Parking fine while picking up children

Rover_Driver

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The child's age has no bearing on the offence because the exemption simply wouldn't apply when parking for 9 minutes.

There is no time limit - it takes as long as it takes.

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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??

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Even 10 minutes may not be "ignoring the regulations". All depends on the circumstances in which the OP parked (I bet this is getting a bit boring now to most posters, but that's the way it is).

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

I'm not interpreting the law to suit my "agenda" at all, it wasn't me who got a ticket!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Plus it's you that continually argue that you must be right when clearly that your'e not. Other posters are thankfully beginning to see this as well so why not quit while you are behind?

Its' got nothing to do with my view at all... the fact of the matter (yet again and again and again) is that boarding and alighting exemptions exist on yellow lines for escorting vulnerable passengers into/out of a building. A 4 year old child would be considered to be a vulnerable person and (yet again and again and again) depending on the OP's status (i.e. no other option but to leave the car and escort the child to/from the school for no longer than necessary to do so), then the OP should appeal. Cold has nothing to do with it.

The adjudicator is king, not you.

Jamie_Carter

Rover_Driver wrote: »

There are two different matters - being issued with a PCN, and appealing against the PCN.


CEOs issue PCNs if they believe that the vehicle is in contravention of the yellow line restriction. They may wait for a period of time before issuing the PCN or not, depending on the circumstances.
There are several exemptions to the contravention, which the CEO may not be aware of - one of which is boarding and alighting, which can include escorting someone. There is no set time limit for the actual escorting - it takes as long as it takes.


If a PCN is issued, it is then up to the driver/owner to follow the appeal procedure on the grounds of the boarding and alighting exemption to get the PCN cancelled.

Yes it does take as long as it takes. But the exemptions are designed to allow vulnerable people to be escorted a short distance to somewhere from where the driver can quickly return to the vehicle if it needs to be moved in a hurry, and not 4.5 minutes away.

Jamie_Carter

Rover_Driver wrote: »

There is no time limit - it takes as long as it takes.

I tell you what, why don't you test that one out in various council areas, and see how much success you have??


If as Lum said, you have to assemble a wheelchair, then it may take some time. But you would be doing this right next to the vehicle.

Rover_Driver

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Yes it does take as long as it takes. But the exemptions are designed to allow vulnerable people to be escorted a short distance to somewhere from where the driver can quickly return to the vehicle if it needs to be moved in a hurry, and not 4.5 minutes away.

Nothing to do with the driver being able to move the car in a hurry, if it was left causing obstruction that is a different matter and an instant offence.


The boarding and alighting exemption only applies to the yellow line restriction, there is no time limit for it - takes as long as it takes.

Rover_Driver

That would be nothing to do with parking regulations, it would be obstruction - an instant offence.

andygb

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The boarding and alighting exemption only applies to the yellow line restriction, there is no time limit for it - takes as long as it takes.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
So, you are basically saying that anyone can park on yellow lines, for as long as they like, using this as a defence - "takes as long as it takes".
Drop child off - very slowly of course, then return at your leisure, via the "mummy's meeting", and the shops - in fact as the regulations and road markings do not apply to you, then fill your boots - do the Christmas shopping as well;)

Tilt

andygb wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
So, you are basically saying that anyone can park on yellow lines, for as long as they like, using this as a defence - "takes as long as it takes".
Drop child off - very slowly of course, then return at your leisure, via the "mummy's meeting", and the shops - in fact as the regulations and road markings do not apply to you, then fill your boots - do the Christmas shopping as well;)

I've already pointed out in the thread (and i'm not surprised you havn't read it all the way through) that scenario would not come under boarding and alighting exemptions.

To have any success with an appeal, you would need to show that you left the car ONLY for the time it took to escort the child in or out of the school. The adjudicator would even possibly contact the school to verify what would be the minimum reasonable time it would take to walk between the location the PCN was issued and the school building.

WTFH

Paradigm wrote: »

You too are missing the point!

No, you are missing the point. Parking regulations are not just there as money making schemes - contrary to what some will claim on here.
They are used for safety and for traffic management.

If you believe that legal loopholes are more important than safety, then you really have missed the point. Equally, if you think one person has a right to abandon a car for AT LEAST 9 minutes where they choose, then you seem to be missing the point about personal responsibility for actions.

Those are my issues. safety & responsibility.
If you think other things are more important, then you are missing the point of a civilised society and this country is destined to inherit the worst traits of the USA.

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

No, you are missing the point. Parking regulations are not just there as money making schemes - contrary to what some will claim on here.
They are used for safety and for traffic management.

If you believe that legal loopholes are more important than safety, then you really have missed the point. Equally, if you think one person has a right to abandon a car for AT LEAST 9 minutes where they choose, then you seem to be missing the point about personal responsibility for actions.

Those are my issues. safety & responsibility.
If you think other things are more important, then you are missing the point of a civilised society and this country is destined to inherit the worst traits of the USA.

I was not looking for a legal loop hole for the OP... merely making him/her aware that as the child was only 4, they MAY be able to appeal. The appeal certainly would get thrown out if the OP had parked in a manner that was considered to be a risk to other road users, and quite rightly so. I have highlighted the fact numerous times that my input was based on the assumption that the OP had parked responsibly.