Parking fine while picking up children

Rover_Driver

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.

Like a lot of legislation, there are exemptions - they are not 'loopholes' or 'getting away without paying', they are legitimate reasons why the legislation does not apply in certain circumstances.

iammumtoone

Lum wrote: »

Parking on the pavement is generally legal outside London.
I don't live in London, so not illegal here
Parking such that you cause an obstruction is illegal.
If the cars didn't park on pavements, then they would be causing an obstruction to the other road users, by parking on the pavements they are at least keeping the road traffic flowing
Driving into a pedestrian while parking on the pavement is illegal.
possible that could happen
Making a pedestrian have to drive out of the way dragging their child with them because you aren't looking as you park on the pavement will probably come under careless driving or similar.
Understand your point, so I assuming that any instance would have to be witnessed, rather than just a car seen parked on the pavement, this does kind of make sense as how would the authority's know that car didn't park safely

I will still write/speak to the authorities will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

Lum

Getting a bit annoyed about the complaints about assumptions tbh.

When the OP posts incomplete information, there's really two ways of handling this.

1) Offer no advice, ask further questions
2) Post one or more if ____ then you can do ____ type replies.

Tilt has chosen to do the latter, and posted that if they were parked considerately then they can claim boarding and alighting.

I still reckon that most likely the situation was more like this:



In which case Tilt's suggestion will not apply and the ticket will rightly be upheld.

DirectDebacle

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! :j

I still think it would be helpful if before offering any advice on how to appeal a ticket to know what the ticket was actually issued for.

The exemptions were hinted at in post #5. At that stage further explanation of them wasn't necessary. What was necessary was to request further details from the OP. Once sufficient detail had been obtained then appropriate advice could be given. Basic stuff but apparently not required by 'parking experts'

Quite simply nobody can give any meaningful advice to the OP on the facts that were supplied.

WTFH

Tilt wrote: »

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?

Absolutely nothing. But it has a lot to do with where the funds come from to pay for things. Is it out of some magical pot of money?

WTFH

Tilt wrote: »

If you genuinely park in contravention of the restrictions which are in force, you will most likely pay the penalty (and quite rightly so).

Woohoo! You actually agree with what I've said.
The OP admited to genuinely parking in contravention of restrictions which are in force, and you finally agree that they should pay the penalty.

Rover_Driver

WTFH wrote: »

Woohoo! You actually agree with what I've said.
The OP admited to genuinely parking in contravention of restrictions which are in force, and you finally agree that they should pay the penalty.

Only if you park in contravention of the restrictions, there are exemptions which mean you are not in contravention of them - one of which is boarding and alighting.

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

Woohoo! You actually agree with what I've said.
The OP admited to genuinely parking in contravention of restrictions which are in force, and you finally agree that they should pay the penalty.

:doh: I said 'IF'

Plus I meant that if you had no legitimate reason for parking there (i.e. the kid didn't require escorting into the school) then yes, the penalty should stand.

But we don't know for sure that was actually the case, do we. And we probably never will!

WTFH

Tilt wrote: »

:doh: I said 'IF'

Plus I meant that if you had no legitimate reason for parking there (i.e. the kid didn't require escorting into the school) then yes, the penalty should stand.

But we don't know for sure that was actually the case, do we. And we probably never will!

We do know some facts, but your friend who you "like" without reading their posts has already said that the facts don't make a difference.

We are not told if the child required escorting to school. Because the OP was talking about picking them up from school. Throughout this thread you have been arguing about taking the child from the car to the school. You've got it completely the wrong way round.
We know that for sure.
We know several other things to - such as some people on here suffer from intolerance to facts and an irrational fear of saying thanks to someone when they put up a good post.

DirectDebacle

WTFH wrote: »

Woohoo! You actually agree with what I've said.
The OP admited to genuinely parking in contravention of restrictions which are in force, and you finally agree that they should pay the penalty.

I am now going to speculate as to what, in my opinion could have happened.

The Op gave these facts:
The child is 4 and was being collected from school.
There was no obstruction
It was cold
There are parking spaces but none were available.
The vehicle was parked on a yellow lane for 9 minutes
There were packs of parking people issuing tickets.
The OP was issued with a ticket

I suspect the school has an ongoing parking problem and on that particular day a concentrated enforcement excercise had been organised. Civil enforcement agencies often request a police prescence on such excercises.

The Op readily admits to parking on a yellow line. He makes the point he he wasn't causing an obstruction. Why mention that? I think the relevance of that is the ticket was issued for unnecessary obstruction. I suspect the OP's post was to test the water and as such was deliberately vague. The Op has previously received parking ticket advice on this forum so should have had an idea of what information would be required. Stating the actual offence is crucial but was't mentioned at all.

The Op later posted that he didn't think an appeal stood much chance of success.

But of course I am only guessing so would not offer any advice.