Parking fine while picking up children

WTFH

Lum wrote: »

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

MSE is all about using loopholes to save money,

To me, MSE is about saving money.
You don't need to use loopholes to save money, nor do you have to inconvenience others.
The old saying was "prevention is better than cure" is still true. Learning how to avoid getting into a situation, than learning how to wriggle out of it.

The problem with loophole solutions is that the more people use them, the more they get closed down. If you make a mistake, learn from it, but there are some on here who deliberately promote ways to avoid paying fines where it is then at the detriment of other people.
e.g. if a shop provides free parking for 2 hours for their customers, there are some on here who will tell you how you can park there, not go near the shop and get away without penalty.
Now, that shop has to pay for the carpark and the maintenance of it, yet because they are a business, then some see them as fair game, and who cares if their customers can't park there.

It's things like that which should NOT be what this forum is about. You want to save money? Find a safe, legal, responsible way of doing it. You want cheap and cut corners? Enjoy your horseburgers.

My signature is not meant as a joke, it's meant as advice. If your shop was struggling because MSE posters advised people to park there and avoid the shop, how would you feel?

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

There's a surprise!

Yet, Yet, Yet, yet and yet again I DID NOT OFFER THE OP A LOOPHOLE.

I MADE THEM AWARE OF THE BOARDING AND ALIGHTING EXEMPTIONS WHICH THEY MAY USE TO APPEAL THE PCN

Can you see it now?

The adjudicator will decide whether the OP should pay the parking fine or not. The adjudicator will decide whether the OP was entitled to use the boarding and alighting exemptions or not. THERE IS NO LOOP HOLE!!!

Is it big enough for you to understand how it works now??

Jamie_Carter

Rover_Driver wrote: »

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.

I know you believe that you have superior knowledge, but I'm sorry to tell you that you don't.


As you say, there is no specified time limit (although there may be locally). However that does not mean that you can take as long as you want. Don't assume that the adjudicator won't be intelligent enough to work out how long it would actually take to escort a vulnerable person. They will be used to people trying to appeal against parking tickets claiming all sorts of exemptions. So they will know every trick in the book. So trying to suggest that there is no time limit is simply ridiculous.

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

To me, MSE is about saving money.
You don't need to use loopholes to save money, nor do you have to inconvenience others.
The old saying was "prevention is better than cure" is still true. Learning how to avoid getting into a situation, than learning how to wriggle out of it.

The problem with loophole solutions is that the more people use them, the more they get closed down. If you make a mistake, learn from it, but there are some on here who deliberately promote ways to avoid paying fines where it is then at the detriment of other people.
e.g. if a shop provides free parking for 2 hours for their customers, there are some on here who will tell you how you can park there, not go near the shop and get away without penalty.
Now, that shop has to pay for the carpark and the maintenance of it, yet because they are a business, then some see them as fair game, and who cares if their customers can't park there.

It's things like that which should NOT be what this forum is about. You want to save money? Find a safe, legal, responsible way of doing it. You want cheap and cut corners? Enjoy your horseburgers.

My signature is not meant as a joke, it's meant as advice. If your shop was struggling because MSE posters advised people to park there and avoid the shop, how would you feel?

In a round about way, that makes a lot of sense.

BUT guess what... there is no loop hole. We have an appeal system in which all the information of the OP's parking circumstances will be looked into by PATAS (should they take it that far).

PATAS will decide whether the OP should pay the PCN (which by then would be the full amount) or not. There are no loop holes... if the adjudicator considers that the child was in no danger of walking into the school from the car then he will rule in favour of the CEO's decision and the PCN will stand.

No loop hole at all. Just a route of appeal which is everyone's right.

Jamie_Carter

WTFH wrote: »

To me, MSE is about saving money.
You don't need to use loopholes to save money, nor do you have to inconvenience others.
The old saying was "prevention is better than cure" is still true. Learning how to avoid getting into a situation, than learning how to wriggle out of it.

The problem with loophole solutions is that the more people use them, the more they get closed down. If you make a mistake, learn from it, but there are some on here who deliberately promote ways to avoid paying fines where it is then at the detriment of other people.
e.g. if a shop provides free parking for 2 hours for their customers, there are some on here who will tell you how you can park there, not go near the shop and get away without penalty.
Now, that shop has to pay for the carpark and the maintenance of it, yet because they are a business, then some see them as fair game, and who cares if their customers can't park there.

It's things like that which should NOT be what this forum is about. You want to save money? Find a safe, legal, responsible way of doing it. You want cheap and cut corners? Enjoy your horseburgers.

My signature is not meant as a joke, it's meant as advice. If your shop was struggling because MSE posters advised people to park there and avoid the shop, how would you feel?

Excellent post, which sums it up completely.

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Excellent post, which sums it up completely.

Apart from the fact there are no loop holes. The system we have in place is adequate enough because ultimately we have PATAS! :j

Rover_Driver

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

As you say, there is no specified time limit (although there may be locally). However that does not mean that you can take as long as you want. Don't assume that the adjudicator won't be intelligent enough to work out how long it would actually take to escort a vulnerable person. They will be used to people trying to appeal against parking tickets claiming all sorts of exemptions. So they will know every trick in the book. So trying to suggest that there is no time limit is simply ridiculous.

There is no fixed time limit as each case would depend on the particular circumstances, that is why I have said that it takes as long as it takes, and as long as it is in that timescale, it is covered by the exemption.

WTFH

Tilt wrote: »

Apart from the fact there are no loop holes. The system we have in place is adequate enough because ultimately we have PATAS!

Who pays for PATAS?

Whether you call it a "loop hole" or "getting away without paying", or whatever, it still amounts to the same thing - trying to avoid being a responsible citizen.

Jamie_Carter

Rover_Driver wrote: »

There is no fixed time limit as each case would depend on the particular circumstances, that is why I have said that it takes as long as it takes, and as long as it is in that timescale, it is covered by the exemption.

Ok, you try that one, and see where it gets you.

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

Who pays for PATAS?

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?

WTFH wrote: »

Whether you call it a "loop hole" or "getting away without paying", or whatever, it still amounts to the same thing - trying to avoid being a responsible citizen.

Oh dear, there was me thinking you were beginning to get it.

"Trying to be a responsible citizen" eh? Ok, let's put it this way... assuming you are saying that (in your opinion) the OP wasn't being a "responsible citizen" because of the way he/she parked, then if and when they appeal, the nice adjudicator man (or woman) will no doubt find them out!

Believe it or not, PATAS can work both ways... they can favour the penalty (if correctly administered) or they can favour the poor old er,,, sorry, irresponsible motorist.

Either way, they will investigate the information presented by both sides and will come to a decision based on current legislation.

Its as simple as that really. No loop holes needed here! If you genuinely park in contravention of the restrictions which are in force, you will most likely pay the penalty (and quite rightly so).