Parking fine while picking up children

DirectDebacle

If the CAB were presented with the same facts that the OP gave here then they would ask for a bit more information before giving any advice. You know, things like like 'what offence is alleged to have been committed?'

Hopefully they wouldn't have adopted your blinkered approach.

Lum

Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of asking for more info as the OP is banned.

All we can do is post a series of "If X then Y" type answers.

Tilt has gone for:

If you were parked otherwise reasonably and without causing any sort of obstruction and you took your child directly to the drop off point and then immediately returned to your car then you can appeal under boarding&alighting.

Most others have gone for something like:

If you were parked at 45 degrees to the curb, blocking the road and causing a danger to children, nuns and kittens, and were standing for half an hour in the school grounds having a fag and a natter then pay the bloody ticket and stop parking like that.

Both responses are valid.

Tilt

DirectDebacle wrote: »

If the CAB were presented with the same facts that the OP gave here then they would ask for a bit more information before giving any advice. You know, things like like 'what offence is alleged to have been committed?'

Hopefully they wouldn't have adopted your blinkered approach.

I haven't got a "blinkered approach". I am totally open minded and devoid of making a firm judgement on the information available. I merely made the OP aware of the exemptions but equally aware that they were subject to certain criteria.

Yet again, you are totally lost in the realism of this thread in that you believe the OP has no right of appealing a PCN which may (or may not) of been issued inappropriately.

Only an adjudicator will be able to assess all the facts which we havn't got and decide (hopefully without a blinkered view) if the OP's circumstances qualified under boarding and alighting exemptions. :whistle:

DirectDebacle

Tilt wrote: »

I haven't got a "blinkered approach". I am totally open minded and devoid of making a firm judgement on the information available. I merely made the OP aware of the exemptions but equally aware that they were subject to certain criteria.

Yet again, you are totally lost in the realism of this thread in that you believe the OP has no right of appealing a PCN which may (or may not) of been issued inappropriately.

Only an adjudicator will be able to assess all the facts which we havn't got and decide (hopefully without a blinkered view) if the OP's circumstances qualified under boarding and alighting exemptions. :whistle:

The reality is we don't know if it was a PCN or an FPN or for what offence a ticket was issued. Because I am not blinkered I have expressed no opinion on the OP's right of appeal other than more information is needed before appropriate advice could be given. However I am willing to stand corrected if you can find the posts that support your perception of what I believe.


In actual fact I do not dispute that your advice in respect of alighting exemptions per se is correct. You just gave it prematurely. Without knowing what offence the ticket had been issued for you had no idea whether the advice you gave was relevant. Rather than jump in with both feet, in your eagerness to show off your parking law knowledge, it would have been better to ask the OP a few questions. You chose not to and the opportunity was subsequently lost.

mgdavid

Tilt wrote: »

I haven't got a "blinkered approach". I am totally open minded and devoid of making a firm judgement on the information available. I merely made the OP aware of the exemptions but equally aware that they were subject to certain criteria.

Yet again, you are totally lost in the realism of this thread in that you believe the OP has no right of appealing a PCN which may (or may not) of been issued inappropriately.

Only an adjudicator will be able to assess all the facts which we havn't got and decide (hopefully without a blinkered view) if the OP's circumstances qualified under boarding and alighting exemptions. :whistle:

talk rubbish if you wish - but perleeeeze get the grammar right

Tilt

mgdavid wrote: »

talk rubbish if you wish - but perleeeeze get the grammar right

If your'e also going to jump on the 'attack' band wagon and be pedantic, at least have the courtesy to point out what "rubbish" your'e referring to. :huh:

WTFH

Was the OP banned because they were actually a sock puppet of one of the other posters on here?
If so, it's a shame that coward refuses to give any more facts.

DirectDebacle

I doubt the original post was a set up by the parking experts. They would have made sure it was something they were competent to deal with.

WTFH

DirectDebacle wrote: »

I doubt the original post was a set up by the parking experts. They would have made sure it was something they were competent to deal with.

So, IF it wasn't by a parking expert, then MAYBE it is someone who thinks they are one, but are not competent to deal with it.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

(smilies are exempt in this post as I am feeling quite vulnerable this morning due to a Christmas party last night)

adouglasmhor

Tilt wrote: »

If your'e also going to jump on the 'attack' band wagon and be pedantic, at least have the courtesy to point out what "rubbish" your'e referring to. :huh:

Your continued and incorrect use of "of" instead of "have or " 've".

"Of" refers to a relationship, Robin of Sherwood, Seven of Nine, Hair of the dog, etc.