# Parking ticket in Westminster



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Got a parking ticket on my car but the ticket has one letter wrong in the registration recorded. It was on a single yellow line on Saturday morning. I thought it was free on the weekend but apparently it is only free in the evenings and on Sundays.

I went online to pay and even there the registration is wrong by one letter. I thought that they always take a picture as evidence?

I guess I should not be paying this because when I went to pay it, the web site asked me if all the details were correct but obviously they are not and I am not going to be paying this.

Any ideas?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Fuc 'em


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

I'd just leave it.


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

car is not the one that was parked there :wink: (if number plate is different) then unless photo taken

Smile on fortune (and pay in future) 8)


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Well, you leave it and then some other poor sod (who wasn't parked illegally like you) starts getting all the hassle for it. Okay, ultimately after months of wrangling and exchanges of letters, they won't have to pay the fine. But then, why should they go through months of agro and the expense of getting it sorted because you haven't got the decency to be honest?

And yes, they almost certainly have taken a picture which in the course of the disputes with the poor innocent person will be checked, so this is going to come and bite you in the arse anyway.

Yes, the parking fine industry is a licence to print money. And yes, tickets are dished out with a zealous fervour that is hardly warranted. Yes, in general, the way they operate is pretty much out of order. However, I'm presuming you were parking outside the rules and that the ticket was, in all other respects, correctly issued. Well, you took your chances and the fine is the predictable result. Whatever errors were made on the ticket, it is your fine, not somebody else's.

If it was me I'd just pay the fine and send a note with it pointing out their records are wrong. However, if you are one of these people who mistakenly think it is your democratic duty to challenge simple administrative errors in order to evade just penalties with the excuse that you are 'forcing them to do their job better' then you should at least write to them, tell them that it was your car the ticket was put on but that their records are incorrect and then attempt to dispute the ticket on those grounds. Just ignoring it in the knowledge that someone completely unconnected is going to get a load of grief because of your dishonesty would be well out of order.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark... you OF ALL PEOPLE should not be using the "f" word in relation to a parking offence.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

OK does anyone knows if I can verify if this registration actually exists?

Is there any place I can type the registration and see if it is allocated to someone?

Mark Davies, they should employ more intelligent people that understand the English alphabet...there are only 26 letters in it so you don't need to have a PhD to remember them all! If this fails they must have their sight checked so at least they can copy exactly what they read without the knowledge of the English alphabet.


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

http://www.cardatachecks.co.uk/

type in the number plate in the free bit - it tells you what car it belongs too.

Andy


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> However, I'm presuming you were parking outside the rules and that the ticket was, in all other respects, correctly issued. Well, you took your chances and the fine is the predictable result. Whatever errors were made on the ticket, it is your fine, not somebody else's.


But the ticket was not correctly issued. Unless proved otherwise, the ticket was issued to a vehicle that has a different registration plate to Vlastan's. Possibly someone was parked illegally, with a number plate very similar to Vlastan's, and they received a ticket. Then noticing the similarity to Vlastan's registration, they placed the ticket on his windscreen and assumed he would not notice the difference and pay up.

Vlastan should at least challenge the ticket and ask for photographic evidence. He thought it was free at the time, maybe it was? It would be wrong of him to just roll over and accept the fine without the ticket issuer proving it was his vehicle. Would he be committing an offence if he paid a parking fine for a vehicle that did not belong to him? It is the registered keeper of the vehicle who is liable for the fine, in this case it would appear Vlastan is not the registered keeper of the vehicle identified on the ticket.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Thanks DXN,

The car that will get chased is:
Vehicle Registration MarkRO56*** MakeHONDAModelCIVIC SE I-CTDITransmission & fuel typeMANUAL 6 GEARS DIESELBody Type5 DOOR HATCHBACKColourSILVER

I think I must ring them especially if they have photographic evidence.

Do they normally locate you by your car registration and they keep chasing you for parking tickets?


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Should it be referred to as a 'penalty'? If you like. No more 'F word'.

We've had these arguments about clerical errors before. Human beings make mistakes - it happens. It's got nothing to do with needing a PhD or anything else. Show me someone who claims never to have made an error and I'll show you a liar. The fact that people are fallible is no great revelation nor is it some great failing of the democratic process. Fine, it may give someone grounds to avoid paying a parking ticket and if they can avoid the penalty then so be it. As I've said before, since the 'de-criminalisation' of parking offences, which turned it into a money-making industry in the hands of private companies as opposed to a regulatory tool in the hands of police, the enforcement of parking has been a disgrace. I'm not making the same arguments about parking _penalties _as I've previously made regarding speeding offences.

My post was in response to those who suggested just ignoring it. That would inevitably mean that whoever owned the car whose registration was on the ticket would end up getting hassled over it. That is just plain ignorant and irrisponsible. It's saying, "Ah, I'm alright - f*ck anyone else!".

I would hope that was out of order in anyone's books.

So, vlastan - yes, of course they will have access to details of the owner of the car and will chase them up - even though they were never anywhere near Westminster. I'm sure you'll do the responsible thing and get in touch and save them the trouble.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

scavenger said:


> But the ticket was not correctly issued. Unless proved otherwise, the ticket was issued to a vehicle that has a different registration plate to Vlastan's. Possibly someone was parked illegally, with a number plate very similar to Vlastan's, and they received a ticket. Then noticing the similarity to Vlastan's registration, they placed the ticket on his windscreen and assumed he would not notice the difference and pay up.
> 
> Vlastan should at least challenge the ticket and ask for photographic evidence. He thought it was free at the time, maybe it was? It would be wrong of him to just roll over and accept the fine without the ticket issuer proving it was his vehicle. Would he be committing an offence if he paid a parking fine for a vehicle that did not belong to him? It is the registered keeper of the vehicle who is liable for the fine, in this case it would appear Vlastan is not the registered keeper of the vehicle identified on the ticket.


What a load of utter shite! I'm sure Vlastan knows whether his car was illegally parked or not. The double yellow lines and that sort of thing are usually a bit of a give-away. If it was illegally parked then it was illegally parked - full stop.

This attitude that you are in fact _actually_ innocent of an offence that you know you committed unless someone can prove that you did commit it is morally deficient in the extreme. We all know damn well it wasn't issued to another car with an almost identical registration that by a miracle of impossible odds just happened to be parked nearby and that in a moment of quite unbelievable clumsiness the traffic warden completely missed the windscreen he was trying to put the ticket on and instead, as chance would have it, put it on the car with that increadibly coincidentally similar registration. We all know that Vlastan's car was, in all liklihood, illegally parked and the issuing of a ticket was down to him and nobody else.

Okay, there was a minor error and Vlastan may be lucky in that error enabling him to save paying the penalty, but to actually suggest he would be *wrong* to pay it is plain ridiculous!

So, according to some amongst us you are innocent of any crime you can manage to get away with. We're f*cked then, aren't we? Sometimes the twisted and corrupt morals of the self-proclaimed 'law-abiding' sections of our society sicken me.


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

DXN said:


> http://www.cardatachecks.co.uk/
> 
> type in the number plate in the free bit - it tells you what car it belongs too.
> 
> Andy


Bugger, my ultimate plate belongs to some old geezer with a subaru legacy automatic :x


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> What a load of utter shite! I'm sure Vlastan knows whether his car was illegally parked or not. The double yellow lines and that sort of thing are usually a bit of a give-away. If it was illegally parked then it was illegally parked - full stop.


It was actually a single yellow line and it was weekend. I walked up and down the road but there was no sign describing what restrictions apply to this stretch or road. The only way to find out was:

a. ask a local resident
b. visit the westminster web site that has parking information

I did not just "parked" anywhere I liked but the valuable information normally found on signs was missing, as there were no signs around at all!!!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Vlastan should at least challenge the ticket and ask for photographic evidence. He thought it was free at the time, maybe it was? It would be wrong of him to just roll over and accept the fine without the ticket issuer proving it was his vehicle. Would he be committing an offence if he paid a parking fine for a vehicle that did not belong to him? It is the registered keeper of the vehicle who is liable for the fine, in this case it would appear Vlastan is not the registered keeper of the vehicle identified on the ticket.


Actually I did go to the web site and I put the ticket number there. The instruction was VERY. "If your information is correct, please click next to proceed with payment" I cannot click next because the information is WRONG. On top of this there is no way I could change the information on the payment web site.

In addition I expected that the parking was allowed on single yellow line at the weekend. I am not so stupid to park there and just wait for the ticket to come.

There are two options:

1. Ring them and tell them they made a mistake. Not sure what will happen next.
2. Do nothing and see what happens. I doubt they will come to me and tell me to pay up because the ticket I have is not for MY car.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Vlastan, tickets do get issued when they shouldn't be. Human beings make mistakes and sometimes some people don't know how to do their jobs very well. There should be signs in place telling you what the parking restrictions are and they shouldn't be hard to find. If you looked for them and couldn't find them then perhaps they are missing and if so the ticket isn't enforceable. It's perfectly reasonable for people to challenge tickets in such circumstances - if it's impossible for them to determine exactly what the restrictions are then they can't be blamed for breaking them.

If it's practical for you to return to where you parked go and have another look and see if the signs are there. They should be on the same side of the road and there should be at least one between the nearest junctions in either direction. If there isn't one there then dispute the ticket. If it is there but is obscured by foliage or something then dispute the ticket. If it's there and in plain view then put it down to experience and pay it.

One thing you shouldn't do is just stand by and let the poor sod whose registration ended up on your ticket take the flak for it. Clearly the website doesn't help (when do they ever?) so look and see if there is a number to call. If there isn't, well . . .

To be honest in that case and if it was me I'd just pay the bloody penalty. In all probability the signage is correct and I'd just accept it was my cock-up and rather than have some other poor bugger take the hassle or spend weeks of wrangling myself over what is obviously nothing more than a clerical error arising from a bit of a mind-fart by the warden I'd just cough up. It's not like you need to re-mortgage your house or anything. It's less than the cost of a tank of petrol. Does it really justify all the pissing about?

If you can't correct the error despite your efforts it's not your fault. Pay the penalty and hopefully once that's done the wrong registration becomes irrelevant. It's not as if they keep records and impose greater penalties or a ban on repeat offenders.


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

Vlastan stated he did not "know" the car was illegally parked. Vlastan was quite precise on it being a single yellow line. I also offered a "possible" explanation of circumstances. I also suggested the person who's vehicle it was dishonestly placed the ticket on his windscreen, not the ticket issuer. Indeed all far fetched and hypothetical, however, a possibility however remote.

Clearly attention to detail is not one of your stronger points, quite worrying given your profession.



Mark Davies said:


> "there was a minor error and Vlastan may be lucky"
> "Well, you took your chances and the fine is the predictable result."
> "so this is going to come and bite you in the arse anyway"


All codswallop, misleading and untrue...!!

A parking charge notice issued with an incorrect registration is defective and therefore NOT valid. Said parking ticket CANNOT be retrospectively re-issued once served. Vlastan is under NO obligation to pay said parking ticket.

If an NTO is issued if Vlastan doesn't pay that is also invalid because there was no valid PCN..!!



Mark Davies said:


> Just ignoring it in the knowledge that someone completely unconnected is going to get a load of grief because of your dishonesty would be well out of order.


I am sure as an upstanding pillar of the community :roll: Vlastan will contact the issuer and highlight their mistake, however, he is under no obligation to provide his vehicle registration mark. The fact that you believe you have the right to even question Vlastan's honesty beggars belief :x



Mark Davies said:


> "because you haven't got the decency to be honest?"
> "However, if you are one of these people who mistakenly think it is your democratic duty to challenge simple administrative errors"
> "So, according to some amongst us you are innocent of any crime you can manage to get away with."
> "Sometimes the twisted and corrupt morals of the self-proclaimed 'law-abiding' sections of our society sicken me."


I do not need a lecture in morality from a bigot such as you Sir!


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

scavenger said:


> I do not need a lecture in morality from a bigot such as you Sir!


Well, half my argument was directed at those who said 'just ignore it' - you didn't so I presume that's not what you've taken exception too. What you have done is express a view about evading penalties on the basis of technicalities and I will make no apologies for stating my belief that such a view has questionable morals.

And look at *your* attention to detail . . .

I've not told Vlastan that he shouldn't dispute the ticket - I've simply suggested that he shouldn't just ignore it (for the reasons above). And I've not *told* him to pay it either - I've simply said that *I *would and suggested it as one option he should consider. And I didn't question Vlastan's honesty (he's simply come asking for advice and made no statement of what he plans to do) - I challenged those who said he should just ignore the ticket and questioned *their* honesty.

So, having put that lot of misdirection to rest . . .

Your arguments are typical. Yes, the ticket may be invalid and perhaps that means it cannot be enforced - but that doesn't in any way make it *wrong* to pay it. Hypothetically let's say I parked my car on a single yellow line at the weekend. I have a quick look for the restrictions notice but can't immediately see it so I think, "Well, it's the weekend so it should be okay" and leave it. I come back 3 hours later and find a ticket on it. Bugger! I then have a more thorough look about and see the restriction signs and that waiting is limited to 1 hour. The ticket was issued 2 hours after I left the car and an hour before I returned. There's no doubt in my mind that I did indeed commit a parking offence and it's not a case of an over-zealous traffic warden pouncing on it the second I was overdue. Then I see that there is an error on the ticket - it looks like they've written a 1 instead of a 7 for my registration.

Okay, _technically_ there is a 'get out'. But ignore the technicalities - what about the moral argument? I have committed an offence, I know I have committed an offence and there is no doubt that I have committed an offence. If there is a penalty to be paid for that then do I pay it or do I take every chance I can to try and wriggle out of it? I'm not going to start to entertain ridiculous arguments about challenging errors in order to encourage the powers-that-be to do their job better. This isn't a case of systematic abuses - it's a simple slip of a pen! Challenging this ticket isn't going to make the slightest difference to the issuing of future tickets. It's nothing more than personally trying to avoid paying out cash - pure and simple - and we all know that.

Well I know what I'd do. My actions *did* amount to an offence and I thereby deserved the ticket. I may not entirely agree with the way parking is enforced but that's the system in place. I would pay the ticket anyway.

It seems society has lost its notion of what is right and wrong and simply makes a distinction between what it can get away with and what it can't. There is a difference.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Actually, the incorrect service of the PCN might not be enough to invalidate it.

Human errors are "allowable" - the legal term is "de minimis". Certainly many, many examples exist where a PCN has been issued with an incorrect car make, model or colour - which have all still been legally served and have been deemed 'served' following appeal.

However, I do agree that an NTO might not follow, if none of the documentation completed by whoever issued the PCN is accurate - since they won't have the correct details for the registered keeper.

If an NTO arrives, it means the council do have the correct information somewhere - in which case, I would imagine the 'mistake' on the PCN will be "de minimis" and you'll need to find other grounds to contest it.

If no NTO arrives, I would simply ignore it - against Mark's suggestion - because if they can't do their own job properly, why should you have to "incriminate" yourself? I don't agree that you should have to put your hand up or pay the charge, if they can't issue paperwork correctly. What sort of precedent would this set?!

Nick - if you can scan, blank out any personal details, and post up the PCN, there may be other valid technicalities on which to appeal. I know a fair bit about the subject as it is one I find quite interesting anyway... perhaps we can even educate Mark as to what the legal requirements are in order for a PCN to be valid...


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

jampott said:


> ... perhaps we can even educate Mark as to what the legal requirements are in order for a PCN to be valid...


At what stage in this discussion did I ever say that this ticket was enforceable? You are missing my point.



jampott said:


> If no NTO arrives, I would simply ignore it - against Mark's suggestion


Well, if the NTO doesn't arrive why would that be? Is it because they simply couldn't be bothered to send it out? Of course not! The _only_ reason Vlastan _wouldn't_ get the NTO is because their computer system will have automatically sent it out to the PNC keeper of the registration on their system - and it seems people think it's perfectly okay for that poor sod to have the hassle of sorting out the mistake. I tend to disagree with what I see as an utterly selfish point of view.


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

Mark, you make a reasoned argument, however, I disagree on a couple of points:



Mark Davies said:


> What you have done is express a view about evading penalties on the basis of technicalities ..
> Challenging this ticket isn't going to make the slightest difference to the issuing of future tickets. It's nothing more than personally trying to avoid paying out cash - pure and simple - and we all know that...
> perhaps that means it cannot be enforced - but that doesn't in any way make it wrong to pay it.


This is not my point and has nothing to do with evading payment. If the relevant parking authorities/independents cannot employ people capable of the job then they should not be doing the job. If someone did a bad job on your car surely you wouldn't pay them because they had done the job? Personally I don't see any difference.

You raised some other correct points about incorrect signage(sp) which are also valid and where tickets should not be issued.

Challenging these PCN issuers when they are not doing their job correctly, rather than just rolling over and paying, may lead them to employing suitably qualified/knowledgeable representatives so it could make a difference.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

scavenger said:


> If the relevant parking authorities/independents cannot employ people capable of the job then they should not be doing the job.


For pity's sake - this is a simple slip of a pen, a transposition error! Earlier this week I was taking down my gas meter reading - a simple case of writing down a four digit number. It was there right in front of me but as soon as I'd done it I saw I'd written two numbers in the wrong order. That doesn't mean I can't count, can't read or can't write - it's just a bit of a mind-fart and from time to time _we all have them_. The error on the ticket is quite obviously just another case like that.

As I said earlier, show me someone who claims to have never made a mistake and I'll show you a liar. I have absolutely no doubt that at some time in your employment you will have made a simple mistake such as this and so will I and everybody else - to claim you hadn't would be patently ridiculous - so by your own definition your are not fit to do your job? Of course it doesn't make you unfit and for anyone to suggest so is laughable.

Again, no-one for a moment believes it's about a crusade to develop a better service. They're *not* going to sack the traffic warden for being human and they are *not* going to change their systems as no doubt they already take photographs when issuing tickets so these disputes can be resolved. It's about one person trying to avoid paying a relatively minor £30 penalty. That's all.

More importantly, *in this case*, it's about whether people should stand by and allow that someone, possibly a poor pensioner, should get a letter through their door threatening to take them to court for a much increased sum of money that they might not be able to afford and thus subject them to weeks of worry and distress. All for the sake of avoiding paying the sum of £30 which I would suggest is hardly significant to anyone who can afford to run a TT.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I'm divided on this issue.

On the one hand, it's a perfect get out clause. (Assuming that they can't issue the ticket to you.)

On the other hand, we've had a few cases on here of people who've had their reg nos cloned and have posted here asking for advice for speeding tickets etc. Not quote the same. And it should be fairly easy to ascertain that it wasn't the keeper of the other vehicle that was parked there and that it's more likely to be the number plate that was incorrectly written down, rather than the make, model and colour.

But I can't believe a Policeman of all people is saying that the old axiom of 'innocent until proven guilty' either doesn't apply here or that people don't get off with far more serious crimes on a regular basis. The duty of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defendant - as was stressed to me on all the cases I attended whilst on jury service. Of course that doesn't make it right and unfortunatley the law says that ignorance of a law doesn't excuse you from prosecution of said law.

If I were in their situation, I'd look at the evidence they've gathered and then put in different permutations of the reg number until a car matching the description comes up in the search. Then look at the liklihood that they were the one parked there.

Of course, I'm no expert and my post has no basis in legal fact and may, of ocurse, just be bullshit.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Kell said:


> But I can't believe a Policeman of all people is saying that the old axiom of 'innocent until proven guilty' either doesn't apply here or that people don't get off with far more serious crimes on a regular basis.


I do get tired of people putting arguments in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort. However, the legal principle is *presumed* innocent until proven guilty - _not_ that you actually _are_ innocent unless someone can prove otherwise. There is a very real difference and people seem to be failing to recognise that. If you _have_ committed an offence then you _are_ guilty of that offence - full stop. It's a simple truth and it doesn't need a court decision to make it so - it just needs a court decision for the state to impose a penalty. What irritates me (and which I've commented on here and in other threads about evading speeding penalties) is the way people go on as if they've not committed an offence at all simply because there is a flaw in the evidence.

My arguments here have not been about the strict aspects of law but about the morals and ethics. Seriously, would you really want a police officer to say it's okay to commit offences just as long as you can get away with it? All I've ever said is that if you've committed an offence, you know you've committed an offence and you've no doubt about it then the *moral *thing to do is hold your hands up to it. In what way is that an opinion that's incompatible with being a police officer?


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Like the man said F*uck Em


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

It's a simple enough mistake transposing two digits. Just as it is a simple mistake being 3 minutes late back to one's car or misreading inconsistent and varying parking restrictions signage aound the UK.

One is a basic process error from someone who is paid to adhere to that process - all day every day, the other an oversight.

One carries no loss to the operative for his/her mistake, the other a fine for the trangressor.

Ignore it. I fail to see how it can possibly be the Right Thing to pay an incorrectly issued parking ticket. No one is going to suffer. Bureaucrats must live and die by their own processes and generally have the upper hand, often a very heavy and inflexible one. But not always.


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

Though your analogy has nothing to do with this, you have no legal responsibility to write your own gas meter down correctly. Vlastan could be legally required to pay a PCN/subsequent NTO. Fortunately in this case there was no valid PCN issued to Vlastan as it did not contain the VRN of the vehicle he owns.

The law says that the PCN must include the registration mark of the vehicle involved in the alleged contravention. Surely you are not telling Vlastan to break the law, even on moral grounds [smiley=book2.gif]

However, where the ticketer has made an obvious mistake (as jampott pointed out), it may be deemed that the error is not sufficient to cancel the PCN. If other evidence is available to confirm that it was Vlastan's car, such as a photograph, the case may continue. If the PCN is not paid within 28 days the VRN is obtained from the DVLA and a NTO is issued to the registered keeper. The photos only come into it if you challenge the PCN or NTO.

As an upstanding citizen :roll: Vlastan may well feel the need to advise the ticket issuer of their error so the registered keeper does not get a NTO, making him, and possibly you, morally happy :lol:

To re-iterate, from my perspective it is a matter of principal and written law and nothing to do with the morals or money. As an example, and one that could possibly really irritate you, I stuck by my principles and the written law in a recent defence of an alleged speeding offence. I lost £1000 in earnings as I had to attend court on two occasions, but the monetary loss was irrelevant as justice was served and I was proved innocent. Far too easily I could have just rolled over, accepted the £60 fine and penalty points, even though there were glaring inaccuracies and errors given in evidence.

You are arguing the toss on your point of view/morals rather than the facts. I don't care, can't speak for others, about you taking the moral high ground, it's a mute point. The fact of the matter still stands, a mistake was made so no valid PCN has been issued.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

scavenger said:


> Surely you are not telling Vlastan to break the law, even on moral grounds


Just exactly how are you suggesting Vlastan would be breaking the law if he chose to pay a ticket put on his car for it being illegally parked when quite probably it was illegally parked but which simply had a small mistake on it? He'd obviously be breaking no laws at all, so please try and keep your points relevant and sensible.



scavenger said:


> As an upstanding citizen :roll: Vlastan may well feel the need to advise the ticket issuer of their error so the registered keeper does not get a NTO, making him, and possibly you, morally happy :lol:


It would make me very happy indeed. As someone who spends his entire working life trawling through the mess and misery left behind by people who think only of themselves it would be very nice to see that someone has done the right thing for once.

As for your own case the obvious question to ask is whether you were speeding or not, but I'm just not going to bother. It would be pointless as it seems the moral state of society has crumbled so much that even raising the ethical point of what is right or wrong does nothing but attract criticism and ridicule. Ours is now an 'I'm alright, Jack' society, where we all look after number one and bollocks to anybody else, where it's acceptable to do just whatever you want as long as you don't get caught or if you do get caught it's fine to deny your culpability by hiding behind technicalities - and if other people are made to suffer as a result of your actions then that's just tough on them!

I'm not exactly shocked and surprised by it as I have to deal with it every day. What saddens me is that somewhere like here, where I expect almost everybody who's contributed to this thread would claim to be 'decent, law-abiding citizens', mine has been a lone voice for decency and honesty.

Broken Britain indeed.


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> it's acceptable to
> What saddens me is that somewhere like here, where I expect almost everybody who's contributed to this thread would claim to be 'decent, law-abiding citizens', mine has been a lone voice for decency and honesty.
> 
> Broken Britain indeed.


Hey don't tar me with that brush I'm a right geezer


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

pas_55 said:


> Hey don't tar me with that brush I'm a right geezer


Don't worry - your cred has not been dissed! :wink:



Mark Davies said:


> . . . where I expect *almost* everybody who's contributed to this thread . . .


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> Just exactly how are you suggesting Vlastan would be breaking the law if he chose to pay a ticket put on his car for it being illegally parked when quite probably it was illegally parked but which simply had a small mistake on it? He'd obviously be breaking no laws at all, so please try and keep your points relevant and sensible.


Ooo handbags, petty nitpicking. How ironic reading some of the diatribe written by you in this thread ("possibly a poor pensioner" really made me chuckle). Please accept my apologies for that irrelevant and senseless statement.



Mark Davies said:


> As for your own case the obvious question to ask is whether you were speeding or not


Clearly not as was proved in a court of law. I feel perturbed an officer of the law is questioning the courts ruling 



Mark Davies said:


> It would be pointless as it seems the moral state of society has crumbled so much that even raising the ethical point of what is right or wrong does nothing but attract criticism and ridicule.


If you cannot accept that you our opinions are criticised, do not post them on a public forum. I have not ridiculed you, you do a good enough job yourself :lol: (it's a joke, take it as such)



Mark Davies said:


> Ours is now an 'I'm alright, Jack' society, where we all look after number one and bollocks to anybody else, where it's acceptable to do just whatever you want as long as you don't get caught or if you do get caught it's fine to deny your culpability by hiding behind technicalities - and if other people are made to suffer as a result of your actions then that's just tough on them!


You keep coming back to this "technicalities" issue. You really should stop defending the indefensible!



Mark Davies said:


> I'm not exactly shocked and surprised by it as I have to deal with it every day. What saddens me is that somewhere like here, where I expect almost everybody who's contributed to this thread would claim to be 'decent, law-abiding citizens', mine has been a lone voice for decency and honesty.


I believe it is the way you voiced your opinion that has caused some reaction/debate. Personally I enjoy a good debate. You have also made some non-factual statements/suggestions which i felt obliged to correct.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

One comment I will make is if V doesnt pay and they go after the reg noted, that owner is in for a rough ride, where he/she are treated against all the principles of UK law, because in the council's eyes you are "guilty until proved innocent"

I should know, been there and had 2 months of sh1t, after which they dropped the penalty but still insinuated I was guilty, something, as I was innocent, still pi$$es me off.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > But I can't believe a Policeman of all people is saying that the old axiom of 'innocent until proven guilty' either doesn't apply here or that people don't get off with far more serious crimes on a regular basis.
> ...


The logic I was attempting to get to was more that you of all people should know that many, many people get off with crimes that they did commit simply on a technicality. I'm not saying Nikos was innocent only that in the grand scheme of things, there are worse oversights to happen. Ones which, presumably, annoy you a lot more than an incorrectly issued parking ticket. It stemmed from the comment:



Mark Davies said:


> So, according to some amongst us you are innocent of any crime you can manage to get away with. We're f*cked then, aren't we? Sometimes the twisted and corrupt morals of the self-proclaimed 'law-abiding' sections of our society sicken me.


----------



## jamal (Nov 16, 2007)

[smiley=zzz.gif]

Best to just call up and find out if you are entitled to pay. It'll probably get cancelled though.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Just wish to add some facts to this discussion:

1. The ticket is for £60 if paid within 14 days(why the hell so much), then goes to £120.
2. There were NO signs on the stretch where the yellow line was. I walked up and down the road and found nothing. So if the ticket was correctly issued to me I was going to contest it in any case. How should I know by heart what regulations the Westminster council applies to a single yellow line?

The funny part of the story was when I asked a resident there about parking restrictions. His answer was that it is free to park after 1:30 pm but the council web site states till 6:30 (from what I understood). You can understand the confusion around this event for a resident...what about me that just went there first time in my life?

If I had parked in a bay where I was 100% sure it was illegal and I had a ticket, I would be paying it, even if it was wrong. But paying for something that is not clearly signposted and where even local residents (the guy lived directly in front of the yellow line and parked his car there after 3pm) are confused, then I will ignore it.

Thanks all for your interesting views...I will keep you updated if I hear something.


----------



## Colinthecop (Jan 2, 2008)

vlastan said:


> Just wish to add some facts to this discussion:
> 
> 1. The ticket is for £60 if paid within 14 days(why the hell so much),


Have you seen the size of Boris's office....?

Or how much traffic wardens wages are....?

It all adds up you know.

I'm always getting parking tickets, but my car is registered to my Ex-wife. And I tell you, I deliberately get tickets and drive through Gatsos at high speed just to make her life hell. If anyone wants her address to register a vehicle there, just PM me.

8)


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Scavanger, it seems I can keep explaining my point in different ways until I'm blue in the face but you're still going to be incapable of understanding very simple concepts.

There is a difference between being acquited at court not having been proven guilty of an offence and being innocent. They are not the same. You either committed an offence or not and a final decision of a court makes no difference to that at all. Just because you manage to 'get off with it' by whatever means does not magically whisk you back in time and change history. 'Innocence' is a matter of fact - not the result of a court case. You seem to be confusing the two, which is exactly the point I'm making about people failing to see the difference between the concepts of right and wrong and simply what you can and can't get away with.

If you can't get your head round those simple basics of ethics (as your replies seem to indicate - such as your suggestion that you couldn't have been speeding if you weren't convicted) then it's obviously a waste of time trying to have an ethical debate with you.

Though I would ask what's so laughable about me pointing out the possibility that a 'poor pensioner' would get hassled? As mighTy Tee has just pointed out, they got _two months _of hassle when their registration was mistakenly put on a ticket. That is what *will* happen if Vlastan just ignores this one. And why couldn't it be a pensioner? We've already been told the car is a diesel Honda Civic, after all - a favourite choice for the retired. Through my work I find when this sort of thing does happen to pensioners they can get extremely stressed about it. You think that's funny, do you?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Mark,

I think your open acknowledgement and acceptance of fact that the authorities will inevitably 'hassle' innocent people, following a process error, and to chase some ££s revenue, pretty much negates any sense of just morality that you may feel others here should automatically display when presented with an occasion to ignore a parking ticket.

The onus should abosulutely be on those authorities to get there processes right first time, and also to validate their information _before_ hassling anyone. A failiure of process should automatically mean that the local authority forfeits any right to pursue their revenues with other innocent people. That should be so easy to avoid were these authorities as concerned with giving good public sevice rather than chasing anyone they can for revenue.

The public sector is paid for by the populice to serve them not to hassle them. that seems to get forgotten all too easily.

I hope the mouse called Vlastan roars when he has his day in court. :wink:


----------



## sandhua1978 (Sep 11, 2006)

Firstly don't pay the parking ticket if you are planning on appealing it. Council and parking companies pray on the fact that most people are not prepared to put up a fight and appeal.

You pay it... your chances of getting your appeal accepted are alot less likely.

As I found on one occasion where i got a ticket, i paid the fine and appealed it. It got rejected. A few months later my neighbour got the ticket for exactly the same reason. It got overturned by the fact that he didn't pay the fine first. :roll:

At the end of the day your dealing with a human being at the other end and for them they will try and take the easiest option out. Unless you find a jobs worth who make it there mission to fight it. So if you can provide a compelling reason to invalidate the ticket. Appeal it, create the headache for them and hopefully they should cancel it. For £60 fine it take 20 minutes of your time to write a letter and bring a great amount of  to see them overturn it.

On the bases that they put in the wrong registration number means that the ticket may indeed be invalidated. And hence if you appeal it, you may find that your appeal is accepted. However after the changes in the law of March 2008, upto to that point if the warden hadn't physically put the ticket onto your car even if he was in the process of writing it you could drive off and not worry about it as the ticket hadn't been issued to you. However the law changed the situation, so not sure if they could use that on the basis of to re-issue on the basis of the photo evidence.

Regarding road signs, i believe its also a legal requirement that where ever parking enforcements are in place their should be a sign indicating the enforcements within 10 meters of the area that you are parked. So again if there were no signs you could appeal on this basis and have your ticket invalidated.

Whatever you do is don't ignore it. Write a letter of appeal and see what they come back with.

I've been in the unfortunate circumstance where i parked where i thought it was a valid pay and display zone, however I parked 2 spaces into residents parking zone to where the pay and display zone finished. Though i left a pay and display ticket in my car and came back to my car 25 minutes later to find a parking ticket. (which i would have accepted) and clamp :evil:. When i rang to pay the fine (£120) i got told that i was blocking the spaces for residents parking (which i again accept) however it still took them an hour and half to come and release my car from a clamp. :evil:. So since I've become quite aggravated at stories like these! And like i mentioned before if you don't take the fight to them and try and appeal it then you may as well roll over and hand out the cash.


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

Murk, you can babble your point till you go whatever colour you like, however, it doesn't detract from the facts presented about the legality of the original subject; the simple fact of the original post and the point you seem to have forgotten about. You have turned the original question into a great morality crusade. All very noble of you, in your head, however, little to do with addressing the original question asked.

You keep harping on and it's just your opinion and one clearly not shared by many here. Ever thought you are wrong? Oh, but that's questioning your opinion and it's quite apparent that your opinion must not be subject to criticism or challenge. Stay on your soap box and bang on about it all you like, however it is like a pencil with no end; pointless. I am certainly bored with your constant self opinionated statements and open insults of other peoples' intelligence. Tiny weener and vertically challenged spring to mind. :roll:

As for you trying to justify your argument with pathetic statements is laughable. "A poor pensioner" - my parents are pensioners and certainly aren't poor. You do not know if anyone will get hassled if Vlastan ignores this, that again is your pointless opinion. I must tell my parents to trade down the ST220 and Boxster to a diesel Civic; clearly they are not your stereotypical, in your morally filled ethical mind, pensioners.

One wonders if this is how you do all your Police work with the complete bigoted approach you display here.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

scavenger said:


> One wonders if this is how you do all your Police work with the complete bigoted approach you display here.


I don't think it is bigoted but I suspect that Mark has a much higher ethical/moral standard than most and I only hope he lives 100% according to his own high standards. For instance, I trust, in the course of his work, that he has never, ever delayed for questioning or, heaven forbid, arrested an innocent person for some crime or other that they never committed and, if he has, then he will do the decent thing and immediately go around to personally apologise for getting it wrong and putting the poor beggars through stress and even compensate them for any loss they may have suffered. Then again, if he actually doesn't live by such standards then it could be seen as being a bit rich preaching such high morals the way he does.


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

vlastan said:


> 2. There were NO signs on the stretch where the yellow line was. I walked up and down the road and found nothing. So if the ticket was correctly issued to me I was going to contest it in any case. How should I know by heart what regulations the Westminster council applies to a single yellow line?


Sadly, yes. If it's a parking controlled zone then the signs only have to be present at the entraces to the zone so they could be several blocks away and still count - provided that the single yellow is unbroken all the way back to the sign and properly terminated.

I guess they do expect you to know where the signs are, or at least to drive around until you find them, probably losing your "space" in the process...

Where in Westminster was this by the way? There are several spots I can think of where one side of the road is in Westminster and the other is Camden (or some other neighbouring borough) where the 1.30pm rule DOES apply...


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

Firstly - Mark - cool, valuable input and I respect your approach even if others don't.

I don't know if it is still the case, but IIRC Westminster parking was outsourced years ago to a bunch of muppets who had Contractors shipped in from Wales being put up in hotels 'managing' the IT systems. A more profligate waste of money and inept management I have never seen, but to win the contract I guess they must have been cheaper than the in-house which is even more worrying in a way.

V - you parked on a yellow line in daytime - pay the fecking fine.


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

jesus, its a bloody parking ticket.................... if you can get awahy without paying it then go for it.

if you were drink driving or parked in a dangerous manner then different story.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

KammyTT said:


> jesus, its a bloody parking ticket.................... if you can get awahy without paying it then go for it.
> 
> if you were drink driving or parked in a dangerous manner then different story.


Yes that is what we discuss here don't we...if I can get away with it and if not I will pay the "bloody Parking ticket!" 



> V - you parked on a yellow line in daytime - pay the fecking fine.


Daytime but you misssed the WEEKEND bit....which apparently makes a difference.

The location in Westminster was about 300 meters from Royal Oak tube station. The single yellow line runs only for 100 metres. On the one end where it stops it has signs for Resident Permit parking only and on the other it has a couple of paying spaces. So the yellow line only runs for 100m and where I would expect to see the signs, there were NO signs at all (relating to the yellow line). They did display signs relating to the residents permit and paying spaces.

This ticket, I will not be paying it of course...but at 23:53 the same day I made a mistake to STOP with engine running and lights on, at the edge of some zig zag marks. I had no idea that Camden had cameras high up and would issue a ticket for illegal stopping a few minutes before midnight.

Needless to say that I will be paying for this ticket, but it was unexpected. I will also think twice about driving into London next...it is absolutely CRAZY these days.


----------



## jiggyjaggy (May 27, 2004)

If you were parked in the Victoria and surrounding area its free Sat/Sun btw on a single yellow.


----------

