Correct spelling? In the Guardian?
Whatever next.
|
So what's to stop a dodgy traffic warden claiming to have handed the notice to someone, when he has not?
Or, for that matter, a dodgy parker claiming that it wasn't handed to him, when it was?
|
> So what's to stop a dodgy traffic warden claiming to have handed the notice to someone, when he has not?
>Or, for that matter, a dodgy parker claiming that it wasn't handed to him, when it was?
That's why the UK is being covered in CCTV - and so they can see you drop a sweetie paper.
|
> So what's to stop a dodgy traffic warden claiming to have handed the notice to someone, when he has not?
.That's why the UK is being covered in CCTV - and so they can see you drop a sweetie paper.
Or indeed enable you to prove that you did not. Although that doesn't make quite such an emotive headline.
|
|
|
Much as I see the argument against big brother, I'm quite happy for people who drop litter out of their car window (and I mean ESPECIALLY fag ends, I don't see why there should be some weird blind spot where they're not counted) to be hanged, drawn and quartered.
Slightly out of keeping with my generally liberal views, but hey, I never claimed consistency!
|
I'm quitehappy for people who drop litter out of their car window (and I mean ESPECIALLY fag ends, I don't see why there should be some weird blind spot where they're not counted) to be hanged, drawn and quartered.
Come come Bazza... although I think cigarette ends are more slobbish than I did when I smoked cigarettes (always used to bung them out of the window, usually after checking for following bikers) they aren't very serious litter, soon ground to dust and slurry with the other small stuff on the road. On the other hand MacD boxes, chip papers and whole cigarette packets do make the place look squalid, as does chewing gum on the pavement, now everywhere... they come and steam it off and three days later it's as if nothing has been done.
HDQ is a bit severe in my opinion... perhaps a day in the stocks?
|
Apparently a filter tip takes 12 years to disapear completely!!
MD
|
|
|
Apparently cigarette litter (fag ends mostly) accounts for over 40% of the TOTAL litter dropped in our wonderful land!!!
Fag ends don't "just disappear" as if by magic, they are a real pain in the backside and apart from dog muck, littering is one thing that really gets my back-up.
I live on a pedestrian route to a small urban railway station and almost daily there is an empty packet of fags (always same brand) and drinks can/bottle on the pavement outside my house, (I haven't managed to catch the culprit yet.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely that name is too unusual for there to be two.........
www.cpalliance.net/election_pdfs/CPCanningtownleaf...f
|
|
I'm not in favour of litter either, but spending large amounts of money on CCTV (to make us safer, we are told) and then using the system to fine lots of people £30 for two mins on a double yellow or littering sounds like a cash generation exercise to me, rather than a safety programme. Bit like speed cameras....
|
|
|
>>>So what's to stop a dodgy traffic warden claiming to have handed the notice to someone, when he has not?
>>>Or, for that matter, a dodgy parker claiming that it wasn't handed to him, when it was?
Round here (at the moment, East London) I always see wardens photographing cars they have ticketed. I assume this is used to prove ticket was 'delivered'.
|
Weird or not?
The Transport for London (Consequential Provisions) Order 2005 at
Schedule 2 amends the London Local Authorities Act 2000. Paragraphs 2 and 3 modify sections 4 and 5 of that Act so as to enable Transport for London to serve penalty charge notices under the Road Traffic Act 1991 for parking contraventions on GLA roads and side roads on the basis of camera information and where a parking attendant is prevented from issuing a notice.
It appears that having tried to rely on this TfL were take to task by the offender who appealed all the way to the Parking Adjudicator who was sympathetic and came down against TFL who then appealed to the High Court and also lost as reported.
Not the first time:
Lamina v Transport for London
Case No. 2050307012 PCN Number: GF01291318
Parked on a Clearway
Transport for London state that this Penalty Charge Notice was served by post
because the driver "prevented the parking attendant from serving the PCN by ignoring
him/her and driving the vehicle away."
Driving away does not of itself amount to preventing the Penalty Charge Notice being
issued, as Transport for London should know well.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I am not satisfied that, on this
particular occasion, the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
The Adjudicator is aware that this is not the first time the Transport for London have
attempted issued Penalty Charge Notices in such circumstances. Repeated attempts to
resist an appeal might be deemed to amount to acting vexatiously.
Henry Michael Greenslade
Adjudicator
1 November 2005
So this gives an easy let out which no doubt will be followed by the mass.
Understand that plans are being hatched to bring legislation out to plug the loophole.
dvd
|
Daily Mail's story today:
tinyurl.com/2ebgk5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
I've also found it interesting that in the news yesterday about thousands of motorists being fined and given points for (still) using a mobile whilst driving, quite a large number involved those accompanying a learner driver.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Is it illegal for a driving instructor to use a mobile ie when a passenger? I do agree that they won't have their mind on instructing and/or supervising and it is a bad idea but illegal?
|
|
Presumably the principle is that the supervising, qualified driver must be ready to take full control of the car at any time. (Although how you do that in a single-control car, I've no idea.) Anyway, that precludes having one hand and most of a brain full of phone.
|
|
|
|
Surely that name is too unusual for there to be two......... www.cpalliance.net/election_pdfs/CPCanningtownleaf...f
I read that he wants to change the 'Dictator attitude'
Good!
|
Thanks for the links, No FM2R. The first did not work, but the second did. Simeon Ademolake is now corrected in my original post. I wanted this info to add to the Parking Tickets FAQ in the same way as I am adding judgements to the Obscured Speed Limit Sign FAQ. But I was under the impression that a Traffic Warden employed by the Metropolitan Police had the authority to compel a driver to stop, and that failing to stop on the instruction of a Met Police Traffic Warden was an offence in itself. This didn't seem to come up in the Ademolake case.
HJ
|
I don't think a traffic warden would be entitled to use any powers to stop, keep someone there, whilst they completed a simple parking ticket......not unless something has changed. The power to stop is for an offence whereby someone driving along needs to be stopped for reporting purposes.
|
"don't think a traffic warden would be entitled to use any powers to stop, keep someone there, whilst they completed a simple parking ticket...."
I'd be looking at a civil Unlawful Detention here and I'd squeeze them until they squealed in that particular way that non-sworn Officers do under pressure. Had some sport with a PCSO today in a case in which he (a) acted unlawfully and outside his powers and (b) Wrote a statement of such outstanding quality (not).
|
approx 6 years ago, came back to my car in Devon to find traffic warden writing out ticket....crafty old trout was stood right next to the drivers door, so that without being incredibly rude or assaulting her i couldn't open the door
was aware that the ticket had to be given to me personally or stuck on the car...and she couldn't do that until she'd finished it....so formulated plan to speed off...didn't fancy clambering in from the passenger side.....as it would be a tad ungainly & unbecoming of increasingly larger girthed man late 30's (then)......and.... it might have given her time to quickly place the ticket on the car....so
made up a yarn about the yellow lines being hard to read at the back of the car...got her to come back and point out they weren't.........and rushed into car and drove off...she shouted at me, but too bad i'd got away
miserable old sod still put the ticket in the system, so i had to ring the police HQ and complain, because it wasn't a valid ticket and she shouldn't have submitted it.......I had to comply with the NIP, but got the ticket quashed, with a promise they'd speak to her about the correct issuing of a ticket
i do know though things have changed in London at least, because i got a ticket recently via a CCTV system. Don't know whether i was 'had over' and paid it unnecessarily i.e it wasn't an enforceable process...didn't want the hassle of trying that one out
|
|
|
|
Ademolake probably involved a Parking Attendant employed by (or contracted to) the Borough/TfL. A Traffic Warden is a different species, but the press cannot tell the difference. London wardens do little if any parking enforcement in London but are sometimes seen directing traffic where lights are out etc. Having said that when red route enforcement was de crimmed there seemed to be some move to allow PCSOs to enforce, rather blurring the line between civil and police enforcement but I cannot look up the detail from home.
|
|
As mentioned by a previous poster, last week I saw a warden take at least 4 pictures of a car that had overstayed time in a parking bay
|
this man was talking on the jeremy vine radio 2 programme this afternoon ,you can log on and listen in up to 7 days later
i was one of the people that felt he should have been done
apparently all new ticket machines are now also camera-d up (so watch out for bow-ties)
www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/
|
|
I detest people who try to get away with things on a technicality. Is shoplifting OK if you don't get caught? He blocked a road, was given a ticket, and somehow feels that because he drove away before the ticket was handed to him, it's not his fault.
|
Agree about technicality DH, but this guy didn't do that, he just fled. The LA brought up the technicality by sending him the ticket illegally.
And by the way, what do you mean 'blocked a road'? I understood from the story he was parked with one wheel on a red line. I would be very surprised if that meant he was doing anything like blocking a road.
|
I agree with Lud. It seems to me that a lot of people who complained about his apparently selfish behaviour had not bothered to listen exactly what his "offence" was supposed to be. He had actually parked in a parking bay, but slightly crookedly so that one wheel touched the double red lines. He wasn't obstructing anyone. His "offence" was itself a technicality.
HJ
|
Indeed.
Why do people hate traffic wardens? Because they try to stop people parking where and when they like. "I was only in the shop 5 minutes" - Never quite understood that as a defence as it seems like an unequivocal admission of guilt to me!
|
"I was only in the shop for 5 minutes, parked in a legally marked parking bay BUT with a one wheel 2 inches onto a Red Line" Sounds like a money chasing jobsworth on the case! The LAW says that a ticket has to be attached to a vehicle whose driver is alleged to have committed an offence. If it isn't attached it isn't legally 'served' and that is in end of the matter. If people think that is wrong, get the law changed. We are charged and harried on technicalities and improperly applied law - time to fight back and take no carp!
|
Indeed. Why do people hate traffic wardens? Because they try to stop people parking where and when they like. "I was only in the shop 5 minutes" - Never quite understood that as a defence as it seems like an unequivocal admission of guilt to me!>>
the reason why i'd dislike anyone......inc a traffic warden .....is if they're such a jobsworth, that they'e unwilling or unable to use common sense and/or see the bigger picture
in other words a traffic warden ought to be there to facilitate the free passage of traffic.....so serious transgressors get hit hard.......and minor ones aren't
trouble is as it's all now down to money they'll nab whoever they can possibly get, whatever the circs. Some recent examples have been people with the yellow lines painted after they've parked...(you can't tell me the warden didn't know)......or the chap mentioned above with one wheel slightly over.....absolutely ricadoodleus
is it any wonder no one has much respect for them.......'treat others like you want to be treated yourself' was another of my old gran's wise comments
|
Unless there are special rules for Red Routes, this case seems to restate current law - i.e. the ticket has to be placed on the car or driven to the driver to be valid (Road Traffic Act 1991). I have succesfully employed the same 'defence' previously in Camden.
I think the real victory here is that it would seem to prevent parking tickets being issued remotely by a CCTV operator.
|
|
Every candidate for the French Presidency has to pledge to cancel all parking tickets extant at the date he is elected. No pledge no hope. I think we should encourage this approach...
|
I>> He had actually parked in a parking bay, but slightly crookedly so that one wheel touched the double red lines. >> HJ
>>
Do we know that for an absolute fact? Or are we relying on his version of events.
People do exaggerate and distort the facts. In fact it has even been known for some people to lie - yes I know - unbelievable isn't it?
|
Do we know that for an absolute fact? Or are we relying on his version of events.
Good heavens drbe, who could conceivably give a fish's, er, nipple at this stage, after the case has been through two courts and and the driver exonerated?
Do you really imagine that parking attendants never slap unfair tickets on windscreens (or in the case under discussion, try to)? What a very sheltered life you seem to have led.
|
>> >> What a very sheltered life you seem to have led.
May I assure that it is very cosy down here!
|
He had actually parked in a parking bay, but slightly crookedly so that one wheel touched the double red lines. He wasn't obstructing anyone. His "offence" was itself a technicality. HJ
This link www.inthenews.co.uk/infocus/features/in-focus/150-...m quotes Mr Ademolake as admitting that he parked in a loading bay rather than a parking bay.
|
HJ stated above
>>>>>>>I was under the impression that a Traffic Warden employed by the Metropolitan Police had the authority to compel a driver to stop, and that failing to stop on the instruction of a Met Police Traffic Warden was an offence in itself<<<<<<<
Correct HJ. The power is under S.163 RTA 1988 (Police power to stop vehicles) amended to include Traffic Warden, viz:
The Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 2002
This Order amends the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970 in consequence of section 44 of the Police Reform Act 2002. Article 2 provides that references to a constable in sections 163 (power to stop vehicles) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are to include references to a traffic warden.
PU also said
>>>>"don't think a traffic warden would be entitled to use any powers to stop, keep someone there, whilst they completed a simple parking ticket...."
I'd be looking at a civil Unlawful Detention here<<<<<<
which seems to be in variance to to his learned friends. Whilst in R v Waterfield[1964] there was no power to detain a stationary vehicle a driver is under a duty to keep the vehicle at a standstill whilst a constable has reasonable opportunity of exercising his powers and this may include telling the driver his suspicions that vehicle TWOC and arrest if necesssary . Lodwick v Sanders [1985]
This tends to suggest that power to stop includes initiating the due course of the law i.e. views docs, report for summons.
May I point out that one should not be confused between:
Traffic Warden - one employed by the Police and who issues tickets that if not paid end up with a hearing at Magistrates Court. The ticket on the windscreen/hand to driver IIRC does not apply to them.
Parking Attendant - one employed by Local Authority who tickets if not paid are registered as a Civil Debt at County Court.
Traffic wardens are being phased out as more and more as Councils apply for an Order under RTA 1991 to decrimininalise parking offences and the authority to run their own show or sub-contract on enforcement.
dvd
|
there would be a difference though of using s.163 to stop someone....and keep them there......for an offence that s.163 is relevant
and......
keeping someone there for an offence that you wouldn't/couldn't use s.163 for......e.g simple parking offence
IMO the latter would be a no-no as parking offences are not within the Road Traffic Act or other powers to stop
trouble is it's at the edges on my knowledge now as it's years since any exams
|
However you look at it, there's absolutely nothing immoral about what this person has done: he may have stopped five minutes in a loading bay but who hasn't? He obstructed no one. The only negative aspect is the loss of dignity.
While it's quite undignified to run away from a policeman once you are over 22, it's very undignified indeed to flee from a parking person. Like jumping onto a table and screaming when you see a mouse.
To change direction sharply: it's a bit inappropriate to criticise the parking attendant or whatever the petty official was, and call him or her a 'jobsworth'. At least that person is working for a living in the way so often extolled here.
Like plod himself, these low-grade council employees are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Fair dos for meter folk as well as careless parkers!
|
....but Westpig
The Functions of Traffic Wardens (Amendment) Order 1993
added the power to produce D /licence under section 164 RTA 1988 to a Traffic Warden (not a Parking Attendant) and if you remember then it applies to a person who he believes to have committed an offence in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road. ( sub section (c)).
I rest my case (until shot down bgy PU-daggadaggadahgga)
dvd
|
DVD,
I like the thinking....and your more up to date than I am...but......would it not be an abuse of process if a traffic warden dealing with a simple parking ticket upped the ante to a production of a driving licence issue, just to keep someone there for a simple parking ticket...
in other words they wouldn't normally be requiring the production of a driving licence to issue a parking ticket and therefore wouldn't need to use the s.163 powers to stop.
I suppose another way of putting it is they now have more powers than they used to, but the increased powers are not for use across the whole spectrum, just the bits that are necessary...and a parking ticket doesn't fit this
|
There is no ifs or buts in S163/164.
Doubt if the legislators planned that you could stop and then the driver could drive off straight away.
What is the reason for the power to stop?
So that S164(Pro DL) and S 165 (Insu/Test Cert pro) could be invoked?
dvd
|
there's a high degree of chance i'm not explaining myself very well...and/or have got myself in a legislation rut
but
the way i see it is thus
traffic warden dishing out parking tickets alone, has no thoughts about driving licences or insurance, but is merely dishing out tickets.......driver turns up before the ticket is finished.......in the old days that was that, warden couldn't do anything about it
nowadays warden can do what a Constable does... if they're using that part of the legislation that relates to s.163, i.e. the warden would now like to see the driving licence and/or or insurance
however, i'm stating that would be an abuse of the power in these circumstances........because the warden was never interested in the d/l or insurance...just the ticket issuing........for the warden to use s.163 they would have needed to artificially think further than the offence they were originally intending to deal with
I appreciate this is all subjective and who would know what was in anyones mind...but....without being shrewd and formulating the right responses, the warden couldn't just automatically rely on s.163 for no reason...in the same way they couldn't use s.163 willy nilly to stop his neighbour because he doesn't like him.....he could only do it for examination of d/l or no isurance
|
How about this one.
Colleague of mine's mother pulls up outside the local school where it is busy. Before she can move off the yellow zig zags the grandchild opens the door and jumps out thereby stoping the vehicle moving forward. As she pulls off a Traffic Warden standing on the other side of the road shouts, "You'll get a ticket through the post." And she did! £30 worth.
Naturally we have consulted the books and made an inquiry with the Fixed Penalty Office. Their stance is that this policy is pursued for the circumstances where the driver drives off whilst a ticket is being issued.
Despite a letter being formulated outlining the practice directions and legislation covering the issue of FPTs the FP office is sticking to its guns.
Sadly the lady is suffering from the BIG C and does not want the hassle of taking the argument further and has paid up.
Our belief is that this is an abuse of process under the current legislation and does not take account of naming the driver etc etc. Were it lawful then bobbies could stand at the side of the road or take numbers of vehicles passing in the opposite direction and sheet vehicle owners for seatbelts, mobile phones etc when it was difficult or impossible to stop them. This is not happening which adds credibility to our argument.
But I suppose when the FP offices are linked closely to the speed scamera partnerships we are seeing a theme.
--
Fullchat
|
I take it your talking about despot Prescott land FC?
They will have applied for and been granted the Order decriminalising parking so enforcement in the hands of Parking Attendants and as such the responsibility for the infringement rests with the Reg Keeper until such time as a driver comes forward after Notice ot Owner has been sent.
The exemption from sticking a ticket (PCN opposed to FPN) on the vehicle/handed to driver I have mentioned before only applied to London and not out in the sticks. That fact together with what has been published above i.e. High Court and a Parking Adjudicator both of whom state ticket must be put on vehicle etc, surely provide you with the grounds to take any ticket issued in your incident all the way to the Adjudicator. All that is required is a letter........
Nothing at law to stop you standing at the road side on seeing seat belt/mobby offence, taking number and following through by 172 to get the driver and if your enforcement officer was a Traffic Warden he could do the same for the parking offence mentioned. Or are you saying if you saw Joe Bloggs a disqualified tootling along you would leave it because you didn't stop him.. Now, now....
dvd
|
Yes its the despot Prescott land.
"Or are you saying if you saw Joe Bloggs a disqualified tootling along you would leave it because you didn't stop him.. Now, now...."
Certainly not DVD!! I am talking about low level stuff. You know you are driving in heavy traffic and see someone say without a seatbelt and you cant spin round without causing danger or major drama.
If I used the method above I could just note the numbers and sit back at my station with a nice cup of tea and write out a load of FPTs and stick em in the post. Job done! Targets achived.
Not my style. Like to speak to the driver and look at documents and C&U.
Next thing will be CCTV cameras looking in cars for offences and tickets coming through the post.
Blimey I'm getting cynical in my old age!
--
Fullchat
|
|
|
|
|
|
