Don’t stand for unfair parking tickets

By ticketing vehicles as soon as the period expired, the parking wardens are simply doing the job they are paid to do, efficiently and fairly. Perhaps parking wardens should be instructed to allow an extra ten minutes before issuing a parking ticket.

Banks should not put cash dispensers in places that encourage people to park illegally. The answer is either to install the cash dispensers where there is plenty of parking (e.g. supermarkets) or where there is parking specifically for use of these machines.

This is crazy I don’t agree with either of the things you have said its just crazy, you blame the banks for putting cash machines near to the road what rubbish its nothing to do with the banks where people in vehicles are going to stop! you could put them inside the banks they will still stop out side what do you suggest they put them on the roof tops of there buildings? and the traffic wardens run by councils are told to ticket almost any thing thats parked as the councils who are running these want the revenue from the fines they are told to get as many as they can that’s a fact! where I live the traffic wardens are still run by the police they are much more fair as its not about raising money for the council its about stopping those who offend parking restrictions. my girl friend got a ticket her fault but the traffic warden gave her 10 mins grace before he put the ticket on the vehicle he told her she could appeal the ticket given reasons he was not nasty he was doing his job but not over the top either being a human not a robot unlike some of the council run robots they employ and have you noticed also a lot of them don’t speak good English either makes you think why that is.

Peter’s introduction focuses on genuine unfair treatment of people, for example where signs are not clear or meters are faulty. I can relate to both of these problems.

If parking fines were always fair then appeals would always be unsuccessful, but that is certainly not the case.

How could I have been so stupid? Of course I was causing an obstruction – to anyone in a wheelchair wishing to cross the road at that point. I should have realised this if I had thought about it for a few seconds instead of feeling aggrieved. I have written to the council to withdraw my appeal and paid the (entirely justified) fine.

It’s nice that you realised. A friend of mine would have scrapped down the side of your car with his wheelchair or let your tires down just to make a point. Same for people parking to the pavement. RIP Tim

But if there’s no corresponding dropped kerb on the other side of the road, maybe you’re right to question it. As once in the road how is the wheelchair user, pram pusher or person with a walking frame expected to get back onto the pavement.

My parents have a dropped kerb outside their house and some “person” in a red car parked across it the other night. If the council had had an easily accessible reporting system she was hoping to get it ticketed but gave up after 5 mins being passed from one automated menu to another.

Sarah, I think you should at least request the deletion of all the photographs since, if you have accepted the penalty charge and paid it, there is no further need for the council to retain the photographs. I think the number of photos is also grossly excessive; they demonstrate the paranoid mentality of parking enforcement. I don’t actually rhink any photos are required at all in that situation. The parking enforcement officer’s notes and hand-held computer should clearly identify the date, time and location of the contravention, the make and colour of the vehicle, the vehicle registration mark, whether or not a valid permit was displayed, and [additionally but not relevant in your case] the tyre inflation valve positions. That is more than enough evidence to stand up a parking ticket. As a matter of interest, did any of the photographs show clearly which road your car was parked in and the property it was outside? If not they are useless from an evidential point of view since the vehicle could have been somewhere else. The trend towards photographing everything is obviously driven by the facility of digital photography and the apparent ease by which images can be stored and transferred to various databases. Once pictures have been taken the enforcement mentality refuses to see that any of them might be redundant so they all get filed away regardless. How do you know that they will not be used again for some other purpose unconnected with parking enforcement, or for some future parking issue; the parking enforcement database cross-references all tickets issued to every vehicle and the digital images can be called up at any time. They can even be transferred between different authorities. If you buy a used car that has accumulated parking tickets, they will be recorded in the enforcement history of the issuing authority and, although the PCN is enforced against the current registered keeper or the driver [not the vehicle], it is not helpful in the event of a future contravention to have so much evidence in the background which could – where the mentality is conducive – influence the attitude of the officer dealing with recovery of the fine. I should be interested to see how you get on if you do request deletion of the photos.

When parking enforcement was decriminalised about twenty years ago it was seen as a civil function administered by council workers [or contractors] according to sensible codes of practice with an effective appeal process and a democratic process for determining where parking restrictions should be imposed. Two adverse things have happened: first, councils have extended parking controls way beyond the realms and control-times of what were justified largely as a means of raising revenue; and second, the on-street enforcement regime has adopted a para-military style with aggressive enforcement and virtually no tolerance in a way that the former police style of enforcement never displayed. Naturally, the revenue-raising imperative emanating from councillors has permeated into the enforcement operations characterising the behaviour, demeanour and attitudes of the enforcement officers. Under the local authority-run system “offences” became “contraventions” and “fines” became “penalty charges” but the language no longer matches the actions.

Ian, if that was the only machine in the car park then your wife could not possibly pay so I cannot see how she could possibly lose contesting a parking penalty. I’d suggest each person affected sends in the same letter and photograph. If the penaly issuer pursues the matter then tell them you will counter claim for harassment and charge for time spent in dealing with the issue. Good luck.