Parking ticket whilst sat in my car?

Hadeon

pararct wrote: »

Sadly being ticketed by a mumpty is not sufficient grounds to appeal.

......err, yes it is. An informal challenge/representation particularly, can be made on any grounds the OP sees fit to raise - this would include, under the circumstances outlined, requesting the Council use their discretion in a situation where the 'mumpty' was obviously unreasonable, unwilling & hidebound to use his own. (that last bit to be diplomatically phrased of course in any such representations made).

Oopsadaisy

Is it mumpty or numpty???

I've always used numpty....if i'm wrong that makes me a right mumpty; if i'm right it makes the other a wrong numpty.

sparky93

im curious as to why he was ticketed/fined?

to sum up, he paid he 20p for 15 mins at 16:52, meaning he has to be out by 17:07.

the ticketfine was issues at 17:06. does that not mean it is a invalid fine?

noted the resident scheme starts at 1700, but earlyer parking times will often run into that time. (And Paid for).

Hadeon

sparky93 wrote: »

im curious as to why he was ticketed/fined?

to sum up, he paid he 20p for 15 mins at 16:52, meaning he has to be out by 17:07.

the ticketfine was issues at 17:06. does that not mean it is a invalid fine?

noted the resident scheme starts at 1700, but earlyer parking times will often run into that time. (And Paid for).

....unfortunately, in these circumstances it would mean 'or part thereof' as the residents scheme kicks in at 1700.

Simple lack of reasonable discretion on the part of the 'numpty' & the Council if they don't allow the appeal.

real1314

There is a ruling about the use of addtional signs placed higher than the principal charging sign. I believe the height of any additional sign is expected to be below a set limit, to avoid the possibility that someone might only see the main sign and miss the extra sign.

This issue was subject of a raft of succesful appeals a few years back (and my wife got one like this a few years prior but didn't bother appealing beyon the council:mad:)

anewman

The warden gets a bonus or meets his targets if he gives you a ticket. Why would he give you a kind word and send you on your way when his job/money is at stake?! Council sets the warden a target to make sure they make money from the ticketing and all common sense goes out of the window. It isn't a coincidence he was there at 5pm ready to pounce!

honeywes

In reply to anewmans post above - Council wardens (CEOs) do NOT get a bonus nor have any targets. Makes no difference to their pay if they issue one or a hundred - so get your facts right. May be different for wardens working for private companies though.

anewman

honeywes wrote: »

In reply to anewmans post above - Council wardens (CEOs) do NOT get a bonus nor have any targets. Makes no difference to their pay if they issue one or a hundred - so get your facts right. May be different for wardens working for private companies though.

They may not have "written" targets, but I am sure a warden who never issues a ticket would be quickly sacked - and that is a fact about Council wardens. If there is no targets and an employee could come back having issued no tickets in a whole week, then the job must just attract the self-appointed Nazi type who enjoy issuing tickets, even when one is not justified.

If I was a warden and there was no target I'd sit in Starbucks all day or something.

taffy056

Of course they don't have targets

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2010/07/12/parking-wardens-in-ticket-target-row/