Parking fine while picking up children

Rover_Driver

DirectDebacle wrote: »

You don't know who issued the ticket or even why it was issued. I was merely speculating as are you.

Look at the facts in Post#1. Post according to what you are presented with not what you would expect to be presented with.

Read the last line of Post#335
Then try to post something useful.

That is the problem, there is so much misinformation given in this thread - having to be near or not far from the vehicle, the time taken to escort etc, that it is difficult to give accurate advice without knowing the full facts, so it has to be general advice covering that sort of situation. Hence the 'ifs' and 'maybes'.

Paradigm

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Look at the facts in Post#1. Post according to what you are presented with not what you would expect to be presented with.

Strangely, I did just that in post #244 but it seemed to sail straight over some posters heads :cool:

Am I the only person who thinks that it's time to get this particular thread closed?

Nah, I'm sure we can get to 500 replies

mgdavid

Tilt wrote: »

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.

Then everything you said afterwards was either wrong or irrelevant (quite possibly both) as it is obvious from the OP's post that they did not park responsibly. It is not demonstrating responsibility to illegally park a car in the process of delivering little Johnny to school just because it was c c c cold.

Paradigm

mgdavid wrote: »

Then everything you said afterwards was either wrong or irrelevant (quite possibly both) as it is obvious from the OP's post that they did not park responsibly. It is not demonstrating responsibility to illegally park a car in the process of delivering little Johnny to school just because it was c c c cold.

That's another one missing/not reading the OPs question :huh:

Tilt

mgdavid wrote: »

Then everything you said afterwards was either wrong or irrelevant (quite possibly both) as it is obvious from the OP's post that they did not park responsibly. It is not demonstrating responsibility to illegally park a car in the process of delivering little Johnny to school just because it was c c c cold.

<SIGH> Not another one! :doh:

Go on, please tell me how you know it was obvious!

WTFH

Tilt, you're still avoiding answering the simple question of who pays for PATAS. Rather than digging a bigger hole for yourself, why not answer that one.

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

Tilt, you're still avoiding answering the simple question of who pays for PATAS. Rather than digging a bigger hole for yourself, why not answer that one.

ME DIGGING A BIGGER HOLE FOR MYSELF???

Your'e the one who must be in Australia by now!! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Before I mentioned PATAS, i bet you didn't even knew it existed! So what do you want to know...?

OK, PATAS is an independent adjudications service which deals with penalties issued within London. It is funded by the government under the RTA 1991 (so in other words, the tax payer... you know, you and me and a few others).

Do you want to know about PCNs issued outside London or would you rather Google it?

WTFH

I've known Australia existed for years, but what has that got to do with the taxes I pay?

So, you admit that your ifs, maybes and appeals cost taxpayers, and you think it's a good way to spend money, having to pay for cases regarding people who park on yellow lines because it's cold?

(Insert multiple smilies here, if you feel that they add depth or integrity to your debating skills)

DirectDebacle

Then everything you said afterwards was either wrong or irrelevant (quite possibly both) as it is obvious from the OP's post that they did not park responsibly. It is not demonstrating responsibility to illegally park a car in the process of delivering little Johnny to school just because it was c c c cold.

Tilt wrote: »

<SIGH> Not another one! :doh:

Go on, please tell me how you know it was obvious!

Probably for similar reasons as the alleged parking experts think it obvious that the ticket was issued by a CEO for a yellow line infringement and should appeal on the grounds of assisted alighting.

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

I've known Australia existed for years, but what has that got to do with the taxes I pay?

So, you admit that your ifs, maybes and appeals cost taxpayers, and you think it's a good way to spend money, having to pay for cases regarding people who park on yellow lines because it's cold?

(Insert multiple smilies here, if you feel that they add depth or integrity to your debating skills)

I'm admitting nothing as it wasn't me asking the original question. Look at it this way, had the OP gone to CAB and asked the same question, do you not think they would of explained what options were available? Do you think that they would of advised to simply roll over and pay?

Bottom line is that the adjudicator is there whether the OP appeals or not so the cost of the service would be irrelevant. And you seem to be under the delusion that the OP will definitely succeed and get away without paying the penalty!

This is the part you don't seem to understand; IF the OP appeals under the boarding and alighting exemptions and the appeal is successful, then the adjudicator must be satisfied that the OP 'qualified' for being exempt from being issued a PCN so they were not in contravention of the restriction in the first place!

Do you think that the adjudicators are easily duped or something... is that's what is worrying you?

Everyone is entitled to appeal a PCN (even those who have flouted the rules). But it dosn't necessarily follow they will succeed and get off scott-free!

Again, I gave the correct information to the OP and I stand by it.