Date on parking ticket

Meepster

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I can't see it as the image is blocked here at work, but hopefully someone else can help. It is ALL of the ticket, front and back, isn't it?

Yup, it's all up. The basics of it are, the car was parked on a pavement (near a corner may I add) and that's what the contravention code is for. Ticket looks fine to me...

RenegMC

mwilletts wrote: »

Unsigned restriction? Of course it's unsigned. You can't park on a pavement and expect NOT to get a ticket if seen. It's in the highway code! Just think about the poor old dear in a wheelchair, who has to go on the road to get past THAT car and then gets run over by a bus. THAT's why you can't park there...

And what about my poor dad with his chronic shoulder injury and arthritis and a heart condition having to lift heavy items up onto the pavement?

I find that argument bemusing, as it requires on the off chance, a granny did need to go there, when my dad, a man of 64 DID need to use the pavement...

Also, any buses operating on a dead end road need to have their routes reassessed!

I quote the appeal:

[FONT=&quot]As a man of 64, I have medical problems, including chronic shoulder injury, arthritis, a heart condition, and having undergone a heart bypass operation, I would not have been able to lift the heavy computer up onto the pavement, hence I temporarily parked there, to make not only the unloading slightly easier, but also to avoid injury or excessive strain.[/FONT]

Meepster

If what he was lifting could cause him injury or excessive strain, then he shouldn't have been lifting it in the first place. A 6 inch curb and 2 extra metres isn't going to make THAT much difference when unloading something. There's no excuse for parking on a pavement, plain and simple.

Someone in a wheel chair has a RIGHT to be able to use the pavement. Your father has NO RIGHT parking on the pavement. THAT's the point I am making...

Guys_Dad

"As a man of 64, I have medical problems, including chronic shoulder injury, arthritis, a heart condition, and having undergone a heart bypass operation, I would not have been able to lift the heavy computer up onto the pavement".

Looking at the picture you have posted, in all honesty I can't see how parking like that would have made one iota of difference to your father lifting the computer up. Having said that, and given the congested parking there, I would have probably done the same.

If the car was there only for a few minutes, it was a pretty mean stickit-ticket. But I wonder if the attendant noticed that he had been waiting for 10 minutes already, not unloading and assumed he was waiting for someone? All in all, a pretty mean ticket, but one more for the day's quota, I suppose.

However, as mwilletts writes, there was an offence committed and good luck with the letter

RenegMC

mwilletts wrote: »

If what he was lifting could cause him injury or excessive strain, then he shouldn't have been lifting it in the first place. A 6 inch curb and 2 extra metres isn't going to make THAT much difference when unloading something. There's no excuse for parking on a pavement, plain and simple.

Someone in a wheel chair has a RIGHT to be able to use the pavement. Your father has NO RIGHT parking on the pavement. THAT's the point I am making...

Surely there is no restriction in place stopping my father from carrying out his daily work, despite any health problems he has... can't expect him to just vegetate in a chair now eh? He just parked there temporarily to help him do what he had to do. It's just common sense.

Maybe it doesn't seem it would make that much difference to yourself, but I'm guessing you're not also suffering the aforementioned ailments and also be celebrating your 65th birthday later this year? In which case how can anyone else decide the step up onto a curb with a computer would make no difference?

Like I say, he's resigned to paying it, but I'm more than happy to give these people a headache for the continual criminalisation of normal people for parking slightly wrong for a few minutes.

He also sat in the car to see if there were any CEOs (gotta love that abbreviation - aspirations of power or what?) about, then got out, took the computer out, collected his invoice and left. All of which took 2 minutes? You can see the entrance to the servicemans block in the second picture. The parking attendants always have a nasty habit of waiting around the corner for you, and its a shambles.

The parking enforcement committee leader also had the audacity to say that they need 10x the officers they have now... and one wonders why there aren't enough coppers on the beat?


EDIT: Cheers everyone, if there is no real chance of getting off then fair enough, its always worth a shot... I've had my rant and I'll leave it there.
Thanks for the help everyone

Meepster

RenegMC wrote: »

Surely there is no restriction in place stopping my father from carrying out his daily work, despite any health problems he has... can't expect him to just vegetate in a chair now eh? He just parked there temporarily to help him do what he had to do. It's just common sense.

Nope, not at all. As long as he carries out his daily work in a LEGAL manner, he'll be fine. Whatever the reason someone has parked on THIS pavement, whether they are 18, 64 or 98; fit and healthy, have physical restrictions or they are on deaths door; male or female; black or white, they acted ILLEGALLY.

Whilst I have every sympathy with him for being caught (I'm sure EVERYONE has, at some point, parked on a kerb) at the end of the day, he did get caught and has no-one to blame but himself...

nobblyned

Confused by your letter, what's signage got to do with it?

He parked on the pavement, what did he expect? A sign saying "Don't park on the pavement"?

Coupon-mad

mwilletts wrote: »

Nope, not at all. As long as he carries out his daily work in a LEGAL manner, he'll be fine. Whatever the reason someone parks on a pavement, whether they are 18, 64 or 98; fit and healthy, have physical restrictions or they are on deaths door; male or female; black or white, they acted ILLEGALLY.

Whilst I have every sympathy with him for being caught (I'm sure EVERYONE has, at some point, parked on a kerb) at the end of the day, he did get caught and has no-one to blame but himself...

We live in a narrow road and everyone on this side has ALWAYS parked on the kerb/pavement (since before we moved in 14 years ago). We have to in order to allow emergency vehicles enough room.

We also have traffic wardens passing every single day - their office is round the corner - and no-one has ever got a ticket unless they are silly enough to overlap double yellows on the corner. The Council are aware of the kerb-parking here as well (it was the reason our road declined their kind invitation to introduce parking bays - which would have halved our parking spaces!).

Is it not illegal if there is 'established use' of the kerb for parking over many years? Just wondered as I didn't think we were doing anything illegal?

Meepster

nobblyned wrote: »

He parked on the pavement, what did he expect? A sign saying "Don't park on the pavement"?

Exactly lol

Meepster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We live in a narrow road and everyone on this side has ALWAYS parked on the kerb/pavement (since before we mved in 14 years ago). We have to in order to allow emergency vehicles enough room.

We also have traffic wardens passing every single day - their office is round the corner - and no-one has ever got a ticket unless they are silly enough to overlap double yellows on the corner.
The Council are aware of the kerb-parking here as well (it was the reason our road declined their kind invitiation to introduce parking bays - which would have halved our parking space!).

Is it not illegal if there is 'established use' of the kerb for parking over many years? Just wondered as I didn't think we were doing anything illegal?

I completely agree. Infact, I have a very similar situation where I live and everyone has to park partly on the kerb. I'm not saying it is illegal in ALL circumstances, but in this case that the OP is refering to, it is obvious that this wasn't the case. I have editted my post to clarify this...