Parking fine while picking up children

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

No, I think you're the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.
The OP said in their first post that the reason they parked there was because it was cold!
"Rather than let my four year old walk miles in the cold ( as it was freezing today)"

So, the child is capable of walking on their own, but the OP doesn't like the child walking when it's cold.
I don't believe that a slight chill in the air counts as "boarding and alighting exemptions".

It's always worth reading what the OP has written before going off on a moral crusade against people who have read it!

What you believe is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is how the appeal goes (the result of which we may never know).

For your information, i'm not on any "moral crusade" at all! I just thought forums like this existed to give people advice and not to judge them. No one knows the full circumstances here... the road lay out, the road markings or even where the school is. So how can people assume that the OP parked irresponsibly in the first place?

She asked; "do i have any grounds of appeal or am i screwed any help would be much appricated". So all I have done was made her aware of an avenue to appeal under.

IF however the OP had stated that she had parked on the school entrance zig zag markings, then I myself would of sent the CEO a Christmas card!

WTFH

Tilt, your assumptions and attitude in this thread show that you are not interested in providing good advice, but in belittling anyone who tries to.
My knowledge of the 1960s is limited to what I have read, but I do know that Queen Victoria had died a long time before then, so I don't think they count as "Victorian Times".

Equally, your advice is that the OP might be able to appeal by lying about the child's physical and mental abilities.
Again, I will say what I "believe" - advising someone to deliberately lie because they knowingly broke the law is not something this website is about, yet you provide that as your advice, while admonishing anyone who suggests otherwise.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

<SIGH> Another one who dosn't know what he's talking about.

Depending on the circumstances (of which we don't know), 9 minutes is not unreasonable under boarding and alighting exemptions. As there are such exemptions, there is no reason for "special provisions" to exist. (BTW, what "special provisions" are you referring to?).

Obviously it COULD be the case that the OP was not entitled to use the boarding and alighting exemptions. But as she was bombarded with so much negativity on this thread from so many narrow minded posters, she is no longer with us to ask further information.

9 minutes away from the vehicle is considered far too long. This is why traffic wardens wait 5 minutes.

Do you have a special needs child?? I do.

Tilt

Can you please tell me where I said to the OP that lying about her child's physical and mental abilities should be the basis of an appeal?

I refute your accusation that I advised the OP to deliberately lie! I merely pointed out what option she had to appeal which was the question asked.

I think YOU should get your facts right before throwing offensive and inaccurate allegations around!

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

9 minutes away from the vehicle is considered far too long. This is why traffic wardens wait 5 minutes.

Do you have a special needs child?? I do.

Considered by who? How do you possibly know how far away (or near) the OP parked?

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

What you believe is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is how the appeal goes (the result of which we may never know).

For your information, i'm not on any "moral crusade" at all! I just thought forums like this existed to give people advice and not to judge them. No one knows the full circumstances here... the road lay out, the road markings or even where the school is. So how can people assume that the OP parked irresponsibly in the first place?

She asked; "do i have any grounds of appeal or am i screwed any help would be much appricated". So all I have done was made her aware of an avenue to appeal under.

IF however the OP had stated that she had parked on the school entrance zig zag markings, then I myself would of sent the CEO a Christmas card!

Just because you are on a crusade against any parking restrictions, it doesn't mean you are right, and doesn't mean that the OP has any grounds for an appeal. So stop giving out bad advice that just gets their hopes up. They should just be thankful that a child wasn't killed when stepping out from behind their illegally parked vehicle.

iammumtoone

I have been following this thread and I have to say no where did I read anything into advising the OP to lie.

It was stated that there might be grounds for appeal if the child needed to be dropped off near the school but I am assuming if this was the case the appeals process would need to receive evidence, so even if the OP did decide to lie (not saying they would) if would be pointless and certainly not help their case if they couldn't prove it.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

Can you please tell me where I said to the OP that lying about her child's physical and mental abilities should be the basis of an appeal?

I refute your accusation that I advised the OP to deliberately lie! I merely pointed out what option she had to appeal which was the question asked.

I think YOU should get your facts right before throwing offensive and inaccurate allegations around!

I think YOU should read what has been posted by the OP rather than adding your own scenarios, and wasting the OP's time.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

Considered by who? How do you possibly know how far away (or near) the OP parked?

By traffic wardens, which is why I mentioned them.

Dropping a child off at school because you are too lazy to walk for 10 minutes in cold weather is not acceptable grounds to park on yellow lines. If your child was physically disabled then it may be a different matter. But in this case there would be special provisions in place. You would know this if you had a special needs child.

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Just because you are on a crusade against any parking restrictions, it doesn't mean you are right, and doesn't mean that the OP has any grounds for an appeal. So stop giving out bad advice that just gets their hopes up. They should just be thankful that a child wasn't killed when stepping out from behind their illegally parked vehicle.

What advice exactly have I given which was bad? I said that the OP could appeal using boarding and alighting exemptions which do exist.

So I answered her question with accurate information based on the information she gave. I don't see how I got "her hopes up". The success of her appeal would depend on the information and evidence that she herself provided when making the appeal. So she would create her own "hopes"!