Gants Hill residents fed up of ‘stupid’ fines for cars parked on drives

andygb

jack_pott wrote: »

My neighbour has parking space for four cars, but still parks her car with the front half blocking the shared drive, and the back half blocking the pavement.

Could you walk into the car, and fall over and injure yourself?;)
I reckon there is a potential "where there's blame, there's a claim" situation.

Hong_Kong_Phooey.

Stoke wrote: »

Not necessarily. Owning one large people carrier might be necessary for a family with 4 kids, but might be too large for the drive.

I don't see many people carriers.

RickRastardly

Right, I agree the cars are parked technically parked illegally, but from the picture they don't appear to be obstructing any significant portion of what is quite a large pavement. To me this is enforcing the word of the law rather than the spirit of the law.
Also if its taken for granted that the Council doesn't enforce this rule for decades people will naturally buy larger cars, to suddenly start enforcing it out of the blue without warning when people already own these oversized cars is a little unfair.

Hong_Kong_Phooey.

RickRastardly wrote: »

Right, I agree the cars are parked technically parked illegally, but from the picture they don't appear to be obstructing any significant portion of what is quite a large pavement. To me this is enforcing the word of the law rather than the spirit of the law.
Also if its taken for granted that the Council doesn't enforce this rule for decades people will naturally buy larger cars, to suddenly start enforcing it out of the blue without warning when people already own these oversized cars is a little unfair.

There's no technically about it, they're causing an obstruction. Half of the flat area of footpath is blocked.

Aylesbury_Duck

RickRastardly wrote: »

Right, I agree the cars are parked technically parked illegally, but from the picture they don't appear to be obstructing any significant portion of what is quite a large pavement. To me this is enforcing the word of the law rather than the spirit of the law.
Also if its taken for granted that the Council doesn't enforce this rule for decades people will naturally buy larger cars, to suddenly start enforcing it out of the blue without warning when people already own these oversized cars is a little unfair.

And there you have the crux of the problem.

Stoke

Hong_Kong_Phooey. wrote: »

I don't see many people carriers.

That tiny little red car is evidently parked properly and still over hanging, just.

Totally proves my point about the size increase in cars

Hong_Kong_Phooey.

Stoke wrote: »

That tiny little red car is evidently parked properly and still over hanging, just.

Totally proves my point about the size increase in cars

It debatable whether it is overhanging.

What is clear is that the properties aren't suitable for car to be parked there the way they are.

Aylesbury_Duck

Stoke wrote: »

That tiny little red car is evidently parked properly and still over hanging, just.

Totally proves my point about the size increase in cars

It does. It also proves the point that it is possible to buy a five door car that doesn't overhang the path to the extent that many of the other cars shown do. I'd be surprised if the red car was ticketed when parked like that. At least four of the others in that picture are fully deserving of a fine. I'm amazed that the residents concerned thought they had any defence.

Stoke

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

It does. It also proves the point that it is possible to buy a five door car that doesn't overhang the path to the extent that many of the other cars shown do. I'd be surprised if the red car was ticketed when parked like that. At least four of the others in that picture are fully deserving of a fine. I'm amazed that the residents concerned thought they had any defence.

What happens if you need a bigger car than the red one?

trinidadone

Hello Stoke, still going strong i see, thought I would pop in and say hello!!