seconds. I don;t see local council doing much about orange with 15 foot pole together with boxes the side of my sitting room around it. I\'m fighting anyway you lot pay up !
|
|
Too lazy to walk from the kerb? Or just too stupid to realise what pavements are for?
|
|
|
|
|
What we have seen in recent years is the government let criminals flourish, crime spirals out of control eg Gun crime has increased seven-fold since Labour came to power.....at the same time, they continually sell us solutions to this rising crime, these solutions are bunkem. The CCTV footage they get of drug dealers in city centres can\'t be used in court, they can\'t point them at illegal gypsy encampments because it invades their privacy, but what they are doing is creating a police state without any police. Look how that habitual car criminal, with no insurance, MOT or tax and banned from driving and with outstanding fines was sentenced to sit down for 30 minutes! meanwhile decent hardworking families going to work or grabbing a sandwich get persecuted out of all proportion. Wake up and smell the pretzels.
|
Less politics, more motoring please.
DD.
|
|
|
|
If it might stop lazy and/or stupid people with their selfish attitude parking on the pavement it sounds good to me.
|
Reanaultfamily, good to see that you share the same views!!
reynolds: Pavements are for pedestrians. Remember, some may have poor eyesight/disabled and may find a car blocking half the pavement harddangerous to negotiate.
I posted earlier on where you can park on the pavent and were you can't.
for the last time, admit that you broke the "law" shall we say and pay up - lot less grief.
Agreed that police/councils should spend more time catching crooks. Have you read the thread re "Can you believe this"?
Therefore, if your case does go to court - and lets say you lose as they have film footage of your offence/mistake. Tell the guys in charge of the court that you will be a good little boy and sit quitely for half an hour in the back row and they may let you off!!
To save you the 30 seconds it would take to go to the news item i refer to - please see link below.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3568245.stm
|
,,,," damp squid"
I thought all squids were damp by defintition.
|
I don't see that the length of time the offence was committed has anything to do with it. It might only take me 20 seconds to mug someone or tip controlled waste down the drain or run over a child on the pavement or crack a paving slab ... etc.
Driving or parking on the pavement is illegal, full stop.
The pavement is for pedestrians. Why not use the road as intended?
Three cheers for Croydon BC! I hope it gets taken up more vigorously nationally.
|
,,,," damp squid"
I thought all squids were damp by defintition.
I think they meant damp squib, the primer in explosives?
|
As a person of impaired balance (won't go into medical reasons) I can need a wider pavement than others as I wobble in the dark.
I've never done it, but the devil in me can reason as follows:
Pavemements are for people, roads are for cars. That lump of metal on the pavment must be dumped, as a car would be parked properly by the side of the road. Dumped cars get vandelised, where are my keys?
Yup, it is provocative, but I do have those thoughts.
Some pedestrians need more pavement than me, people in wheel chairs (I work with one) mothers with pushchairs and small children.
Croyden gets my vote!
|
Only just read this thread, but by golly no wonder the authorities are squeezing every last penny out of us. There seem to be a high percentage of people who just accept the letter of the law as given without challenge. Doesn't anyone care about what is "reasonable".
Has anyone asked how wide the pavement here was? So what if the law says pavement parking is illegal? Maybe the pavement was 15 feet wide. Plenty of room for a car and a wheelchair. Laws are very "blanket" and a sense of proportion and judgement ought to be used in enforcing it. Parking for 30 seconds and being fined £40 or whatever is out of proportion for the offence. Uninsured drivers only get fined £85, according to the "court" section of my local paper, though this is also out of proportion the other way.
Out of interest, is all pavement parking illegal where there are no signs allowing it? In that case, why aren't there traffic wardens collecting tax down every out-of-town residential street in the country, including mine, where pavement parking is commonplace?
Mattster
Boycott shoddy build and reliability.
|
|
I don't think we should start from the point of view that it's probably alright, and once again that the individual is the best judge of what laws to obey. The answer to your last question about why such parking is commonly allowed in some residential areas is probably that reasonableness and a pragmatic attitude *is* being applied in many cases as you suggest it should?
|
|
The issue of only 30 seconds may not wash either. Everybody committing a parking "offence" by the cash machine, newsgent etc makes that claim. The car changes every 45 seconds, the effect on the pavement/pedestrians/surrounding road is the same as having a long stayer there.
|
I’m not sure if anyone here is well up on the law. There is something called the maudsley argument or something along these lines which is the defence I will be using. I am quite surprised at the amount of people in the forum that support this covert money making scheme. I hope all the posters who support the scheme get one of these tickets soon. Remember you to might want to use the cash point on Sunday morning at 8AM so be prepared for that ticket.
I actually parked up on the pavement because the street is narrow and buses go along it. So was doing it for the benefit of other road users but obviously thinking of others gets you nowhere these days.
As for these people that care so much about the pavement – I don’t see the council doing much about these mobile lampposts with three or four cooker size cabinets around them. One in my area is absolutely disgusting and is so bad not even a wheelchair could get past.
I’m going to fight the ticket anyway as I personally think it is unreasonable to issue a ticket in such a short space of time (30 seconds). As for the poster who said the time is not relevant I think it is as in parking there are supposed to be some allowances for loading/unloading and what have you. A comment I found on a parking appeals website claims:
Some councils and Richmond would appear to be one of them, tell their PAs to instantly ticket all vehicles that appear to be parked in contravention without waiting to see if loading/unloading is taking place or passengers are being set down or picked up.
This means that PAs can issue more tickets. However if a motorist claims to have been loading/unloading the ticket must be cancelled as the council has no evidence to argue the contrary. Such councils take the view that a minority of parked vehicles are loading/unloading and, therefore, the number of tickets that they will have to cancel will be relatively small and the exercise will improve the ‘bottom line.’
|
As my mother used to say, two wrongs don't make a right. And your loading/unloading argument sounds as if it might hold water, had you been parked in the road - but you weren't. Nobody died - whose life will be improved by taking this to the house of Lords? Whatever happens I don't think you're going to get an anarchists' charter out of it.
I'm off to the shops now - hope there's somewhere to park.
|
|
Good luck. Everyone be warned about this CCTV most London councils are using it now
|
Excuses, excuses
Every day hundreds of motorists get a ticket during
the few minutes it takes to 'buy a paper' or 'get
change for the meter'. As ever it is the more unusual
and inventive excuses that are the best. I recently
heard the following:-
"I had just returned from South Africa. The light was
very bright and my eyes had not adjusted. I did not
see the yellow line."
"I couldn't put my money in the meter because there
was a flasher standing next to it. I was so upset that I
had to go indoors and get a cup of tea."
Another hapless motorist said that he could not see
the yellow line because "My glass eye fell out and a
car ran over it."
But my favourite so far is:- "I was in bed with my
girlfriend and the cat jumped from the wardrobe
onto my bottom. I jumped up as she sank her claws
into my back." Whether the claws were those of the
cat or the girlfriend was not made clear!
Unfortunately I do not know whether any of these
'excuses' resulted in the tickets being cancelled - but
they deserved to be!
|
You really are missing the point of this discussion. The majority of posters, and I am one, are opposed to motorists parking on the pavement.
Unfortunately, most councils do nothing about it. I live in a fairly prosperous area of detached houses which have ample parking space and garages. However, many owners have chosen to convert their garages to extra rooms and, in a few cases, swimming pools. There is still sufficient room to park their vehicles, yet they choose to leave them on half of the pavement. A few even park on the whole of the sidewalk. On the very rare occasion when we see a police car drive down the roads, they do absolutely nothing. One resident has enough room on his driveway for at least six cars, but chooses to park his new, 04, Nissan Terrano on the pavement outside his house. He appears to be too idle to open the gates and drive it in.
|
I'm sick and tired of motorist pavement parking.
You are blocking a public right of way by your selfish action.
Stop whinging and take it like a man. You broke the law.
|
But was he "blocking" a right of way? For 30 seconds at 8am on Sunday, he probably wasn't. I personally check to see that my car is parked considerately, whether legally or not, for the duration of my stay. So if I am stopping for half an hour, it has to be permanently considerately parked. But if stopping for 30 seconds, then if there is no-one (except surreptitious jobsworth incentivised wardens) within 30 seconds of my car, I'll park anywhere. In a shop doorway if it's not hurting anyone. No harm done.
Mattster
Boycott shoddy build and reliability.
|
I wonder? Considering the comment about 'narrow road and bus route' - if you pulled over on to the same bit of pathway for a similar amount of time to allow bus passage, would they have you for same offence then?
Not suggesting you try it!
|
Not sure what offence Reynolds was committing from the description. Must be either No Waiting Order or as he says some other Order banning pavement parking. Either Order needs to be seen to see what the exemptions clauses, if any, are. Would have thought no exemption for footpatrh parking. In relation to loading/unloading exemptions IIRC case law somewhere that items involved have to be substantial not merely a small package (which would take less than 30 secs?)
Ticket should give some idea what the offence/Order is. Letter to Council/Adjudicator can delay process allowing time to ferret the Order out to view to see what it says.
Abrasive letters will do little to get the LA on appealents side, the opposite I would have thought. Factual and polite get a better response.
DVD
|
I totally support anyone taking action against people who park partly/wholly on pavements because they decide it's too inconvenient for them to park elsewhere and walk a few yards.
I have read a couple fo articles about loophiles in this area - one was that being parked on the pavement is not illegal, but driving onto it is, so you would have to be witnessed actually doing so (in this case presumably the camera caught this). Also, and I don't know whether this only applies in Scotland, but apparently if you park with all four wheels on the pavement they can't do anything about it!
Intrigued by the attempts to excuse parking on the pavement by referring to mobile phone companies boxes. These companies go through the proper legal planning procedures and get local/central government approval to provide a service that is regarded as a vital part of the country's telecommunications infrastructure. Exactly how does this compare with an individual who is too lazy to park somewhere else, then claims not to have left their vehicle unattended (despite visiting adjacent cafe). What vital public service was being provided in this case?
|
As I understand it IS illegal as it is blocking a public right of way.
BTW there seems to be an increasing trend here to double park! Especially prevalent when dropping girls off to a local dance school. There is parking within 29 metres or so but that is to inconvenient.
|
Just to add my two-penn'orth
I agree any parking on the pavement should meet the full wrath of the authorities. It's illegal unless specifically allowed. Full stop.
If he was only there for 30 seconds, what was wrong with staying on the road? In the unlikely event of a bus coming at that time on a bank holiday Monday just how delayed would it have been?
Terry
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand"
|
|
Odd isn't it that you wouldn't get fined for holding up a bus by stopping on the road, yet would be fined for going into an empty bus lane, not holding up a bus !
|
If he was only there for 30 seconds, what was wrong with staying on the road? In the unlikely event of a bus coming at that time on a bank holiday Monday just how delayed would it have been?
Ah but you forgot that 30 seconds in that space time continuum that parking offence appeal letters reside, is more commonly known as five minutes in the real world.
|
>>Also, and I don't know whether thisonly applies in Scotland, but apparently if you park with all four wheels on the pavement they can't do anything about it!
Guy down the road does that. HUGE 4x4 with enhanced ground clearance. Not sure if he expects us to walk round or limbo under 8-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
