Parking fine while picking up children

RichardD1970

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Perhaps you should. When you have you will realise that the ticket could have been issued by a PC/PCSO and for an offence other than a yellow line infringement.

More codswallop from someone who should know better.

But the OP only mentions the yellow line, if the ticket was issued for another reason surely they would have mentioned it?

WTFH

Richard, the OP also mentioned that the only reason was due to the cold, but our friends have been arguing about exemptions, even though the OP didn't mention any reason they would apply.

The rules appear to be: you can ignore facts but make assumptions if you are one group, but not if you are another

Paradigm

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

No. Just read back through the thread, and all will become clear.

Oh I've read the thread & it's perfectly clear that most have missed, totally, the OPs question. Just to refresh memories that question was.....

do i have any grounds of appeal or am i screwed any help would be much appricated.

To which the answer is clearly YES, the boarding & alighting exemption as Tilt & Coupon Mad have been trying to explain.

Whether this appeal would be successful is another matter & all the "evidence" would be considered and a decision made.

As you admit, there is nothing in parking legislation setting out time limits so it would be down to an adjudicator,with all the facts, to decide if 9 minutes was reasonable. We don't have all the facts, just 8 lines of text giving a tiny bit of info.

Quite how you can post this as fact

As I have previously stated, you are supposed to be able to return to the vehicle in a hurry if required to move it.

without anything to back it up defeats me.

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

Richard, the OP also mentioned that the only reason was due to the cold, but our friends have been arguing about exemptions, even though the OP didn't mention any reason they would apply.

The rules appear to be: you can ignore facts but make assumptions if you are one group, but not if you are another

The OP clearly wasn't aware that due to the age of the child (4 years old) he/she may have an avenue of appeal under boarding alighting exemptions. A bit like a lot of posters in this thread. :doh:

Paradigm

WTFH wrote: »

Richard, the OP also mentioned that the only reason was due to the cold, but our friends have been arguing about exemptions, even though the OP didn't mention any reason they would apply.

The rules appear to be: you can ignore facts but make assumptions if you are one group, but not if you are another

You too are missing the point!

Just appealling doesn't mean you've automatically "got away" with it.

If you want to appeal a speeding fine you can (sort of) but because speeding is a criminal offence, you end up in court & have your say.

It's the same with a parking ticket, just a different route (parking is decriminalised)

Tilt

Paradigm wrote: »

Oh I've read the thread & it's perfectly clear that most have missed, totally, the OPs question. Just to refresh memories that question was.....



To which the answer is clearly YES, the boarding & alighting exemption as Tilt & Coupon Mad have been trying to explain.

Whether this appeal would be successful is another matter & all the "evidence" would be considered and a decision made.

As you admit, there is nothing in parking legislation setting out time limits so it would be down to an adjudicator,with all the facts, to decide if 9 minutes was reasonable. We don't have all the facts, just 8 lines of text giving a tiny bit of info.

Quite how you can post this as fact [/B] without anything to back it up defeats me.

Without a doubt one of the most sensible and well put posts of the entire thread. :T:T:T

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

Not sure why you are saying "you are the one who is wrong" when the advice given had nothing to do with that scenario. Obviously in the cases you describe, these people would not be entitled to use boarding & alighting exemptions.

The OP wasn't just parked for just 5 minutes either.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

According to that example from "one council" it could be! Who has said that the OP ignored the parking regulations??? The OP may of had no choice but to walk the child into the school for safety reasons thus coming under the boarding/alighting exemptions.

Why can't you understand this?? :wall:

The OP quite clearly said that they didn't walk the child to school because it was cold.


The OP ignored the parking regulations, which is why they got a ticket. Traffic wardens (or whatever you want to call them), are supposed to wait 5 minutes before issuing a ticket in such cases. 9 minutes is ignoring the regulations.


Why can't you understand this??


It makes me laugh how people will interpret the law the way that suits their agenda, and then will continually argue that their view is the only one that can be right.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

NEXT! :wall:

Originally Posted by Jamie Carter
Do you actually read what you post?? :rotfl::rotfl:

Yep, but clearly you dont.


Wrong!!


Rubbish. You just ganged up to get the post removed. If the forum team wanted to actually investigate anything, then all the proof is there.

"Ganged up?" Wrong yet again... I asked the site team to consider MY input as well as yours. As you say, the proof is there.


There was nothing at all offensive about my post. So the only reason for it to be removed would be because they had more than one complaint. In which case they just remove it. And I'm sure you are well aware of this.


As for bad advice, there is certainly nothing new about people giving out bad advice on forums. But most people don't get all upset if people don't agree with them.

True, but i'm far from upset... frustrated maybe of having to continue in hammering this nail into a solid brick wall.


Well try to see common sense then.



And most posters on this thread don't agree with you. So maybe you should consider that there is a chance you could be wrong.

Most posters (I think the figure mentioned by CM was about 80%) on here obviously don't know about yellow line exemptions.


Or maybe they do, but their minds aren't clouded by crusades against parking regulations.


But what the OP has told us that they didn't want their child to walk because it was 'too cold'. This implies that there was no other reason, otherwise I'm sure they would have told us.

Perhaps, but I took into account of the age of the child as well and my own experiences in dropping a young child off at a school situated on a main, busy road. As I have said numerous times (and it still dosn't seem to be sinking in) that IF the OP was painting a different picture than the one he/she gave us and choose to appeal, then that would be his/her responsibility if that appeal fails. I did use the terms "providing that..." and "the advice is being given assuming that..." when making the OP aware of the exemptions. HOW MANY MORE TIME HAVE I GOT TO STRESS THIS???


Why don't you just go by what the OP has told us, rather than trying to read something else into it??

So yes it would be for the adjudicator to decide. But plain old common sense tells most people what the decision would be.

Most people would want more information before making "common sense" judgments. Ever heard of the term "innocent until proven guilty"?


We can only go by what we have been told. And from what the OP has told us, they have no grounds for appeal.


Yes they are entitled to be made aware of their options, and they do seem to be already aware that they can appeal. BUT what is wrong is when someone gives them false hope that they will be successful.

I started to think you were beginning to see sense at long last! But then you spoiled it by suggesting I had given the OP false hope of being successful. Can you highlight this please because I can't remember saying any such thing.


Stick to what the OP has told us. If you do, and you still suggest that they have grounds for appeal, then you are giving them false hope.


I, and it would appear many other people in this thread, seem to think that you have given them false hope. Which I would regard as bad advice (I suppose you are going to report me again for saying so?).

Havn't we covered this bit numerous times already? "Many other people" are obviously wrong then if they think I have given "false hope" because I strongly refute that I did. I don't need to "report" anything... no doubt the thread is being monitored!


Yes we have. But you seem to think that you are right, and most people are wrong.


It appears that your view is clouded by your crusade against parking restrictions, and that you struggle to look at this issue from a balanced point of view.

Now you have got me completely wrong! I go out of my way reporting drivers who park outside my son's school on the zig zag markings. If anything I am on a crusade AGAINST illegal parking! But I am also aware that there are exemptions (when used correctly) to parking on yellow lines.


There are exemptions, which are there for good reasons. However they don't allow for someone parking for 9 minutes.


We all find parking restrictions extremely annoying at times, but we need to remember some of the reasons why they exist. Put yourself in the shoes of the driver of an emergency vehicle, that can't get through because someone who thinks that parking restrictions are just there to be challenged has just parked where they like. Or put yourself in the shoes of the person/s who need assistance from the crew of the emergency vehicle. Or you could put yourself in the shoes of the parents of many children who are seriously injured or killed, when crossing the road from behind illegally parked cars.

There is a street near me that has no parking restrictions but is too narrow for an ambulance to drive down when cars are parked both sides. But what relevance is this? We Don't know where the school was so have o idea how wide/narrow the road the OP parked on was.


Most parking restrictions are in place for safety or access reasons, so it is entirely relevant.


Even without parking restrictions, if by parking you are obstructing the road, then you are parked illegally.


So when the adjudicator considers the evidence, they should have the above at the back of their minds. So do you really think that the excuse that 'it was cold' would wash with them??

The adjudicator (assuming it goes that far) will look at the facts presented by the OP. The age of the child will be the most important factor so I doubt the "being cold" bit will even be mentioned. It will boil down to how far the OP parked and whether or not it was safe for the child to walk un-assisted from the car to the school plus whether there was anyone else with the OP who could of escorted the child. The adjudicator will also want to know about the school's location so they can understand if there were any alternatives available to the OP to safely park other than on the yellow lines.


The offence is due to the length of time the OP parked for. If they had just parked outside the school, and then run in and out, then they wouldn't have been parked for 9 minutes, and the exemption would apply. So the age of the child wouldn't be a factor in deciding if a parking offence had been committed.

Your argument is getting weaker and weaker.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

Absolute tosh. You will be saying that there is no exemption for loading/unloading on yellow lines next! How can you do that by "staying with the vehicle"? :rotfl:

Try reading the whole sentence, instead of just half of it:

Originally Posted by Jamie Carter
Do you have any idea how often emergency vehicles are delayed because people believe that they can park where they want if they only leave the vehicle for 5 or 10 minutes??

In many emergency situations seconds can make the difference between life and death. So the boarding/alighting exemptions are supposed to be for when someone stays with the vehicle, or they will be close enough to rush back to the vehicle should it need to be moved in a hurry.