fixed penalty - assumption of guilt?
Discussion
Just a quick query please. My wife got a fixed penalty notice the other day. She parked in a designated bay and put in her £1 (80p charge, no change given 
), the ticket issued then jammed in the machine. she could see it through the glass but not get it. So she put a note in her windscreen with time of arrival, stating she had paid and that the machine was faulty. On return of course, she had a FPN. She told the traffic warden that her ticket had jammed. The warden, of course, said there was "nothing she could do" and that my wife could appeal but that "anyone could say what you've just told me but you can't prove you are telling the truth so there's little point in appealing."
We have too much else going on at the moment to fight this so she has paid up. I was interested to know however if the law has reversed in terms of traffic offences. I thought (naively perhaps) that "innocent until proven guilty" was the bedrock of our justice system?
), the ticket issued then jammed in the machine. she could see it through the glass but not get it. So she put a note in her windscreen with time of arrival, stating she had paid and that the machine was faulty. On return of course, she had a FPN. She told the traffic warden that her ticket had jammed. The warden, of course, said there was "nothing she could do" and that my wife could appeal but that "anyone could say what you've just told me but you can't prove you are telling the truth so there's little point in appealing."We have too much else going on at the moment to fight this so she has paid up. I was interested to know however if the law has reversed in terms of traffic offences. I thought (naively perhaps) that "innocent until proven guilty" was the bedrock of our justice system?
softinthehead said:
. I thought (naively perhaps) that "innocent until proven guilty" was the bedrock of our justice system?
^this is the type of story which makes me angry! it would have been interesting to know what course of action the warden would advise one to take when this happens. but wasnt the ticket still stuck in the machine? did your wifey show the warden the machine??
I think it's usually a penalty charge notice, not a fixed penalty, so there's no right to have the case heard in a magistrates court, and no question of guilt or innocence. It's not an offence, it's a tort and so it's a question of whether you owe them money or not.
A letter to the council, reporting the faulty machine (duh! do it when you notice it's faulty, not when you get a ticket -- there's a phone number on all the machines around here) might see it cancelled.
But if you've made the judgement that it's not worth your time and paid, then you've paid.
Could you give us all some guidance if one of us were to launch a vexatious suit against you at which level you'd just settle even though it has no merits? It would be easier than working...
A letter to the council, reporting the faulty machine (duh! do it when you notice it's faulty, not when you get a ticket -- there's a phone number on all the machines around here) might see it cancelled.
But if you've made the judgement that it's not worth your time and paid, then you've paid.
Could you give us all some guidance if one of us were to launch a vexatious suit against you at which level you'd just settle even though it has no merits? It would be easier than working...
herewego said:
There's a simple appeals procedure and it doesn't cost anymore if you do appeal. The procedure is explained on the ticket. If she couldn't be bothered to appeal then it's a bit late to complain now.
I'm not complaining, I'm simply asking advice and opinion on a point of law. Read posts properly before you put the sanctimonious hat on.7db said:
A letter to the council, reporting the faulty machine (duh! do it when you notice it's faulty, not when you get a ticket -- there's a phone number on all the machines around here) might see it cancelled.
.
sadly the machine was subsequently working. I can onnly assume someone else put money in and both tickets came out. THat's why we decided an appeal is unlikely to succeed. I was more interested in the Traffic Wardens assertion that we couldn't prove innocence. Seemed arse-about-face to me..
You are still innocent until proven guilty, no matter what type of offence you're alleged to have committed.
But in this case....
You have to display a ticket to prove you've paid. You didn't display a ticket but indicated you'd paid and the machine was faulty. Subsequently the machine wasn't faulty. You have no proof that the machine was ever faulty and took no action to obtain any proof (photos, phone call to displayed phone number, witness statement, etc).
It would be your word against the warden's. Whom should we believe? Why?
I'm not getting at you. I have no reason to disbelieve the story. I'm just trying to think through the possible challenges that would be raised against you.
But in this case....
You have to display a ticket to prove you've paid. You didn't display a ticket but indicated you'd paid and the machine was faulty. Subsequently the machine wasn't faulty. You have no proof that the machine was ever faulty and took no action to obtain any proof (photos, phone call to displayed phone number, witness statement, etc).
It would be your word against the warden's. Whom should we believe? Why?
I'm not getting at you. I have no reason to disbelieve the story. I'm just trying to think through the possible challenges that would be raised against you.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff