Parking fine while picking up children

Lum

If you complain to the council you will get double yellows down one side of the road :P

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It does help to know a subject before arguing about it. Maybe you could try that in the future.

I was thinking exactly the same thing, funnily enough! :rotfl:

Thing is, you have now established that boarding and alighting exemptions do exist (I very much doubt that you knew this in the beginning of the thread) .

Your problem seems to be that you cannot understand that the OP could possibly appeal using boarding and alighting exemptions due to the age of the child.

Try arguing the same case on pepipoo and see how long you last on there. :rotfl:

I think you will find them more knowledgeable on there and more entertaining!

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

I was thinking exactly the same thing, funnily enough! :rotfl:

Thing is, you have now established that boarding and alighting exemptions do exist (I very much doubt that you knew this in the beginning of the thread) .

Your problem seems to be that you cannot understand that the OP could possibly appeal using boarding and alighting exemptions due to the age of the child.

Try arguing the same case on pepipoo and see how long you last on there. :rotfl:

I think you will find them more knowledgeable on there and more entertaining!

I take it you don't go on there then??




I think you will find that most people do know about the boarding and alighting exemption. But most people understand what it exists for, and don't try to use it as a loophole.

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I take it you don't go on there then??

Don't need to as I don't get any parking tickets! :rotfl:

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I think you will find that most people do know about the boarding and alighting exemption. But most people understand what it exists for, and don't try to use it as a loophole.

Most do but I doubt that you did. And for the umpteenth time, I didn't use it as a loop hole!!!

I simply made the OP aware that he/she MAY have grounds to appeal their PCN by using boarding and alighting exemptions due to the age of the child.

BANG BANG, CHISEL CHISEL

Lum

This is one thing I don't get about the motoring forum.

MSE is all about using loopholes to save money, whether it's things like credit card stoozing, exploits in the old gambling subforum, obscure ways to combine coupons to make a profit.

Using boarding and alighting exemptions to avoid paying for parking is totally within scope for this forum.

That said, I still reckon that on the balance of probabilities the OP was most likely parked in a terrible way, and it's fine to berate them for that, but it doesn't seem right to berate someone for posting ways of avoiding having to pay the ticket.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

Don't need to as I don't get any parking tickets! :rotfl:



Most do but I doubt that you did. And for the umpteenth time, I didn't use it as a loop hole!!!

I simply made the OP aware that he/she MAY have grounds to appeal their PCN by using boarding and alighting exemptions due to the age of the child.

BANG BANG, CHISEL CHISEL

Are you going to continue this, as it is getting extremely boring now withal your personal attacks?


Yes I did know about the exemption. The difference is that I know how it is designed to work.


Next time make sure you know what you are talking about, rather than just knowing that something exists, without actually understanding it. Obviously you are entitled to express your opinion, but don't argue that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, unless you actually understand the subject.... or do you just get a kick out of pointless arguing??

Tilt

Lum wrote: »

This is one thing I don't get about the motoring forum.

MSE is all about using loopholes to save money, whether it's things like credit card stoozing, exploits in the old gambling subforum, obscure ways to combine coupons to make a profit.

Using boarding and alighting exemptions to avoid paying for parking is totally within scope for this forum.

That said, I still reckon that on the balance of probabilities the OP was most likely parked in a terrible way, and it's fine to berate them for that, but it doesn't seem right to berate someone for posting ways of avoiding having to pay the ticket.

Precisely! And you may well be right about the OP too. If he/she had parked in a "terrible way" and had painted the wrong impression of their circumstances (i'm pretty sure i've covered this previously as well), then their appeal should fail.

When I gave them the answer to their original question, I did hint that there would be certain criteria involved to qualify for the exemptions (using the terms; "providing that..." and "assuming that...").

So by no means was I searching for a loop hole for them.

Nice to see that there are some reasonable thinking people on this thread!! :T

Rover_Driver

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I think you will find that most people do know about the boarding and alighting exemption. But most people understand what it exists for, and don't try to use it as a loophole.

They may know there are exemptions - exemptions are not loopholes, but it seems from lots of posts in this thread that some don't understand the exemptions.

Many pointless posts in this thread, including those discussing the time away from the vehicle - there is no time limit, and others about being able to quickly move the vehicle if needed - that is not a waiting and loading matter, it is obstruction.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

This is one thing I don't get about the motoring forum.

MSE is all about using loopholes to save money, whether it's things like credit card stoozing, exploits in the old gambling subforum, obscure ways to combine coupons to make a profit.

Using boarding and alighting exemptions to avoid paying for parking is totally within scope for this forum.

That said, I still reckon that on the balance of probabilities the OP was most likely parked in a terrible way, and it's fine to berate them for that, but it doesn't seem right to berate someone for posting ways of avoiding having to pay the ticket.

I can't agree with that, because it is encouraging people to try and stretch the loopholes, rather than just complying with parking regulations.


Remember, most parking restrictions are there for safety, access, or traffic flow. And despite what some people like to think, they are not there just to raise revenue. So if a forum advises people on how to get out of paying parking fines, then the result will just be more inconsiderate parking.

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Are you going to continue this, as it is getting extremely boring now withal your personal attacks?


Yes I did know about the exemption. The difference is that I know how it is designed to work.


Next time make sure you know what you are talking about, rather than just knowing that something exists, without actually understanding it. Obviously you are entitled to express your opinion, but don't argue that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, unless you actually understand the subject.... or do you just get a kick out of pointless arguing??

But oh great one, not "everyone else" WAS wrong... just you and a few others.

I get a kick out of correcting someone who got their facts wrong. You started on me by saying I gave "bad advice" when I didn't. You accused me of suggesting the OP lied when I did no such thing. You accused me of searching for a loop hole to get an 'offender' off a penalty when I didn't.

You wanna play hard ball, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!