Glasgow Council PCN - ticket from wrong machine!

maryhillgirl

Everybody, thanks for all the comments, suggestions and support. I have a great photo of the filthy sign - it really was unreadable from the pavement and I can only just see what it says by zooming in to the picture. I'm going to appeal this as far as possible, even if it costs me whatever amount, I'm so furious at the "jobsworthiness" of the PA. I do wonder whether she/he noticed the Blackpool Council Staff permit on my car and thought "Mmm, English person. Let's book her.." which is an awful thought as I'm Glasgow born and bred, but sadly long exiled south of the border.
The actual ticket issued by the car park machine has minimum details on it, no name of car park, no Not Tranferrable warning, just the date, expiry time, fee paid, machine identity number and Glasgow City Council logo next to Land and Environmental Services Parking Unit. So no clues there to the unsuspecting non-local driver that they'd used the wrong machine. I'm not over-familiar with on-street parking meters as we don't have them in my area, but obviously ignorance is no defence. I wish now I'd put 30p in the correct on-street machine just to have a look at the information on it and to compare with the one I purchased...maybe I'll drive 200 miles back up the motorway to satisfy my curiosity.
Anyway, the advice to post pictures etc on Pepitoo has been heeded, but I'm not sure my IT skills are up to managing it successfully. I'll acknowledge receipt of the first response from Glasgow and wait for their next communication.
And thanks, Pogofish, you've given me a bit of hope!

spikyone

HAD29 wrote: »

I don't sympathise with anyone to be honest. I am above all else in this world a pragmatist. I don't work for a council, nor know anyone that is a parkign attendant, or have any bitter or good experience of parking tickets to draw upon.

Given your lack of expertise in the area, perhaps you shouldn't be offering "advice".

HAD29 wrote: »

Just becase it was an innocent mistake, doesn't mean that it was a mitigating circumstance to getting out of paying a ticket.

But the point is that the OP had a ticket, bought in good faith, that covered the full cost of parking.

HAD29 wrote: »

Using the wrong machine, even though she knew that one didn't apply to the street was a mistake.

Except that the OP didn't know it was the wrong machine. Otherwise, given their best intentions to pay, you'd have to assume that they would've used the right machine.

And from your earlier post:

HAD29 wrote:

I am very much against the attitude of just appeal something whether you are right or wrong just because you can.

So what you're saying is that if the driver makes a mistake, then tough, they should pay up, but if the ticket issuer makes a mistake, it doesn't matter? Because that's the only reason that a ticket will ever be overturned - an error on the part of the ticket issuer.

HAD29

spikyone wrote: »

Given your lack of expertise in the area, perhaps you shouldn't be offering "advice". - If I stopped talking when I don't know what I am talking about, how am I ever going to win an argument with my wife again!! Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't make what I said less valid. I was expressing an opinion, that is still allowd, isn't it?


But the point is that the OP had a ticket, bought in good faith, that covered the full cost of parking. - no she didn't. she had a ticked that covered the full cost of parking in the car park, not the street. Not saying she doesn't have grounds for appeal, just that she use the wrong machine. "Good faith" has nothing to do with it.

Except that the OP didn't know it was the wrong machine. Otherwise, given their best intentions to pay, you'd have to assume that they would've used the right machine. - I Don't have to assume anything. From the original post, she clearly knew there was a parking restriction seperate between the car park and the street, but chose to use the car park machine because she couldn't find the street one. She didn't say she "I didn't know I was supposed to use a different machine".

And from your earlier post:



So what you're saying is that if the driver makes a mistake, then tough, they should pay up, but if the ticket issuer makes a mistake, it doesn't matter? Because that's the only reason that a ticket will ever be overturned - an error on the part of the ticket issuer - Now you are just picking out certain statements to suit yourself. If a driver makes a mistake, yes, tough, pay up. I also said that if the council doesn't hold up its end of the bargain, then the driver shouldn't pay. How else would a ticket be overturned if it wasn't for an error on the obligations of the ticket issuer, or if the driver can convince the issuer there were suitable mitigating circumstances.

The long and short of it is. She park incorrectly. She made a mistake. If she can establish that there were no visable signs, markings, or mitigating circumstances etc then she has a case. If not, then she may still win the appeal, an good luck to her, but all I am doing is giving another consideration to the conversation.

Everhopeful

I think if you re read the op, you will find the parking attendant pointed out the correct machine AFTER the ticket had been issued, when the op returned to her car.
Interesting little link:
http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.com/2011/08/glasgow-gets-tough-on-parking-ticket.html

Good luck on your appeal!

spikyone

HAD29 wrote: »

If I stopped talking when I don't know what I am talking about, how am I ever going to win an argument with my wife again!! Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't make what I said less valid. I was expressing an opinion, that is still allowd, isn't it?

The OP was looking for advice. Your first words were, and I quote, "Pay it am afraid. The council are correct". This is advice, not an opinion, and you are clearly not in a position to offer advice. The advice on these boards (and elsewhere - e.g. pepipoo) is that it is always worth appealing.

HAD29 wrote: »

But the point is that the OP had a ticket, bought in good faith, that covered the full cost of parking. - no she didn't. she had a ticked that covered the full cost of parking in the car park, not the street. Not saying she doesn't have grounds for appeal, just that she use the wrong machine. "Good faith" has nothing to do with it.

Let me quote you again - "getting out of paying a ticket". The OP was not trying to get out of paying a ticket, they had a ticket. Your argument seems to be that the OP was trying to evade payment, which is not the case.

HAD29 wrote: »

Except that the OP didn't know it was the wrong machine. Otherwise, given their best intentions to pay, you'd have to assume that they would've used the right machine. - I Don't have to assume anything. From the original post, she clearly knew there was a parking restriction seperate between the car park and the street, but chose to use the car park machine because she couldn't find the street one. She didn't say she "I didn't know I was supposed to use a different machine".

The OP intended to pay for a ticket, and did pay for a ticket, which covered the cost of their parking. The council have lost nothing - in fact they're 90p in profit from the OP's error.
Read the passage I quoted from you - "she knew that one didn't apply to the street". Why would anyone intentionally buy a ticket from a machine they knew wouldn't be the right one?

HAD29 wrote: »

Now you are just picking out certain statements to suit yourself. If a driver makes a mistake, yes, tough, pay up. I also said that if the council doesn't hold up its end of the bargain, then the driver shouldn't pay.

You're contradicting yourself. The OP is trying to appeal because they feel that the ticket was unfairly issued, in that the sign and ticket machine were not clearly visible from where they had parked. Yet you've advised the OP - repeatedly - to pay. You've also said that people shouldn't appeal "just because [they] can", which is what I was responding to. Well actually, yes they should appeal, if there's even a chance that the ticket issuer has screwed up, be it by making a mistake on the ticket, the signage, the road markings, whatever. Which is why the advice given on these boards, for official parking fines, is to post all the information on pepipoo to see whether there are grounds to appeal.

HAD29

"and you are clearly not in a position to offer advice. The advice on these boards (and elsewhere - e.g. pepipoo) is that it is always worth appealing". - Firstly, get over yourself. What makes you the judge of whether I am qualified to offer advice or not. You don't know me, my background or what I know about it. You are starting to get a little personal here.

Besides, how is bickering with me actually helping this lady? I still hold the opinion based on the information pesented here the she should pay the parking ticket. She parked without a valid ticket. Whether the intention was there not was irrelevant. So, lets look at the grounds for appeal then:

Inadequate signage: None of us can answer that will fully without actually seeing the sign. So it may have been obscured, but she could still make out the street was a pay and display.

Obscured parking machine. So we have established that the street has parking restriction that require a ticket, and now we have to go buy a ticket for it. Oops, I can't find the machine to buy the ticket from. Well, in that circumstance, YOU SHOULD NOT PARK THERE! Just because you cannot find the means to pay the appropriate parking fee doesn't mean that the restrictions have been lifted.

Buying from another machine: That is like me going into one branch of Tesco, being charged double price for a pint milk, walking out without the milk, going to another branch, lifting a pint of milk and not pay on the basis of "but I have already paid, and paid double what I should have". Tesco are still up in terms of money, but do you think that would be allowed? Or, lifting a pint of milk from one tesco branch to walk out and go to the next branch to pay for it. You still broke the law stealing the milk, even though your intentions were pure and made a legitimate mistake. Therefore if you use the incorrect machine, it doesn't matter how much was deposited, you still haven't purchased the service you are actually using.

Did she know that the other machine didn't cover the on street car parking? Irrelevant. Restrictions on parkling within car parks and and on street are different. They are covered by seperate rules that apply whether the lady was aware of that sublety or not.

Of course people should appeal where they feel they have been wronged. In my opinion though, I don't believe the lady has been wronged. I also don't believe that people should just appeal parking fines (and I am being very specific to PCNs here, not private notices) becasue they can. If you have parked illegally, then too bad, take the consequences. If you have made a mistake, then too bad, take the consequences, if you have been stupid, then too bad, take the consequences. If the council or other authority have made an error, then too bad, they have to take the consequences, Basically IF YOU SCREW UP, TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES REGARDLESS OF WHO YOU ARE. The circumstances of this lady notwithstanding, get away from this nothing is our fault mentality.

Coupon-mad

Almost every new thread on the pepipoo 'Council PCNs' forum is where the person feels they have been wronged. And usually they have, or the Council makes errors in letters/procedures later on - and usually the motorists win or the Council folds.

Occasionally you get an experienced poster on there saying 'OK I made a mistake but can anyone see an out with this PCN?' but it's very rare. Nothing wrong with that IMHO and I would do the same as I know how many mistakes Councils make along the appeal process.

But in the OP's case I was very surprised to see categoric advice given here to pay up when she had explained circumstances where I know adjudicators have found against Councils many times before. The Council have a duty to provide clear, unambiguous and unobscured signage - and by the sound of it they did not do so here. And the motorist has a right to appeal, especially when she had not tried to evade payment and was genuinely misled by unclear signs.

Hope the OP comes back and tells us when she wins.

HAD29

Coupon-mad, I have read through some of your many posts on here and gave come to respect your opinion and how you put it across. I just happen to disagree with it. Bur hey ho, we are all different I suppose with different values.

Ok, I was perhaps over confident and quick to recommend paying, but to be honest I think we tend to look for the get out clause all too frequently and fail to take responsibility for our actions and mistakes. If the council have misslead this lady and she has Been wronged by it, then she should be compensated. My frustration in my responses probably came about from the arguments that rested on having a go at me and my validity to offer any advice. In my work we say attack the idea not the person.

Therefore at this point it is probably a good idea to offer the olive branch to spikyone. I am sure that given we disagree with the principle of appealing we will no doubt debate again, but hopefully in a constructive and mutually respectful manner.

Inflatable_Armadillo

HAD29 wrote: »

"Good faith" has nothing to do with it..

Actually, this is the bit you generally seem to have a problem with and I would argue that ultimatley, when you get passed all the term and conditions, TPO's etc, that it is all about good faith and UK law generally tries and tends to treat "good faith" with quite a bit of weight if there is strong evidence that something was indeed done in good faith.

The point for me is that there is no mens rea in the OP's actions, in fact, the opposite is factually and evidently true because she purchased a ticket and that was from a more expensive machine!

This is the bit I have massive issues with and should actually be drummed into many petty officials who we allow to help enforce this stuff in society.

No mens rea, no ticket!

I quite like that phrase, maybe we could adopt it as a mantra!

Inflatable_Armadillo

PS. Before the lawyers tell me that mens rea does not apply in strict liability offences, which this is, I do know, but my point is about educating both the parking attendants and appeal people that they should actually think about a persons actions prior to either giving a ticket of turning down and appeal. She made a mistake, and in the OP's case, it is abundantly clear that she was not of guilty mind... because she paid more than she had to to the same council!!!