Parking ticket flipped over and got a fine

Pearly11

Hi,
I'm absolutely furious with my local council (Gateshead). Went shopping with my 22 year old son yesterday and parked his car. Got a ticket from the machine and displayed it on the dash board as requested. We still returned to a parking fine of £50 as the ticket was 'not displayed correctly'. We think what may have happened, that on shutting the door, which creates a turbulence inside the interior of a vehicle, the ticket may have been moved by the force of the air movement created and flipped on its front. We know that initially the ticket was the right way round, but as we had returned to the vehicle on about three occasions to load shopping into it, it may have happened on one of those.
What drives me completely round the bend is that the council actually state on the back of the ticket that one is eligible for a fine if the ticket is displayed 'this way' (the wrong side). So that shows me that they must be aware of this happening.
I spoke to the relative department today, but they won't void the ticket on the grounds I have given them.
I've spent most today making myself intelligent about wind forces, wind speed needed to move a small piece of paper and the weight of paper. I even had my findings confirmed by a physisist from a university and he was so kind to take the time and explain this law of physics to me in some detail.
Also, I spoke to a solicitor who gave me an idea on how to appeal without charging me for it.
I'll write the letter tomorrow, copy the ticket and their fine and sent it off them, recorded, so they can't say they never received it. I'll report back as soon as I have their reply.

Oh, I'm sooo annoyed :mad:

Pearly

Pearly11

Aha!!! So much about the council saying that the phenomenon of tickets moving due to air movement are unknown to them. The thing even has a name: 'The Fluttering Ticket'!

I feel so betrayed, as they made us pay for a ticket that's clearly not fit for its purpose under the circumstances and with the involvement of the Laws of Physics and the construction of a vehicle. We're both not responsible for creating either of these three or having participated actively in their creation/invention. The council did not lose any money, as we had paid for the ticket and can prove this, so why are they trying to make more money out of this??? Bunch of scammers!
Oh, I'm so annoyed!

Raksha

Annoying isn't it? I used to have a cheap tax disc holder on the drivers side that I'd slide any 'pay and display' tickets into so I knew they couldn't flip over (also stops them being blown on to the floor of the car too, which is where I had problems, I was lucky, as I was able to prove I had brought a ticket, I was let off, but that was 20 years ago....)

Pearly11

Thanks for your reply Raksha. I am determined to win this case as I find it extremely dubious that the PA's in the Borough of Gateshead have turned into some Rottweilers since it was decided that the town of Gateshead needs a complete re-vamp by 2030. Good thing is that I have found so much good advice on the issue of 'Fluttering Tickets' that I am quite confident to win this one. And if not...then at least I have been a pain in their backside for some time. In any case, the council will end up out of pocket due to the resources they will need in this case, because I am not willing to pay them an unjust fine so they just go away.

Pearly11

Just ordering my thoughts right now:

1) We bought and displayed the ticket correctly.
2) We took about three trips to the vehicle to offload some items we've purchased.
3) During one of these 'offload' trips the ticket has been blown away and landed on its front.
4) According to two physists I have contacted today, it is impossible to close a door (lid...anything like that) on something that is a confined space (which a car is, as it is close to being air tight) Reason: The air will be forced to escaped, otherwise the air would compress and its density won't allow to shut anything of the above. This will create a turbulence inside the confined space. A similar scenario will occur when opening a door of a confined space, but in reverse, as this will inevitably result into sucktion, which again...will create turbulence.
5) The ticket is of the 'non-sticky type'. The paper it is made from seems to be average office paper. Typical office paper weighs 80 grams per square metre and this translates into a typical A4 sheet of paper weighing 1/16 per square metre (5 grams). However, the ticket is only a fraction of the size of an A4 sheet and therefore weighs so little that's its exact weight could only be determined by using scientific scales. (I've actually tested the tickets 'moveability' by putting it in front of my desk and gently blew at it, which caused it to lift off the desk)
6) According to the Beaufort Scale created in 1807 the amount of airmovement (wind) that is needed to move a small piece of paper is classed as a 'Moderate Breeze' with the air movement needing to be as little as 20 -28 km/h or 5.5 -7.9 metres per second. (Human beings are faster in a running mode and this would include even the resistance of the air they would have to conquer)
7) The turbulence created by the action of shutting a car is more than that, but it is very hard to measure, as one would not only need to calculate the air flow created by the action and the force of shutting the door, but also the contents of the confined space (interior of the vehicle). So the space allowed for the turbulence (the air to escape on the process of shutting the door) would have dimished with every item stored anywhere in its interior (boot, backseat, etc)
8)Going back to the type of paper used for the ticket: It evidentally is insufficient on behalf of weight alone, as the weight of the type of paper used is too low to prevent it being moved and eventually landing face-down. However, the 'landing' onto a solid surface is due to gravity, but the fact as to WHY it landed face down can only be explained by air turbulence (closure of confined space)
8) I now ended up with three culprits and neither of them is me or my son. Reason: We did the right thing to purchase the ticket and display it correctly (we both as we left the vehicle the first time saw it being displayed in the way the council requests) So culprit no 1 has to be The Laws of Physics (for not allowing to close or open a confined space without causing air turbulence). Culprit no 2: Gravity...it doesn't permit for anything under its to stay afloat indefinately, but for some reason that can't be explained by science things tend to land more often face-down (The Jam Toast Phenomenon....and NO: The jammed side of a slice of toast is NOT heavier! It just can't be explained) Culprit 3 (and the most important one in this case: The Council! The council are failing in providing the necessities to be used in order to oblige with there request! (To make sure that the ticket remains in the place of the desire of their PA's)

It will take me the best of the coming weekend to word these rather lenghty and detailed explanations in an appropriate letter to the Council, but I'm willing to go that mile. And I'd like to thank at this stage, the solicitor who gave me over-the-phone advice (free of charge), the Physisist from Lancaster University (who explained the Laws of Physics to me) and the scientist from the Life Centre in Newcastle (who confirmed all my research/findings and congratulated me for attempting to use the undisputable laws of science in the often disputed cases of 'The Fluttering Ticket') And please use my research if you feel it might aid your case.

Good Luck, Pearly

Sirdan

Great stuff but the reality is the council should do the right thing in the first place ..they know you have paid to park so they have incurred no losses ..so they should have already cancelled your £50 charge. But they can't bring themselves to do the right thing can they ? The money grabbing ****s.
Disgraceful. :-(

Coupon-mad

Pearly11 wrote: »

...It will take me the best of the coming weekend to word these rather lenghty and detailed explanations in an appropriate letter to the Council, but I'm willing to go that mile. And I'd like to thank at this stage, the solicitor who gave me over-the-phone advice (free of charge), the Physicist from Lancaster University (who explained the Laws of Physics to me) and the scientist from the Life Centre in Newcastle (who confirmed all my research/findings and congratulated me for attempting to use the undisputable laws of science in the often disputed cases of 'The Fluttering Ticket') And please use my research if you feel it might aid your case.

Good Luck, Pearly

There was a thread about this only yesterday, did you see it and my reply with 'fluttering ticket' link?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3006920

All you need do is appeal (but with help) and don't write a massive long explanation of physics, wind speed et al! Just quote the successful adjudication number and quote the Chief Adjudicator's view that the local adjudicator was correct in allowing the appeal. Get help from pepipoo forums this weekend, they may find more points of appeal if you start a new thread there with pic of the PCN front & back:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

And urgently, tomorrow, email the Council to ask for the Traffic Order (see my reply yesterday and the linked document to see why you must know what the Order says). Do NOT mention Freedom of Information and do NOT mention the PCN number. Just email and ask for the Traffic Order for that street/car park please, and that you need the reply by xxxx date (well before your deadline to formally appeal).

You should win this one but do get pepipoo help, you'll be amazed!

Pearly11

Thx for the replies. Yes @ Coupon-mad, I have seen the thread and read the PDF Document. I will get pepipoo help and already sent an email to the council requesting a copy of the Parking Place Order for this particular car-park, but gave them no reason as to why I want it. First of all because it being a public document I don't have to and secondly so they don't misinterspret my request as part of the appeal. I gave them a deadline for sending a copy for the beginning of next week, but no later than Tuesday.

Pearly11

Here is something that confuses me, but sadly I don't own a scanner, so I have to type it out. It's some of the wording of the PCN:

"Served on: 16/01/2011
By Civil Enforcement Officer No: 410
Who had reson to believe that the following parking contravention had occurred and that a penalty charge is now payable.

(Code: 83) Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher or parking clock."


First of all: Which of the three do they prefer? They request a pay and display ticket for this particular car park and should make their minds.
Secondly: I was informed that they have photographic evidence of the ticket lying on the dash on its front. If I read and understand this correctly it requests nowhere in the reason given for the charge that they'd like it face up. So whichever way round, all they request is to 'display a valid pay and display ticket' and that we have purchased and displayed.

What do you think?

Coupon-mad

Yes, I agree with you, the ticket was 'valid' and the ticket was 'displayed' but on it's own it's a didgy argument as an adjudicator may not accept that view. However it's clear from the Chief Adjudicator's report that a fluttering ticket is an appeal that SHOULD be successful and the Council should have cancelled your PCN when you first appealed. They chose the wrong person to cross, didn't they?

Even better if you get the PPO - let's hope it doesn't even have the requirement to 'continuously display'!

Keep us posted and I will also look on pepipoo for your thread shortly.

Pearly11

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, I agree with you, the ticket was 'valid' and the ticket was 'displayed' but on it's own it's a didgy argument as an adjudicator may not accept that view. However it's clear from the Chief Adjudicator's report that a fluttering ticket is an appeal that SHOULD be successful and the Council should have cancelled your PCN when you first appealed. They chose the wrong person to cross, didn't they?

Even better if you get the PPO - let's hope it doesn't even have the requirement to 'continuously display'!

Keep us posted and I will also look on pepipoo for your thread shortly.

Oh, you're spot on Coupon-mad: They HAVE crossed the wrong person and not for the first time. I was for years just simply too depressed and anxious to fight back, but that has now changed and the 'Old Rottweiler-Pearly' begins to re-imerge . I'm even considering to start studying law at my middle-age now