£100 fine for not displaying tax disc.
Discussion
Slightly off topic but, to show it can/does happen, I once was parked up looking at a job in a bay WITH a valid pay & display ticket.It was a very hot day. Came back to vehicle to see a 'warden' writing out a ticket,when inquiring why he said i did not have a ticket.....cut to the chase,it had fallen off screen onto the floor.Despite my showing him said ticket he proceeded to issue me a ticket with the usual line of "you'll have to write in"...as he left he blatantly told me that he warns people not to affix to windscreen in hot weather as they know the glue strip is not up to the job !! (despite the ticket clearly instructing you to fix to screen ) Obviously it was cancelled on appeal but just to show these things do happen.
I do not think the fine to the OP is reasonable at all.
I do not think the fine to the OP is reasonable at all.
bigee said:
Slightly off topic but, to show it can/does happen, I once was parked up looking at a job in a bay WITH a valid pay & display ticket.It was a very hot day. Came back to vehicle to see a 'warden' writing out a ticket,when inquiring why he said i did not have a ticket.....cut to the chase,it had fallen off screen onto the floor.Despite my showing him said ticket he proceeded to issue me a ticket with the usual line of "you'll have to write in"...as he left he blatantly told me that he warns people not to affix to windscreen in hot weather as they know the glue strip is not up to the job !! (despite the ticket clearly instructing you to fix to screen ) Obviously it was cancelled on appeal but just to show these things do happen.
Obviously? Years ago I had the exact same thing happen to Me in one of the cities council car parks.
I'd bought the ticket, stuck it to the windscreen, went off shopping and came back to find a parking fine on the screen for failure to pay and display, with no sign of the parking ticket.
On opening the door, the ticket had dropped off the screen due to poor quality glue on the strip and landed in the drivers footwell.
I appealed the fine stating that I had actually paid and displayed but due to their poor quality glue, the ticket had fallen off.
Despite Me showing the evidence of the bought ticket, the fine was upheld as it was decreed that at the time the car was inspected, I had failed to display!
Since that day, I have always placed parking tickets somewhere on the dashboard where they cannot get moved or slip down the dashboard.
bigee said:
I do not think the fine to the OP is reasonable at all.
Why not? - It's a fine, a punishment for failing to adhere to a somewhat simple requirement of the Law. It's not supposed to be some minor inconvenience of having to give up a trivial amount of money like £10 or £20! The idea of the punishment is to try to ensure that you do not commit the same offence again. If you make the fines too low, where's the incentive to ensure that the offence is not repeated?
In this case, I suspect the Tax disc will now be firmly adhered to the screen (until they're no longer required to be displayed), so the fine will have served its purpose effectively!
4rephill said:
The idea of the punishment is to try to ensure that you do not commit the same offence again. If you make the fines too low, where's the incentive to ensure that the offence is not repeated?
Our local Magistrates fined someone the princely sum of £50 the other week for assault! This does not stack up.55palfers said:
4rephill said:
The idea of the punishment is to try to ensure that you do not commit the same offence again. If you make the fines too low, where's the incentive to ensure that the offence is not repeated?
Our local Magistrates fined someone the princely sum of £50 the other week for assault! This does not stack up.4rephill said:
Why not? - It's a fine, a punishment for failing to adhere to a somewhat simple requirement of the Law. It's not supposed to be some minor inconvenience of having to give up a trivial amount of money like £10 or £20!
The idea of the punishment is to try to ensure that you do not commit the same offence again. If you make the fines too low, where's the incentive to ensure that the offence is not repeated?
In this case, I suspect the Tax disc will now be firmly adhered to the screen (until they're no longer required to be displayed), so the fine will have served its purpose effectively!
I said obviously because I could actually show the officer on the spot,i had a witness to the whole 'event', pictures at the time etc. Maybe I put my case better ?The idea of the punishment is to try to ensure that you do not commit the same offence again. If you make the fines too low, where's the incentive to ensure that the offence is not repeated?
In this case, I suspect the Tax disc will now be firmly adhered to the screen (until they're no longer required to be displayed), so the fine will have served its purpose effectively!
I am all for people observing restrictions,parking etc but I expect those that are charged with doing so to play by the rules as well. I had bought a ticket,the ticket was 'faulty',as admitted by the attendant, why should I be fined for their incompetence ?
bigee said:
See your point Von,but,was £100 a lot or not to the OP ? Still seems excessive to me. Failure to display is an offence but really in this day and age when a simple check would show the vehicle was taxed a £100 fine stinks of moneygrabbing,but then theres no real surprise there.
An FPN is that, a fixed penalty.There wasn't a fixed penalty in the assault case so the court (having decided on a fine as disposal) can only issue a fine that can affordably be paid by the person convicted.
If the vehicle driver couldn't afford the £100 fixed penalty then by default a summons would be issued & it would go to court. The same, Re personal financial situation, would apply to the person convicted of failing to display.
vonhosen said:
bigee said:
See your point Von,but,was £100 a lot or not to the OP ? Still seems excessive to me. Failure to display is an offence but really in this day and age when a simple check would show the vehicle was taxed a £100 fine stinks of moneygrabbing,but then theres no real surprise there.
An FPN is that, a fixed penalty.There wasn't a fixed penalty in the assault case so the court (having decided on a fine as disposal) can only issue a fine that can affordably be paid by the person convicted.
If the vehicle driver couldn't afford the £100 fixed penalty then by default a summons would be issued & it would go to court. The same, Re personal financial situation, would apply to the person convicted of failing to display.
I'd like your input, as I do sometimes drive like this, and I've seen a post or two in here (although without video), where they reckon they've been picked up by a patrol car, rather than the middle lane people.
Many thanks.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Nigel Worc's said:
vonhosen said:
bigee said:
See your point Von,but,was £100 a lot or not to the OP ? Still seems excessive to me. Failure to display is an offence but really in this day and age when a simple check would show the vehicle was taxed a £100 fine stinks of moneygrabbing,but then theres no real surprise there.
An FPN is that, a fixed penalty.There wasn't a fixed penalty in the assault case so the court (having decided on a fine as disposal) can only issue a fine that can affordably be paid by the person convicted.
If the vehicle driver couldn't afford the £100 fixed penalty then by default a summons would be issued & it would go to court. The same, Re personal financial situation, would apply to the person convicted of failing to display.
I'd like your input, as I do sometimes drive like this, and I've seen a post or two in here (although without video), where they reckon they've been picked up by a patrol car, rather than the middle lane people.
Many thanks.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
IMHO there are people in the middle lane not adhering to the contents of the highway code & the driver of the video car isn't either. As such either could be stopped by a patrol car & which is down to patrol car operator & how they view the individual circumstances.
Many in lane 2 could justifiably argue they are waiting to get into lane 3 in order to overtake the vehicle in front of them in lane 2, the undertaker doesn't have much of an argument open to them.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 2nd August 12:50
vonhosen said:
If you want the official line it's in the Highway Code.
No it isn't, it's ambiguous at best, hence the confusion from drivers.Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 2nd August 12:50
I guess from your response the whole situation is open to a Police officers interpretation and discretion, and could only be sorted in court (like what is and isn't a car derived van) ?
Nigel Worc's said:
vonhosen said:
If you want the official line it's in the Highway Code.
No it isn't, it's ambiguous at best, hence the confusion from drivers.Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 2nd August 12:50
I guess from your response the whole situation is open to a Police officers interpretation and discretion, and could only be sorted in court (like what is and isn't a car derived van) ?
The highway code's position is don't pass on the left, save some special circumstances which it gives, that video wasn't showing one of those special circumstances.
Mermaid said:
Same here - enjoy the full visibility of the screen - but even a most ardent jobsworth should have taken a view in view of the impending rules change and no damage to anyone.
How small is your screen?!?Put me in the "letter of the law says bang to rights, but a dick move for something that was likely not deliberate and a database check would have confirmed the tax situation" boat.
An "I could do you, but won't this time, so fix it and be more careful in future" note would have been appropriate.
vonhosen said:
Nigel Worc's said:
vonhosen said:
If you want the official line it's in the Highway Code.
No it isn't, it's ambiguous at best, hence the confusion from drivers.Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 2nd August 12:50
I guess from your response the whole situation is open to a Police officers interpretation and discretion, and could only be sorted in court (like what is and isn't a car derived van) ?
The highway code's position is don't pass on the left, save some special circumstances which it gives, that video wasn't showing one of those special circumstances.
The traffic in his lane, him, (his lane is clear), is moving faster than the traffic to the right.
As long as he doesn't exceed the speed limit, then what possible offence is he committing ?
The vehicles in lane two however are failing to keep left unless overtaking, so they are causing a rolling road block (without even being lorries !).
It isn't an offence to pass on the left in his situation, in my understanding.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff