what are the main reasons why council traffic wardens issue penalty charge notices?

trinidadone

Hello all, I read somewhere that there are five main reasons why council traffic wardens give out Penalty Charge Notices. Does anyone know what any of them are?

peter_the_piper

To make money for the council. To make money for the council. To make money for the council. To make money for the council. To make money for the council.

iamana1ias

trinidadone wrote: »

Hello all, I read somewhere that there are five main reasons why council traffic wardens give out Penalty Charge Notices. Does anyone know what any of them are?

I believe there's actually only one. Because idiot drivers don't obey the Highway Code

trinidadone

hey all, I have just been given the following information, thought I would share this:

The following most commonly reasons to receive a PCN is:

1. Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
2. Parked in a pay and display car park without clearly displaying a valid
pay and display ticket
3. Parked in a residents’ parking space without clearly displaying a valid
residents’ parking permit
4. Parked for longer than permitted
5. Parked after the expiry of time paid for in a pay and display car park
6. Parked after the expiry of time paid for at a pay and display bay
7. Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting
loading/unloading restrictions are in force
8. Parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit
9. Parked in a designated disabled person’s parking space without
displaying a valid disabled person’s badge
10. Parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading

Hope this was helpful, it was for me

Coblcris

iamana1ias wrote: »

I believe there's actually only one. Because idiot drivers don't obey the Highway Code

If they Highway Code was a statement of the law that comment may have some merit.
But it is not so it does not have merit.

Sir_Roger_deLodger

peter_the_piper wrote: »

To make money for the council. To make money for the council. To make money for the council. To make money for the council. To make money for the council.

Well said. :T:T

DaveF327

Coblcris wrote: »

If they Highway Code was a statement of the law that comment may have some merit.
But it is not so it does not have merit.

It is published in good faith, however Although the code is not law, compliance with it (or otherwise) can be used in courts of law, both civil and criminal. Some of its rules are summaries of legal requirements.

In the hypothetical world where everybody drives and parks to the highway code, on-street parking tickets would just never happen. (If they did, you'd know the wardens who make it all up )

Coblcris

Some simple research will show.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236

Being used in evidnce is most sertainly not the same as complaince with it.

For example the Highway Code clearly does not reflect the TSRGD with regards to Yellow Box Junctions. Something that, shamefully, councils and adjudicators seem to abuse on a regular basis.

Summarising the law for ease of reading is fraught with such examples.

DaveF327

Coblcris wrote: »

Some simple research will show.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236

Being used in evidnce is most sertainly not the same as complaince with it.

Road_Traffic_Act_1988,_s.38(7) wrote:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

My understanding is that to "observe" a provision is to comply. Even the direct.gov website summarises the law in an ambiguous way.

For example the Highway Code clearly does not reflect the TSRGD with regards to Yellow Box Junctions. Something that, shamefully, councils and adjudicators seem to abuse on a regular basis.

I thought that rule 174 was pretty faithful to schedule 19 part II of the TSRGD, particularly regulation 7(2)(b) which by mention of "oncoming vehicles" would, by definition, exclude "signalled roundabouts". The Highway Code does have to educate the layman after all, therefore cannot be as "wordy" as the TSRGD.

Summarising the law for ease of reading is fraught with such examples.

You're absolutely right. So much so, that I had parts of it changed during the last revision / consultation process to clarify points of law and to make it more in line with various regulations. It's just a shame that some of my revisions were edited or abbreviated by the DSA.

trinidadone

Do you not think we have gone completely off the topic here?

roddydogs

Traffic Wardens are only employed by the Police

---

despite the media constantly referring to them as "Traffic Wardens"

---

you are referring to "Parking Attendants"