Glasgow Council PCN - ticket from wrong machine!

HAD29

I think most modern offences only require actus rea. And I am not sure it even applies to parking which is decriminalised(???). I have a funny feeling that is mostly a term under English, not scots law. However I see what you mean. I dont necessarily agree with the good faith defence. If you commit a "crime" in good faith it wouldn't mitigate a guilty verdict being taken off the table but it would have s bearing on the sentence. Contract law has no provision for breaching a clause "in good faith". If you breach and cause a tort or damage, you are liable for the other parties loss. It is down to whether the council or the adjudicator takes the in good faith thing into consideration or not. My personal opinion is that they shouldn't. They should decide based on the fulfillment of the obligation of the council and the compliance or not to the regulations by the driver if the council was deemed to have done things fairly and correctly.

HAD29

Am not sure that a parking "offence" is a strict liability offence either requiring only actus rea. Don't think it requires either criminal act or criminal mind.

Sorry, wasn't clear. Parking "offences" don't require actus or mens rea, and are the exception to the strict liability definition in that they are not criminal offences. All they require is a negligent act rather than a reckless one.

Coupon-mad

A Council PCN is neither criminal nor an 'offence' - Councils deal with 'decriminalised' parking matters. It's just a Notice from a Council telling a driver that they think he/she has 'contravened a Traffic Order'. More often than not their allegation can be disproved.

Inflatable_Armadillo

HAD29 wrote: »

I think most modern offences only require actus rea. And I am not sure it even applies to parking which is decriminalised(???). I have a funny feeling that is mostly a term under English, not scots law. However I see what you mean. I dont necessarily agree with the good faith defence. If you commit a "crime" in good faith it wouldn't mitigate a guilty verdict being taken off the table but it would have s bearing on the sentence. Contract law has no provision for breaching a clause "in good faith". If you breach and cause a tort or damage, you are liable for the other parties loss. It is down to whether the council or the adjudicator takes the in good faith thing into consideration or not. My personal opinion is that they shouldn't. They should decide based on the fulfillment of the obligation of the council and the compliance or not to the regulations by the driver if the council was deemed to have done things fairly and correctly.

Now, I am no lawyer, but you really need to stop posting stuff like this!!!

This is my understanding, as non-legal type person

"Most modern offences only require actus rea" No, unless the offence is a strict liability offence you have to prove some level of mens rea for the actus reus. That is a simple fact of common law... even in Scotland!!!

I think, and will be corrected if wrong, that most regulatory offences are strict liability offences and that applies to motor offence. So you just have to prove actus reus.

However, it seems that I am not going to change your opinion on this and clearly as far as your concerned, strict liability is strict liability and any mitigating circumstances do not apply. I can't win that one, so will give up now and go to bed... look at the time!!!

HAD29

Parking issues require neither actus, mens or even Chris rea.

HAD29

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: »

Now, I am no lawyer, but you really need to stop posting stuff like this!!!

I don't have to do anything

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: »

"Most modern offences only require actus rea" No, unless the offence is a strict liability offence you have to prove some level of mens rea for the actus reus. That is a simple fact of common law... even in Scotland!!!

Well, my apologies. I was going from memory something I last learned about 20 years ago at nearly 2am.

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: »

"I think, and will be corrected if wrong, that most regulatory offences are strict liability offences and that applies to motor offence. So you just have to prove actus reus.

That is my understanding of it also. However don't see how a motoring offence is relevant to parking. Again, 20 year old memory of it and am not going hunting for my notes which have probably been long binned now anyway.

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote: »

"However, it seems that I am not going to change your opinion on this and clearly as far as your concerned, strict liability is strict liability and any mitigating circumstances do not apply. I can't win that one, so will give up now and go to bed... look at the time!!!

Change my mind? With what argument? You haven't made any argument demonstrating how your principles are better than mine, or any evidence that my views are fundamentally flawed. And I don't know what you mean by ascribing the opinion to me that strict liability is strict liability. I don't know what you are trying to say by that. If the law deems a situation as being strict liability, nothing you or I can do to change that whether we agree or not.

I have said I agree that mitigating circumstances should be considered if it is deemed that the person parked lets just call it for simplicity's sake "illegaly". I have said that if the authority actually wrongs someone, then of course they should be able to appeal.

What I don't agree with is your idea that you have to mindfully commit a parking "offence" for the council to even be able to give you a ticket in the first place, or that by acting in good faith should automatically offer you protection against the consequence of your actions. So this has nothing to do with the law as far as I can see, it is about me holding a different opinion to you and others here about what level of mitigating factors should be looked at when a parking ticket is appealed. If the vast majority of drivers get their tickets overturned, then fine, good for them, I hope they enjoyed their victory, nothing I can do about that. Doesn't stop me being able to voice an opinion on it, just one that is different to yours.

Coupon-mad

I think we are approaching this from the 'good faith' angle because that's exactly what the Chief Parking Adjudicator wants Councils to do:

Telegraph - Chief Parking Adjudicator urges Councils to show common sense

QUOTE
The intervention by the chief adjudicator comes after The Sunday Telegraph's Campaign for Fair Parking highlighted cases where councils have carried on issuing tickets in areas where they knew the signs were illegal. Mrs Sheppard accused councils of failing to exercise their discretion when penalties were challenged, and called for "an outbreak of common sense" over trivial cases.

Many councils were "unwilling or unable to consider challenges based on mitigating circumstances", Mrs Sheppard said. Mitigation pleas are common in cases where a ticket had been issued because of a failure to display a permit, disabled parking badge or pay-and-display ticket. Many councils had taken the "extraordinary" view that it was somehow "fairer" to reject all representations, she said.

...she said it was "regrettable" that the tribunal was still being asked to determine appeals against penalties issued on streets where road signs were misleading and confusing.
QUOTE

maryhillgirl

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i340/alimail1/ParkingTicket001.jpg

Not sure if this will work, but that is the sign I was supposed to read and understand, way up on a post.

Maybe I need to go to Specsavers....

maryhillgirl

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i340/alimail1/ParkingTicket004-2.jpg

And the meter is up there somewhere, just behind the bushes. The arrow on the parking sign IS pointing towards it, but the entrance to the car park is in between the 2 wheelie bins so I assumed it was pointing me towards there, where I'd already tried to find a space and seen the parking meters.
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i340/alimail1/ParkingTicket003.jpg

Ticket displayed on windscreen

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i340/alimail1/ParkingTicket005.jpg
Contravention ticket.

Looking at it all again, with my hindsight specs firmly in place, I suspect some will argue that I should have been more vigilant, aware of local circumstances, familiar with rules and regs, terms and conditions etc surrounding the intricacies and legalities of on-street parking, but in simple terms, all I was attempting to do was pay GlasgowCity Parking to leave my car for a couple of hours. Their website claims "Take the hassle out of parking!" which did make me laugh, not.

HAD29

See, this I can see the merit in.
highlighted cases where councils have carried on issuing tickets in areas where they knew the signs were illegal. That is inexcusable, and the perpetrators should lose their jobs.

However !!!
Many councils were "unwilling or unable to consider challenges based on mitigating circumstances", Mrs Sheppard said. Mitigation pleas are common in cases where a ticket had been issued because of a failure to display a permit, disabled parking badge or pay-and-display ticket.

I do agree that mitigating circumstances should be part of it, but what I am probably not expressing very well here is that in good faith, in my opinion is not necessarily a mitigating circumstance. Agreed, a driver showed no intentiuon to pull a fast one, but if (and I know you guys will say it ia a big IF) the council has been correct in its procedure, its signage, and over all fairness, then the only grounds for appeal are the circumstances which made you park there. I believe that the council should be entitles to their money, enless you can prove that you had no choice through either emergency, or other such drastic circumstance that you could not move your car, or pay further parking.

Again missleading and confusing signs, I take the point. However, and again, please don't take this as an attack, I sometimes believe what is considered misleading is very much open to interpretation. The sign on the post from maryhillgirl. Ok, it is a bit muddy to be fair, but it is still legible. And the arrow pointing to the car park enterence, again, agreed, needs to be clearer, so, go win your appeal with my blessing .

But if we switch to the sunday car park thread that we are also discussing. The sign is clear, legible, big letters, clearly says Sunday (Whatever time) £1. If the whole sign is read, then there is absolutely no ambiguity. Any successful claim of an unclear instruction for that sign would in my opininion, be a technicality not on the basis that the council were incorrect in issuing a fine due the the driver not buying a ticket, but for the fear that it would have to pay out thousands of potential claims should they know an already driver orientated adjudicator is likely to find in the driver's favour. So in order to protect the council payer's money, it cannot afford to defends its case. I just think this is wrong is all. Happy to debate.