PCNs and Bailiffs

AdrianC

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I can see you are arguing 'for the Council side

No, I'm not arguing for either side.

but the fact is, if the Traffic Order creates an exemption it is a valid appeal point which would win at adjudication.

So, iyho, it's perfectly OK for somebody to claim their vehicle has "broken down" and leave it in a resident's-only space indefinitely, with absolutely no sanction available against the driver or keeper?

Coupon-mad

No and that's not what we argue here or on pepipoo. We don't support inconsiderate parking but we do know what is allowed, not allowed, or will check a traffic order to help a person appeal an unfair ticket.

takman

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Exempt activity if pre-ordered & paid for...what is the problem? It's not about drivers being lazy - THEY CAN stop there to load pre-ordered/paid goods.

If the Council want to ban stopping they can, by adding kerb blips. Simple. But maybe the Council is being lazy...

Double yellows (no kerb blips) are NOT a complete ban: NOT ''no parking''. If people could just get that in their heads and not get irate about normal loading/unloading exempt stopping it would be easier.

It is about being lazy!. Choosing to park right outside the Chinese restaurant when it causes congestion instead of walking 20m is inconsiderate parking.
It doesn't matter if they are allowed to do it or not. Just like people who park on the curb and block it completely because they want to park as close as possible. It may be allowed but it is still inconsiderate parking.

Coupon-mad

takman wrote: »

It is about being lazy!. Choosing to park right outside the Chinese restaurant when it causes congestion instead of walking 20m is inconsiderate parking.
It doesn't matter if they are allowed to do it or not. Just like people who park on the curb and block it completely because they want to park as close as possible. It may be allowed but it is still inconsiderate parking.

So the remedy is to ask the Council to consider changing the Order to make it a no stopping/loading ban.

One wonders why they made it ''just'' double yellows. Loading is OK, they know that, so someone made that decision.

The drivers are not at fault.

takman

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So the remedy is to ask the Council to consider changing the Order to make it a no stopping/loading ban.

One wonders why they made it ''just'' double yellows. Loading is OK, they know that, so someone made that decision.

The drivers are not at fault.

What a inconsiderate way of thinking, so just because your allowed to do something means that it can't be inconsiderate and your not at fault?.


Another good example is parking behind vechicles adapated for wheelchairs. Sometimes people park too close behind them so the person can't get the ramp out the back to load their wheelchair.
So if you had parked too close behind a vehicle like this would your attitude be "I'm legally allowed to park here and i don't have to leave a big gap so im not in the wrong".


Just because your not breaking any rules doesn't mean your not inconsiderate and in the wrong!.

Coupon-mad

But such cars have polite notices asking to be left wheelchair room - and most drivers adhere to polite instructions. We don't support inconsiderate parking, that's not what we or pepipoo do.

I've also not seen hordes of people parking overnight on DYL and if they did, they deserve a PCN. We aren't rogue parkers on this board you know, nor on pepipoo. We just know that thousands of PCNs are issued when they are not warranted (it is a fact) and often because the private firms like NSL have 'targets' and expectations on PCN issue numbers.

If parking management - private or Council - worked well and the rules were clear and the Council ticketers knew what the exemptions were in the average Traffic Order (but sadly they don't) PCN numbers should go down. But they don't go down. And still pepipoo help people win over 90% of cases. And not on a loophole, it's because ultimately, the adjudicators (who do check the TR Order) are agreeing with the driver appellant.

Not sure why anyone would think this makes the driver in the wrong. To my mind it makes the Council and their contractors in the wrong for issuing half-baked PCNs for exempt activity because they hope the victim doesn't realise they are likely to win on appeal. And the Council are in the wrong for employing private firms to turn down first appeals with no consideration of the Traffic Order, facts, mitigating circumstances or using any discretion at all as set out in the Council Enforcement Policy which the private firm goons have no doubt never read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/councils-rejecting-parking-appeals-hand-without-reading-watchdog/

Some of you need to take off those rose coloured specs and stop getting aerated about people stopping where they are perfectly entitled to load. If people would just understand that double yellows are NOT a blanket ban on stopping, you might just calm down a bit about it when you see someone parking that way to load/unload/collect something or someone. They are allowed to, it is fine, relax and realise what is and is not OK on double yellows. Disabled drivers could stop there for 3 hours you know, so it can't be an obstructive place to stop or it would be signed differently as a loading ban with kerb blips.

If it wasn't OK to temporarily park like that, the burden lies with the Council to change the Order & restriction.