Parking fine while picking up children

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

How the hell do you know that.... do you live in my area and know what exemptions and circumstances apply to this particular school??? For you information, there is little alternative but to drop off on the wrong side of the road as there are zig zag markings along the entire frontage of the school.

Because parking restrictions are parking restrictions. If there were any exceptions to allow parents on school runs to park, then it would say so on a sign post.

It isn't rocket science.

Tilt wrote: »

No. But I did suggest that you did if you thought my "advice" was that bad. You crossed the line though when you also attempted to dis-credit a highly respected member (Coupon-Mad) from the parking forum... she does know what she is talking about so as you clearly will not see that both her and my contributions were not inaccurate, I invited the site team to take a look and see if they thought and rules had been broken. Well ai appears that so far at least one of your posts has been removed completely!

You more or less admitted that you reported my post. It only takes a couple of people to team up and say that they don't like a post to get it removed. It has no bearing on its accuracy.

The poster in question is very well known for being abusive to anyone who dares to question anything they say.

Tilt wrote: »

Maybe I can't as the legislation allows for different tolerances from council to council. Lets not forget also, that parking has been decriminalized thus meaning that there is no actual law applying to yellow lines... it is now a civil offence.

Exactly. So how can you be so adamant??

Tilt wrote: »

The quote that you have provided is just from one council. As Aretnap as pointed out above, ultimately it would be for an adjudicator to decide whether the OP was entitled to use the boarding and alighting exemptions under the circumstances in which she parked. I go back to my earlier answer to his/her question by. yet again, pointing out that he/she could appeal under the exemptions providing he/she had parked under certain circumstances.

Yes I know it was from just one council. It was just one that I picked out at random as an example.

For an appeal to be allowed on the grounds that you suggest, it would have to be an exceptional circumstance, rather than the norm. Just dropping a 4 year old child off at school is the norm. And there is nothing exceptional about it at all.

Tilt wrote: »

At least Aretnap seems to understand that better than you do.

Aretnap's post actually reinforced the point I was trying to make.

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Precisely. If the child was young or disabled then the OP may have grounds for appeal. But from what we have been told the OP's circumstances are no different to every other parent who drops their child off at the same school. So if the adjudicator allowed one appeal, then they would be basically saying that the parking restrictions could be ignored completely.

I've corrected that for you. Have you even forgotten what you posted yourself "from one council"??

The child was 4 years old.... there may of been a road to cross.... the school may of been on a busy road...

My advice was based on the possibility of these factors being the case... I even used phrases like "providing that..." when making him/her aware of the boarding and alighting exemptions...

Are you not still getting the picture?? :doh:

Tilt

Mr Carter, I do wish you would think carefully before posting... you are really making you hole a lot deeper!

Now your are suggesting that because signs dosn't "say so on a sign post" that Boarding and alighting exemptions don't exist? Clearly in your earlier post you know know that they do!

I did not report any post in particular, I asked the site team to investigate your allegations that you were throwing around that myself and Coupon Mad were giving out inaccurate and bad advice as you were adamant (and still continue to be) that we were. I'm sure there will be a lot of people who will disagree with your opinions of CM "being abusive to anyone who dares to question anything they say". Again, if this is the case, they have the option of bringing it to the attention of the site team.

I am adamant because I gave reasonable and accurate advice and I will stand by that until the cows come home if you like.

As far as "exceptional circumstances" are concerned, trhat would be for the adjudicator to decide... the OP would present his/her reasons for leaving the car for 9 minutes, look at the proximity to how far away the school was, check to see whether the OP parked in position which didn't pose a danger to other road users and that the child was of an age which he/she could not reasonably expected to walk safely from the car into the school un-assisted.

We have already established that the information was fairly vague from the OP BUT, they are still entitled to be made aware of what options they have... are they not?

Just because I decided to make them aware of those options, dosn't mean I have given bad advice because I havn't. Had the OP stated they had left the car on zig zag markings, my advice would of been to pay the penalty.

I see little point in carrying on this argument with you as you clearly will not (or refuse to) see reason.

I 100% stand by my contribution to the thread because I am impartial and gave out information based on the question that was posed. If the OP painted a different picture to what the actual circumstances were (i.e. they didn't qualify for boarding and lighting), then they will be facing paying the full penalty and quite rightly so.

You though have created a ridiculous argument based on no facts at all. As I repeatedly stated that You have no idea of the situation that the OP was in but yet, you definitively state that they were rightly ticketed and should not have grounds for appeal.

THATis what I call poor advice and should really have no place on a forum which is supposed to help people and not judge them.

DirectDebacle

Tilt wrote: »

You though have created a ridiculous argument based on no facts at all.

Works both ways. How do you know the OP wasn't ticketed for failing to display a current tax disc, unnecessary obstruction etc. You and CM are equally ridiculous.

Before advising on how to appeal a ticket it might be useful if you knew exactly the reason(s) it was issued.

Tilt

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Works both ways. How do you know the OP wasn't ticketed for failing to display a current tax disc, unnecessary obstruction etc. You and CM are equally ridiculous.

Before advising on how to appeal a ticket it might be useful if you knew exactly the reason(s) it was issued.

God give me strength! :huh:

I gave my advice based on the information the OP provided. The OP stated they left the car for 9 minutes on a yellow line and got a ticket.

I think it's safe to say that the ticket was either code 1; Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours or code 2; Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense would not suspect (from the information given) that it was issued for anything else.

Quite frankly, that was a ridiculous post seeing as you want to throw insults about.

Coupon-mad

uknick wrote: »

If this 'assisted alighting exemption' is correct, and I have no reason to doubt what has been posted, does this mean single yellow lines are irrelevant by a primary or nursery school?

Irrelevant, if trying to stop people from parking to deliver children safely to premises, yes. Not irrelevant in that they would stop people leaving a car there, parked, for any longer than it takes to accompany a child.

That's why the lines normally painted outside a school are yellow zig zags which do have the effect of 'no stopping at all'. They are the 'safety' lines you are thinking of and if they are not outside your local school then the question to ask of the Council is 'why not?'

This thread is hilarious bearing in mind all of you posters are actually on the motoring board...and yet 80% here seem not to know what a DYL or SYL means.

Coupon-mad

andygb wrote: »

Having read some of the latter replies from people, I suppose that the "yummy mummies" will also be allowed to park across folk's drives (blocking access), and on the zigzag lines approcahing crossings.
Is there nothing that you are not "entitled" to/to do when you have a brat in tow?

Wow...'brats'...someone's bitter. Someone's wrong!

Well...how about this from a Transport Committee publication a few weeks ago:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/118/118.pdf

The paragraphs just above Q48 appeared when I searched this document for the word 'alighting' and this is what you see discussed by those who know the regulations:

''Peter Ashford:
The point is that many local authorities do not understand the meaning of signage. They do not read the regulations and they don’t understand it.

With regard to the example Mr King gave, I have had the same situation with a taxi driver in Birmingham. He helped a literally crippled lady whom he carries from time to time to a shop about four shops away from where he was. He could not park there because someone was loading.

It is totally permissible to stop there for boarding and alighting. Boarding and alighting is perfectly permissible where there is a prohibition on loading and loading only. It is a standard situation but councils don’t know this.

If you have an elderly person, a disabled person or a small child who needs accompanying, the boarding and alighting will allow you to deliver them and
collect them, providing it is nearby. You cannot wait but you can deliver them. People do get punished for that. Someone came to me quite recently and said,

“What can we do about it?”
I said, “There is no contravention,” which there is not, but councils do not understand that. Boarding and alighting is a very important thing.''

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Works both ways. How do you know the OP wasn't ticketed for failing to display a current tax disc, unnecessary obstruction etc. You and CM are equally ridiculous.

Before advising on how to appeal a ticket it might be useful if you knew exactly the reason(s) it was issued.

Well that would be difficult because a Council CEO can't issue tickets for either of those things!

Any more dissent? Before posting about me and Tilt being ridiculous, perhaps you should check the facts before engaging the keyboard?

andygb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wow...'brats'...someone's bitter. Someone's wrong!

Judging by the police response on Friday at my local school, you are the one who uis wrong.
It is (was hopefully) a common sight in our village to see the school run cars parked everywhere, without regard to road markings/restrictions - zigzag approach to crossings, across people's drives, on pavements. The vehicles are never therwe for just five minutes whilst they drop/pick up said child from school, it is up to an hour, whilst they stand around in groups socialising, leaving the vehicles to create chaos in what is normally a quiet village with hardly any traffic. It is also on a bus route, and there have been many instances where the bus cannot get through because of the selfish, ILLEGAL actions of the drivers.
Please do not try to defend the indefensible, and please try to have a bit of consideration for other people, because your advice/actions are a right PITA for most reasonable people.

Rover_Driver

andygb wrote: »

Judging by the police response on Friday at my local school, you are the one who uis wrong.
It is (was hopefully) a common sight in our village to see the school run cars parked everywhere, without regard to road markings/restrictions - zigzag approach to crossings, across people's drives, on pavements. The vehicles are never therwe for just five minutes whilst they drop/pick up said child from school, it is up to an hour, whilst they stand around in groups socialising, leaving the vehicles to create chaos in what is normally a quiet village with hardly any traffic. It is also on a bus route, and there have been many instances where the bus cannot get through because of the selfish, ILLEGAL actions of the drivers.
Please do not try to defend the indefensible, and please try to have a bit of consideration for other people, because your advice/actions are a right PITA for most reasonable people.

CM's reply was only in respect of the boarding and alighting exemption in respect of the yellow line restriction.


Anything else, as you describe, should be dealt with appropriately.

zappahey

andygb wrote: »

Judging by the police response on Friday at my local school, you are the one who uis wrong.
It is (was hopefully) a common sight in our village to see the school run cars parked everywhere, without regard to road markings/restrictions - zigzag approach to crossings, across people's drives, on pavements. The vehicles are never therwe for just five minutes whilst they drop/pick up said child from school, it is up to an hour, whilst they stand around in groups socialising, leaving the vehicles to create chaos in what is normally a quiet village with hardly any traffic. It is also on a bus route, and there have been many instances where the bus cannot get through because of the selfish, ILLEGAL actions of the drivers.
Please do not try to defend the indefensible, and please try to have a bit of consideration for other people, because your advice/actions are a right PITA for most reasonable people.

You <

---

country mile

---

> Coupon Mad's point