Appeal declined - ticket for unloading in loading bay?!
Discussion
Next step is to escalate to PATAS for an appeal. They will disclose video evidence at that stage for you and the adjudicator to review.
Do your homework. This has been reviewed previously by PATAS and you can search their database. Adjudicators don't bind other adjudicators, but the High Court does. In particular the High Court have ruled on what constitutes goods to be loaded and unloaded.
Your case needs to emphasise that the use of a car to transport the passenger plus considerable luggage was *necessary* and not just *convenient*. If we are talking tow large wheelie bags and a carrier bag, then I think you have a strong case. If you came from some distance and the passenger were particularly frail, then so much the better.
You will find this particularly useful
http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/do...
Do your homework. This has been reviewed previously by PATAS and you can search their database. Adjudicators don't bind other adjudicators, but the High Court does. In particular the High Court have ruled on what constitutes goods to be loaded and unloaded.
Your case needs to emphasise that the use of a car to transport the passenger plus considerable luggage was *necessary* and not just *convenient*. If we are talking tow large wheelie bags and a carrier bag, then I think you have a strong case. If you came from some distance and the passenger were particularly frail, then so much the better.
You will find this particularly useful
http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/do...
I am not sure what I am missing but their guidelines reasonably clearly state that it's he loading/unloading of goods which you were not doing (you mentioned you were dropping people/luggage off, not goods). Also, goods that require a vehicle, so big/cumbersome/heavy things such as large TV etc., not a few bags of shopping!
Edited by Dracoro on Sunday 24th August 10:39
PurpleMoonlight said:
This country really sucks sometimes.
£130 for a one minute stop and not even obstructing traffic is outrageous.
You have to wait longer than that at traffic lights .....
Quite - this stinks. 1 minute for God's sake!£130 for a one minute stop and not even obstructing traffic is outrageous.
You have to wait longer than that at traffic lights .....
Our local mags have imposed a smaller fine than that for assaulting a police officer!
Hol said:
Modern society is (rightly) becoming less tolerant on the people who think the rules only apply to others.
Nah, it's not society that is less tolerant it's the Councils that are because they see it as solely a money making exercise. The same Councils that often make parking as difficult as possible.I would bet society would think a £130 fine for this infringement is excessive for the transgression committed.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Hol said:
Modern society is (rightly) becoming less tolerant on the people who think the rules only apply to others.
Nah, it's not society that is less tolerant it's the Councils that are because they see it as solely a money making exercise. The same Councils that often make parking as difficult as possible.I would bet society would think a £130 fine for this infringement is excessive for the transgression committed.
The same rules for everyone and all that,,,,,?
Hol said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Hol said:
Modern society is (rightly) becoming less tolerant on the people who think the rules only apply to others.
Nah, it's not society that is less tolerant it's the Councils that are because they see it as solely a money making exercise. The same Councils that often make parking as difficult as possible.I would bet society would think a £130 fine for this infringement is excessive for the transgression committed.
The same rules for everyone and all that,,,,,?
If, as the OP suggests, he is parked for less than a minute and is not obstructing traffic, and not getting in anybody else's way in any way, then is a fine of £130 justifiable when subject to close scrutiny?
It appears more to me that this parking restriction is based more on "this is the rule because we say so" rather than it actually solving any problem, real or perceived.
And those sorts of rules - "forget about rationale of justification - do this or don't do this because we say so" are the sort of rules I have a particular issue with.
rs1952 said:
I tend to be with Purple Moonlight here. Its not really a case of "one rule for one" but more "what is the rule there for?"
If, as the OP suggests, he is parked for less than a minute and is not obstructing traffic, and not getting in anybody else's way in any way, then is a fine of £130 justifiable when subject to close scrutiny?
It appears more to me that this parking restriction is based more on "this is the rule because we say so" rather than it actually solving any problem, real or perceived.
And those sorts of rules - "forget about rationale of justification - do this or don't do this because we say so" are the sort of rules I have a particular issue with.
Well said. This isn't enforcing a rule which is there to protect the roads and make them more efficient, it's typical of the money-grabbing we've seen in recent years from councils. If, as the OP suggests, he is parked for less than a minute and is not obstructing traffic, and not getting in anybody else's way in any way, then is a fine of £130 justifiable when subject to close scrutiny?
It appears more to me that this parking restriction is based more on "this is the rule because we say so" rather than it actually solving any problem, real or perceived.
And those sorts of rules - "forget about rationale of justification - do this or don't do this because we say so" are the sort of rules I have a particular issue with.
I have the CCTV footage, and the van was stopped for under 90 seconds. Viewing the footage of other drivers, in 10 minutes of video there were 6 similar infringements. This whole operation is a cash cow.
I doubt there is any efficient way of dropping off or collecting passengers or goods around the station now.
The use of cameras should stop later this year if the pie eater has his way
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10915510/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10915510/...
V8 Fettler said:
The use of cameras should stop later this year if the pie eater has his way
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10915510/...
I don't suppose any of this would be retrospective? It's a step in the right direction if and when it happens.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10915510/...
Hol said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Hol said:
Modern society is (rightly) becoming less tolerant on the people who think the rules only apply to others.
Nah, it's not society that is less tolerant it's the Councils that are because they see it as solely a money making exercise. The same Councils that often make parking as difficult as possible.I would bet society would think a £130 fine for this infringement is excessive for the transgression committed.
The same rules for everyone and all that,,,,,?
£130 for a 1 minute stop in a 'loading bay'?
And you think society would want a higher fine?
I await a raft of posters to complain the penalty was not harsh enough.
g3org3y said:
£130 for a 1 minute stop in a 'loading bay'?
And you think society would want a higher fine?
I await a raft of posters to complain the penalty was not harsh enough.
Is that your suggested model?
Everybody being equal .....
Hol said:
g3org3y said:
£130 for a 1 minute stop in a 'loading bay'?
And you think society would want a higher fine?
I await a raft of posters to complain the penalty was not harsh enough.
Is that your suggested model?
Everybody being equal .....
Do you genuinely think £130 is reasonable for such a misdemeanour? You were suggesting it should be higher?
Eclassy said:
I am not saying OP is lying but I strongly suspect OP only unloaded passengers. Surely if there was unloading of boxes from the rear of the van, then the council would be extremely stupid not to cancel the ticket.
I think you'll find that you are accusing the OP of lying. g3org3y said:
My suggested model is for camera operators to use a modicum of common sense.
Do you genuinely think £130 is reasonable for such a misdemeanour? You were suggesting it should be higher?
If you can do it cheaper, then fair-dos.Do you genuinely think £130 is reasonable for such a misdemeanour? You were suggesting it should be higher?
But, you realize that the fine is used to offset the cost of the enforcement team having to exist?
I am not overly supportive of my excess tax money being used to-offset somebody who thinks that the world owes them more than the next 99people.
I would rather it went to the people who genuinely needed the extra care or benefit in order to survive - thank you.
If you disagree, then perhaps you can pay the difference on the one-percenters behalf??
Hol said:
g3org3y said:
My suggested model is for camera operators to use a modicum of common sense.
Do you genuinely think £130 is reasonable for such a misdemeanour? You were suggesting it should be higher?
If you can do it cheaper, then fair-dos.Do you genuinely think £130 is reasonable for such a misdemeanour? You were suggesting it should be higher?
But, you realize that the fine is used to offset the cost of the enforcement team having to exist?
I am not overly supportive of my excess tax money being used to-offset somebody who thinks that the world owes them more than the next 99people.
I would rather it went to the people who genuinely needed the extra care or benefit in order to survive - thank you.
If you disagree, then perhaps you can pay the difference on the one-percenters behalf??
It seems to be suggesting that the staff establishment for the enforcement team has been set, and then the revenue raised needs to cover it. This idea might accord to some economic theory or other, but I'm buggered if I know of one that covers it.
In the real world, staff establishment is decided in essence by sales ie. the usefulness of the staff to the business. The more you sell, the more staff you can afford to employ. The less you sell, the less money there is for staff, so your staff establishment reduces.
In this Cloud Cuckoo economic world that you seem to be describing, the justification for issuing this £130 fine is the fact that the staff need paying. In my world and the world inhabited by all the rest of us, you can't just arbitrarily increase "sales" to cover the staff costs.
So I disagree with your logic. But I won't be paying the difference in the wage bill, I'd be sacking the fecking staff.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff