Parking fine while picking up children

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You have advised them that they have grounds to appeal.

Don't you think the council get loads of appeals from parents who think that parking regulations don't apply to them because they are taking their children to school?

Obviously a reminder is needed. Here is the text copied from my post #17 (seems so long ago now dosn't it!);

"A four year old child would be regarded as a vulnerable passenger so providing that you did not cause an obstruction and you left you vehicle on the yellow line for only the amount of time to escort or collect the child into/from the school building, then you should appeal.

However, I am basing this advice on the assumption that the yellow line has just the normal restrictions (i.e. no waiting) and that you were the only person in the car other than the child".

Ok... now i've highlighted some significant words and to save you rushing to grab your dictionary, i'll try and explain why.

The use of the words highlighted suggest (hopefully) that the "advice" was given on the information available. Obviously (well to me anyway) it wasn't intended to be definitive advice because I wasn't privileged to be there to see exactly the circumstances that the OP parked.

The OP came her to ask a question. I answered it by giving a POSSIBLE avenue of appeal. Now whether that turns out to be successful or not will depend on the FACTS surrounding the ACTUAL circumstances that the OP parked under to which I had no REAL knowledge of. Thats why I used the words "PROVIDING" and "ASSUMPTION".

As far as I'm aware, the OP didn't suggest that the child had any disability or special needs although that dosn't necessarily matter as the child is only 4 years old (according to the information given). It COULD be the case that the school is located on a busy road thus making it too hazardous for a child of that age to walk alone. But of course, that is only an assumption as I don't know where the school is.

So despite all the flack, I stand by the "advice" I have given because this is a money saving site and the OP is surely entitled to know what options are available.

We go by the saying that we are innocent until proven guilty do we not? So when the OP appeals, that is the point where it will be decided if he/she was entitled to use the boarding and alighting exemptions or not. Quite frankly, I don't give a toss either way.

Now, this is my final post on the matter. I suggest that if any of you still consider that I am wrong and have broken the rules of the forum in some way by giving "bad" or inaccurate advice, then feel free to bring it to the attention of the admins.

Have a very merry Christmas. :xmastree:

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

To be fair they have been a member under various names for quite some time.

I'm quite sure they have been know by all sorts of names as well! And not only on this forum!!

Couldn't resist! :beer:

Lum

WTFH wrote: »

Otherwise, I could use the "Tilt defense" as a reason to speed, drive through red lights, in fact any law which is there for the safety of me and other road users.
"Sorry office, I was doing 40 in the 30 zone because I was cold and I wanted the car engine to heat up"

The Tilt defence? I'm picturing something like:

"Why would a Wookie, an eight-foot tall Wookie, want to post on MSE, with a bunch of 80 pixel tall forum avatars? That does NOT MAKE SENSE! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does NOT MAKE SENSE!

Look at me. I'm an internet lawyer defending a PPR'd poster, and I'm talkin' about Tilt! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're at your PC in your bedroom deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Highway Code, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does NOT MAKE SENSE! If Tilt posts in this thread, you must acquit! The defence rests."

(With apologies to the creators of South Park)

WTFH

Lum, I would thank you for that post, but you've already got enough thanks against your name (which seems important around here). I'd also like to thank you for spelling "defence" correctly, unlike the other idiot - Wear The Fox Hat, who seems to think he's posting on a Yank forum.

Lum

WTFH wrote: »

Lum, I would thank you for that post, but you've already got enough thanks against your name (which seems important around here). I'd also like to thank you for spelling "defence" correctly, unlike the other idiot - Wear The Fox Hat, who seems to think he's posting on a Yank forum.

Honestly I reckon those thanks are as much for s**tposting in threads like this one as they are for actual helpful advice. Possibly more so.

WTFH

I can well believe that. You can also get lots of thanks for saying popular things (they don't have to be right, just say what someone wants to hear).


Anyway, back on topic, I got a note on my car the other day saying "Parking Fine".
I thought "thank you very much". I mean, I know I'm better than most drivers, but it's nice to be recognised when you park your car well.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

Obviously a reminder is needed. Here is the text copied from my post #17 (seems so long ago now dosn't it!);

"A four year old child would be regarded as a vulnerable passenger so providing that you did not cause an obstruction and you left you vehicle on the yellow line for only the amount of time to escort or collect the child into/from the school building, then you should appeal.

However, I am basing this advice on the assumption that the yellow line has just the normal restrictions (i.e. no waiting) and that you were the only person in the car other than the child".

Ok... now i've highlighted some significant words and to save you rushing to grab your dictionary, i'll try and explain why.

The use of the words highlighted suggest (hopefully) that the "advice" was given on the information available. Obviously (well to me anyway) it wasn't intended to be definitive advice because I wasn't privileged to be there to see exactly the circumstances that the OP parked.

The OP came her to ask a question. I answered it by giving a POSSIBLE avenue of appeal. Now whether that turns out to be successful or not will depend on the FACTS surrounding the ACTUAL circumstances that the OP parked under to which I had no REAL knowledge of. Thats why I used the words "PROVIDING" and "ASSUMPTION".

As far as I'm aware, the OP didn't suggest that the child had any disability or special needs although that dosn't necessarily matter as the child is only 4 years old (according to the information given). It COULD be the case that the school is located on a busy road thus making it too hazardous for a child of that age to walk alone. But of course, that is only an assumption as I don't know where the school is.

So despite all the flack, I stand by the "advice" I have given because this is a money saving site and the OP is surely entitled to know what options are available.

We go by the saying that we are innocent until proven guilty do we not? So when the OP appeals, that is the point where it will be decided if he/she was entitled to use the boarding and alighting exemptions or not. Quite frankly, I don't give a toss either way.

Now, this is my final post on the matter. I suggest that if any of you still consider that I am wrong and have broken the rules of the forum in some way by giving "bad" or inaccurate advice, then feel free to bring it to the attention of the admins.

Have a very merry Christmas. :xmastree:

Your statement is based on fantasy rather than fact. Having to take a 4 year old child to school doesn't in any way exempt the parent from parking restrictions.

Parking restrictions are usually in place for safety or access reasons, or to keep traffic flowing. If a child was physically disabled then other provisions would be provided to allow parents to park as close as possible to the school. However an able bodied 4 year old child is quite capable of walking for 10 or 15 minutes from a suitable parking place to a school.

Anyone can appeal a parking fine, but that doesn't mean they stand any chance whatsoever in being successful. And you have given the OP false hope by suggesting that they have grounds for a successful appeal. In other words you have given extremely bad advice that is obviously only fuelled by your crusade against parking restrictions.

Iceweasel

Tilt wrote: »

There are no such things as "traffic wardens"!!

Hmmm - I'm aware that this thread concerns an incident in the Englandshire part of the UK, but lots of uniformed men and woman in Scotlandshire will be confused / upset to hear that they don't exist.

http://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/public-counters-traffic-wardens-review/traffic-wardens/

Admittedly there is a review on at the moment to remove the Traffic Warden Service.

George_Michael

Tilt wrote: »

Yet again WRONG!! There are no such things as "traffic wardens"!!

http://www.enforcementjobs.co.uk/careers/view/74406
http://www.planitplus.net/careerzone/areas/?PID=nf&SECL=22PS&ID=391

Robisere

Going back to the original question asked by the OP (remember that?)

-And being reluctant to wade through more of the garbage I read in the first few pages, I apologise if someone else has asked these simple questions: -

* How far do you live from the school, OP?
* Are you able to walk your son to school?

If the answer to the first question is say, 'less than a mile', would there be some reason why you cannot answer 'Yes' to the second?