Warning - apcoa - must see

Stigy

patman99 wrote: »

Ahhh!, but I could have also removed my numberplates and put them in the boot along with the tax disc.

On a serieuos note, as well as a car, I also own a van. When I park on the yellow lines outside my mates house the first thing I do is to stick cardboard over the number plates and an envelope over the tax disc.
It really is amusing watching the traffic wardens walking round it looking for a reg number.

Of course, it would be an offence not to display your Tax disc though, surely, even though irrelevant to parking offences?

peter_the_piper

patman99 wrote: »

Ahhh!, but I could have also removed my numberplates and put them in the boot along with the tax disc.

On a serieuos note, as well as a car, I also own a van. When I park on the yellow lines outside my mates house the first thing I do is to stick cardboard over the number plates and an envelope over the tax disc.
It really is amusing watching the traffic wardens walking round it looking for a reg number.

If you get a jobsworth PC then you could get done for obscured number plate etc.

muckybutt

backfoot wrote: »

I can see big things happening soon. Head of CCTV cameras, fences and the introduction of watchtowers.

Anyvon braaakkking ze rules or cwozzing ze vite lines will be put in my little red book. You all are vawned.

Heil Stigy. Heil. Heil.:whistle:

Ballcocks ive just spat me tea out laughing :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T

sassy_one

Stigy wrote: »

I'd consider it very suspicious and call the BTP, given that it'll more than likely be the only car with such a cover on in the car park, and that I've never known cars to be parked up with said covers on unless of a driveway before. I'm sure this would give the Police enough grounds to remove the cover, using that old anti-terrorism chestnut. What if you were trying to conceal some nasty device?


This is the last time I intend to say this, Sassy-kins. ALL of the car parks I cover ARE covered by Railway Byelaws. What more need be said? As for fraud, that's noting short of utter rubbish, as, if for argument's sake one of the station I cover wasn't covered by the byelaws (which all are, once again), it wouldn't make it as far as court anyway.

And your point is?

Did I not answer your queries?

So, not only are you an invoicing guy who enjoys his invoicing job placing non enforceable invoices on peoples cars, but if you worked at a Train Station that was not covered by the Railway Bylaw section 14, you wouldn't deny reporting someone for such an offence?
You are stating that you would happily report someone for a Bylaw 14 offence even IF the station was not covered by the bylaw, and you think it's 'people' like us who fail to pay whom is the problem?
:rotfl:


You seriously enjoy extorting money from people to much, but don't worry when enough people get on to this, you realize you'll be out of a job as there will be no point in having a 'invoicing' guy?

Just for the record, I received a invoice today at the train station, guess what, I ripped it up - what a utter load of squiggle!
You see, you may be able to and feel big bullying and intimidating old age people and people with little information and understanding regards these invoices, but I for one will make it known that the 'invoices' issued at a train station car park are not enforceable if it is not covered by the bylaw and/or the signage is not correct


You clearly have not read your job description correctly, as no one should enjoy extorting monies as much as you do.

Hadeon

Hadeon wrote: »

Stigy, I get the distinct impression that you & PACE aren't exactly, shall we say, well acquainted.

Stigy wrote: »

How does me calling a PCN a Penalty Charge Notice equate that I'm not too well aquainted with PACE?

There's being aquainted with PACE and there's being a Lawyer. You don't have to know the ins and outs of any number of Acts in order to know when offences might have been committed. Me saying "penalty" doesn't dismiss the fact that whoever is concerned might have committed an offence, does it? :beer:

I fail to see any connection between my post & the rationale & content of your response, which just goes to prove the point really.

Stigy wrote: »

Did I not answer your queries?

Did I make any?
I certainly made a statement or two (or MG11 if you prefer).


Ps - it has not gone unnoticed that two of our respective posts on this thread have, for some inexplicable reason, been deleted.:mad:

Stigy

Hadeon wrote: »

Ps - it has not gone unnoticed that two of our respective posts on this thread have, for some inexplicable reason, been deleted.:mad:

I didn't expect it would go unnoticed, and admit I reported several posts as abuse.

sassy-one wrote: »

So, not only are you an invoicing guy who enjoys his invoicing job placing non enforceable invoices on peoples cars, but if you worked at a Train Station that was not covered by the Railway Bylaw section 14, you wouldn't deny reporting someone for such an offence?
You are stating that you would happily report someone for a Bylaw 14 offence even IF the station was not covered by the bylaw, and you think it's 'people' like us who fail to pay whom is the problem?
:rotfl:


You seriously enjoy extorting money from people to much, but don't worry when enough people get on to this, you realize you'll be out of a job as there will be no point in having a 'invoicing' guy?

Just for the record, I received a invoice today at the train station, guess what, I ripped it up - what a utter load of squiggle!
You see, you may be able to and feel big bullying and intimidating old age people and people with little information and understanding regards these invoices, but I for one will make it known that the 'invoices' issued at a train station car park are not enforceable if it is not covered by the bylaw and/or the signage is not correct


You clearly have not read your job description correctly, as no one should enjoy extorting monies as much as you do.

As I said, the parking side of things is only a small part of my job, and as such, would certainly not be unemplyed if it had to stop. I was speaking hypothetically about the fraud thing, as it was the easiest and most polite way to address you.

real1314

Stigy wrote: »

Guys, as I said, issuing non-enforceable invoices is only a very small part of my job. How does me calling a PCN a Penalty Charge Notice equate that I'm not too well aquainted with PACE?

There's being aquainted with PACE and there's being a Lawyer. You don't have to know the ins and outs of any number of Acts in order to know when offences might have been committed. Me saying "penalty" doesn't dismiss the fact that whoever is concerned might have committed an offence, does it? :beer:

PACE = Police and Criminal EVIDENCE Act.

All those Q & A sessions you'd have to establish who was the driver - they'd be completely inadmissible as evidence as you would have failed to comply with the law regarding the obtaining of evidence.

Someone attempting to operate within the law should really have a better understanding of the actual way the law operates. I appreciate that in many cases the ignorance of the public means that they are unaware of the law and how they could defend themselves (much like PPC "fines") but for semi-public bodies to attempt to use such ignorance to issue fines/penalties etc is really not acceptable in a democracy.

Stigy

real1314 wrote: »

PACE = Police and Criminal EVIDENCE Act.

All those Q & A sessions you'd have to establish who was the driver - they'd be completely inadmissible as evidence as you would have failed to comply with the law regarding the obtaining of evidence.

Someone attempting to operate within the law should really have a better understanding of the actual way the law operates. I appreciate that in many cases the ignorance of the public means that they are unaware of the law and how they could defend themselves (much like PPC "fines") but for semi-public bodies to attempt to use such ignorance to issue fines/penalties etc is really not acceptable in a democracy.

If a person admits to being the driver of the vehicle when it was parked under questioning and whilst under caution, that would be all that's needed.

anewman

Stigy wrote: »

If a person admits to being the driver of the vehicle when it was parked under questioning and whilst under caution, that would be all that's needed.

Under what authority could they be questioned "under caution"? Pretending to be a Police officer is a crime I believe.

Stigy

anewman wrote: »

Under what authority could they be questioned "under caution"? Pretending to be a Police officer is a crime I believe.

As an official who is trained to an acceptable level, I can caution and question when I believe an offence may have been committed. There's no impersonation of a Police Officer involved, and it's under the same authority that an RPI (Revenue Protection Inspector) has.