.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/141549/TRAFFIC-WARDENS-FAKE-PHOTO-EVIDENCE.
html
Parking restrictions have less and less to do with safety of other road users and more about making easy money.
made non-clickable
Edited by Pugugly on 25/01/2009 at 12:03
|
Looks like they are only adopting standard private sector practices..
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7489807.stm
Besides isn't it actually NCP (a private company) actually doing this?
|
|
But they are employed or contracted by the council. He who pays the piper and all that.
|
|
So why not prosecute them for demanding money under false pretences?
|
|
Much ado about nothing - the nearest sign was but a cricket pitch length away......How many signs are required to impart the news that parking is limited/controlled?
|
|
|
There are NO depths to which an employee on the legal minimum wage and required to issue 20 tickets per shift will NOT sink! Issue the tickets or get the sack. Nortones, the number of signs is the number required by law to make the restriction valid and enforceablehowever many that my be. Signage must be correct
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 25/01/2009 at 11:37
|
Shock Horror! Parking isn't free in Westminster! The thread title is also rather arch - how many signs are there supposed to be: one for each bay? Surely then, ratepayers & others would start complaining about the unnecessary number & cost of the things. Daft really.
The example given showed a traffic warden walking all of 20 metres (if that) to photograph the sign, the law (according to the video piece accompanying it) says a sign should be "nearby" - so wasn't it nearby?
|
As a motorist, I am expected to know and understand, every law and regulation relating to me , my car and it's use and to follow those to the letter in order to keep myself on the right side of those laws.
Should I therefore not expect those making , implementing and enforcing those laws to do the same ?
|
|
|
|
It seems to have been within the range of the eye-sight requirements of the test! Unless there is a statutory requirement about the frequency of repeater signage, [and there may be], surely the intent of the law is met by having a sign nearby, and at the entrance to the zone? I have on occasion had to walk a little way to check the time permitted to park on-street. Didn't occur to me that there must be X number of signs per zone.
|
The signs may well have been within the sight range of the driving test but they are not displayed in a typeface the size of the number plate mentioned in the test! I am with MrX re knowledge of the law - we are expected to have an encylopaedic knowledge of the law and the possible ways of breaking it and, in turn, the authorities are required to do the signage right. I know that a double yellow line is a double yellow line but, if it doesn't have a closing line across the end it isn't legal or enforceable. We should have a level playing field!
|
|
Precisely. It is not up to the council to say there are , for example, 6 requirements for the law to operate correctly but we are just taking note of 3 of them.
|
|
|
|
I agree re level playing field, but the frothing of the NotW article obscures whether or not the signage was really deficient.
|
It either was or it wasn't and I doubt that we shall ever find out which!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like they are only adopting standard private sector practices.. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7489807.stm
If you think the charges for parking contrary to the rules in a particular carpark are too high, then shop around for a carpark where those charges are lower.
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Mercifully, I don't have to read any redragtop "newspapers", so I can concentrate on real issues...
|
Mercifully, I don't have to read any redragtop "newspapers", so I can concentrate on real issues...
Oh, very superior. Don't you think authorities faking evidence is anything to worry about then? What's a "real issue", partner?
|
These stories really amuse me:
1. How comes the "Headline" says "Traffic Warden" and the rest of the article says "Parking Warden" - nothing to do with adding "weight" to the "froth"
2. The article also extensively refers to another website - nothing wrong with an alterior motive of some "free advertising" is there?
3. Maybe all the commentators on here can explain precisely which regulations have been broken?
|
No regulations SAFIK. However there are laws against creating or offering false evidence in an attempt to prove an alleged offence and this is what seems to be going on here
|
I thought they were now laughingly called civil enforcement officers
They do like a title dont they (and a uniform)
|
Give anyone a uniform, add a peaked hat and two people to shout at and they will soon think they run the World!
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 25/01/2009 at 16:14
|
|
|
I recently parked in a local town car park. I walked over to the machine and bought my ticket, as I turned to return to my car there were two wardens starting to write a ticket.
I was steaming mad!
They stopped writing the ticket but had the cheek to give me a sarky comment of "Oh, had you just remembered?"
I was amazed that their new tactic is to start writing tickets the minute you leave the car.
|
|
Another "courtesy" gone - most P&D machines say "buy a ticket and then find a place to park" as if ? The whole place would grind to a halt.
|
They sneaked this one in very quietly too
'''''''''''''''''''''''''Serving of Penalty Charge Notices by Post
Under the current legislation a Penalty Charge Notice must either be fixed to the vehicle or given to the person who appears to be in charge of the vehicle. But under the Traffic Management Act 2004 a Penalty Charge Notice may be served if:
The contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (cctv).
The Enforcement Officer has been prevented from serving the PCN by the vehicle driver through intimidation, threats or actual physical force.
The vehicle is driven away before the Enforcement Officer has completed preparing and serving the notice.''''''''''''''''''''''''
Edited by malden blue on 25/01/2009 at 16:29
|
|
Been well publicised on here for over a year for those that care to read the "stickies" above - it was removed last week. Still lingers somewhere in the archives if you want to search Dwight Van Driver was the author.
|
True pugugly, it deserves to be repeated though (how we are basiclally being treated as cashcows)
I understand these enfocement officers have gained quite a few more powers than simply those mentioned above too!
|
... Still lingers somewhere in the archives if you want to search Dwight Van Driver was the author. .. >>
Any chance HJ placing that info in the FAQs if it is NOT already in this one?
www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=66
|
|
Thanks knew I could depend on your memory. We moved it from Stickies as it was a year old and we de-cluttered a little this year. Good idea on the FAQ front. I'll (or you can) e-mail HJ later.
|
|
|
Nice idea that. Having got my ticket and driven around a completely full car park, I was then obliged to pay the minimum of £1.00 in order to leave and look for some where else to park. What a nice little earner.
|
|
Yep another prize winning idea in income generation.
|
Reminds me of a radio Local interview with a council officer, talking about the (then) new parking restrictions, which were to be applied in Bedford.
Some way into the friendly, but a bit pompus sounding council official, chat, it went something like....
presenter.. 'so when will these restrictions & changes actually apply?'
council ...'there will be a period of grace, before we prosecute motorists'
presenter...'& when is that period until?'
council..'Ahh!! That's for us to know & them to find out!!'
What a foolish response!!
Which, in itself, could cause potential confrontation & confussion for the motorists & the parking wardens!!
CRAZZZY!!
VB
|
In the last couple of years my local council (kingston Upon Thames) have started paying little pink fluffy dice on mopeds to travel the suburbs looking for 'illegaly parked' vehicles at all hours of the night, 8,9,10,11pm makes no difference to them
A number of the residents in my close have woken to find their own car ticketed parked outside their own house, their crime? parked with one wheel on the kerb, or course the fact that if two rows of cars parked in our street 'legally' no car would be able to drive between them (very narrow road) and that cars have been parked that way for as long as the residents can remember years dosnt seem to make a difference to the bureaucratic mindset
Talks are ongoing
Edited by Webmaster on 26/01/2009 at 00:27
|
MB - I can see there is a problem but if the cars park 'legally' and then another car can't get thru how will a fire engine or ambulance manage?
|
parked with one wheel on the kerb
I take it you mean two wheels?! I didn't know that it was illegal to park with wheels on the pavement unless there are signs to say you can't or you are blocking the pavement by doing so?
TBH you've highlighted the problem we have these days, too many cars with streets and housing that were not designed for "personal transport"... If every household just had the one car then there wouldn't usually be a problem on these streets with terraced housing and no drives... but as soon as every single occupant wants one then there's trouble!
I have to say I like the Continental idea where the cars are parked away from the housing in a seperate space and the "road" reverts to what it used to be, a safe haven for the kids and parents... I know it wouldn't work in many places over here, which is a shame!
|
Why not play the local authorities at their own game ?
Order online and have goods delivered direct to your door.
OK, it means you don't get to browse the local goods but I bet the local businesses going bust and the subsequent loss of revenue combined with the loss of parking revenue focuses the mind of the local authority.
Not a nice game to play but if they want to play hardball. They are already using the council tax to fill the public sector pension black hole, you can use this as a tool to see how honest your local authorty is being...
Edited by gmac on 25/01/2009 at 20:36
|
|
gmac - thats precisely whats happening in worthing. Ever since the council contracted out the off street parking to NCP in 2004 and sunsequently hiked the cost of parking to £2.90 per hour, the local business community have been pleading with the the council and NCP to reduce the cost of parking to encourage shoppers to the area. This has fallen on deaf ears and more recently the council have handed the contract of off street parking enforcement to the NCP gestapo. There are so many patrolling the streets, its ridiculous. I went into town and saw 8 wardens in 300 - 400 yards, always patrolling in twos. Congrats Worthing Borough Council - you thought you took the easy way out getting into bed with NCP, now everyone living here is gonna pay the price!
|
Nice idea that. Having got my ticket and driven around a completely full car park I was then obliged to pay the minimum of £1.00 in order to leave and look for some where else to park. What a nice little earner.
Yes, happened to me in Romford several years ago. I have not spent a penny there since.
|
Isn't this why they paint a coloured line parallel with the curb - it tells you that parking is limited, or not free, and you find out what the limits are by looking for a sign within the limited area.
If the idiot is not prepared to look for the sign it is his own fault and nothing underhand by the enforcement officer.
Now if the restriction is not signed in accordance with the law he will get off in court, but you don't see the headline "Incorrectly marked parking bays" getting much attention do you!
|
|
If the law says there must be a painted bay and a sign with in X yards of that bay, then both conditions should be met by those who are using that law to extract fines when it is broken. After all, I the motorist, am expected to know every in and out of motoring law in order to stay legal. Just painting a line or two with a ' you get the gist " approach is not on.
|
You don't see the headlines because not enough people have the time or inclination to actually investigate the validity of a parking ticket. I understand that the success rate of those who appeal against parking tickets approaches 50%. For some people £60 is an easier option than taking time out to see the extortionists in court or at an Appeal Hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
