Cover number plate while parking but show chasis number
Discussion
Ok, consider the scenario where a council is aggressively giving out parking tickets unethically even if legally and so a person is attempting to stop these parasites from being able to issue tickets.
Now, consider a person covers their car up with a car cover to prevent it receiving tickets. It is tied down so it cannot be lifted without causing damage but the number plate is still on display. The council could then just put the ticket on the cover right? First of all would that be legal? And secondly, assuming it is legal and would still not prevent a ticket from being lawfully issued, lets consider this alternative...
The car remains covered, the cover remains tied down with cable ties, and the number plate is covered also. HOWEVER, the chasis number is visible through the windscreen through a hole in the cover. If the chasis number is visible, this would allow the police to still check the car was legally on the road and had MOT, Tax, and Insurance without the need for the number plate to be visible.
While this still may technically be in breach of section 43 of the customs and excise law 1994 for not displaying the number plate, in reality what can legally be done about this? This would surely stop the parking tickets from being able to be issued, but would it also negate other consequences such as the car being seized? Is there any specific power police or councils have to seize a car simply for being in breach of this section of the 1994 act? The only penalty would be a non recordable fine and only the registered keeper would be liable, correct?
Unless there is something in the law that specifically allows a car to be seized, clamped, or other action to be taken for a breach of this law, I cannot see what else can be done. Normally, I would imagine that if nothing at all was visible including the chasis number, the car could be seized or the cover forcibly removed because otherwise, the police or local council could argue that would give them reasonable suspicion it was not taxed etc because they are unable to identify it. But the fact that the chasis number is on display means that the police can identify the number plate and therefore establish that the car does have TAX, MOT and Insurance.
So then what would happen? Is that the end of it? A bizarre hole in the law uncovered and no more parking tickets? Even if it is still in breach of the 1994 act, would the police be likely to prosecute when they know full well it is Tax, Insured and MOT'd?
Finally, there seems to be a small but growing trend of people driving around with no number plates on at all claiming there is technically no legal requirement to. Is there any real substance to this and how exactly? Or is is just a freeman on the land type activity that the courts don't recognise?
I'd appreciate thoughts on this brain teezer!
Now, consider a person covers their car up with a car cover to prevent it receiving tickets. It is tied down so it cannot be lifted without causing damage but the number plate is still on display. The council could then just put the ticket on the cover right? First of all would that be legal? And secondly, assuming it is legal and would still not prevent a ticket from being lawfully issued, lets consider this alternative...
The car remains covered, the cover remains tied down with cable ties, and the number plate is covered also. HOWEVER, the chasis number is visible through the windscreen through a hole in the cover. If the chasis number is visible, this would allow the police to still check the car was legally on the road and had MOT, Tax, and Insurance without the need for the number plate to be visible.
While this still may technically be in breach of section 43 of the customs and excise law 1994 for not displaying the number plate, in reality what can legally be done about this? This would surely stop the parking tickets from being able to be issued, but would it also negate other consequences such as the car being seized? Is there any specific power police or councils have to seize a car simply for being in breach of this section of the 1994 act? The only penalty would be a non recordable fine and only the registered keeper would be liable, correct?
Unless there is something in the law that specifically allows a car to be seized, clamped, or other action to be taken for a breach of this law, I cannot see what else can be done. Normally, I would imagine that if nothing at all was visible including the chasis number, the car could be seized or the cover forcibly removed because otherwise, the police or local council could argue that would give them reasonable suspicion it was not taxed etc because they are unable to identify it. But the fact that the chasis number is on display means that the police can identify the number plate and therefore establish that the car does have TAX, MOT and Insurance.
So then what would happen? Is that the end of it? A bizarre hole in the law uncovered and no more parking tickets? Even if it is still in breach of the 1994 act, would the police be likely to prosecute when they know full well it is Tax, Insured and MOT'd?
Finally, there seems to be a small but growing trend of people driving around with no number plates on at all claiming there is technically no legal requirement to. Is there any real substance to this and how exactly? Or is is just a freeman on the land type activity that the courts don't recognise?
I'd appreciate thoughts on this brain teezer!
Edited by Vastarray on Friday 14th September 23:49
Edited by Vastarray on Friday 14th September 23:50
Yeah, interested to hear how a council can give out tickets legally but unethically? Are they printed on seal pup skin and given out by tiny children forced to work for nothing?
For every driver complaining of "aggressive" ticketing, there will be a business or resident complaining about bad parking.
Private parking companies can be a bit paracitial in their business model, but councils have to spend the money they raise on transport. If signage is not compliant, it can be challenged (with effort)
Most issues with councils is either ineptitude or awful bureaucracy.
But on topic,
I think if there was a loop hole about car covers, we would have heard about it before now. And it would have been closed by the government too.
Ian
For every driver complaining of "aggressive" ticketing, there will be a business or resident complaining about bad parking.
Private parking companies can be a bit paracitial in their business model, but councils have to spend the money they raise on transport. If signage is not compliant, it can be challenged (with effort)
Most issues with councils is either ineptitude or awful bureaucracy.
But on topic,
I think if there was a loop hole about car covers, we would have heard about it before now. And it would have been closed by the government too.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
Yeah, interested to hear how a council can give out tickets legally but unethically? Are they printed on seal pup skin and given out by tiny children forced to work for nothing?
For every driver complaining of "aggressive" ticketing, there will be a business or resident complaining about bad parking.
Private parking companies can be a bit paracitial in their business model, but councils have to spend the money they raise on transport. If signage is not compliant, it can be challenged (with effort)
Most issues with councils is either ineptitude or awful bureaucracy.
But on topic,
I think if there was a loop hole about car covers, we would have heard about it before now. And it would have been closed by the government too.
Ian
As for the ethical part of it. Being ticketed is not usually as a result of bad parking. What is unethical is making residents pay extortionate amounts of money for a permit just to park on their own street. Nobody has such a right. It doesn't matter if a corrupt council voted in favour of the measure, it is still unethical. Coupled with that rigid inflexible rules, lack of sufficient safeguards, appeals systems not fit for purpose, outrageous increases in fines when tickets have not been paid due to having blown away etc, and other holes in the system which the council can exploit, and very soon you can have a situation where councils and parking wardens are acting more like a protection racket than anything else. No nonsense about how all that may be technically 'legal', or how much the council needs the money to pay for x or y will ever make that legitimate. For every driver complaining of "aggressive" ticketing, there will be a business or resident complaining about bad parking.
Private parking companies can be a bit paracitial in their business model, but councils have to spend the money they raise on transport. If signage is not compliant, it can be challenged (with effort)
Most issues with councils is either ineptitude or awful bureaucracy.
But on topic,
I think if there was a loop hole about car covers, we would have heard about it before now. And it would have been closed by the government too.
Ian
Not only that, but many of these councils have a demanding regime that expects all manner of personal information be sent to the council just to get a permit such as the log book. They will even point blank refuse to take your money for a permit unless you provide them with the additional information which they have no right to, and which is usually completely unnecessary. There may be complex situations where a car is used by one person, but registered or owned by another for example. In such a situation, there may be either no way to get a permit, or it may require an unacceptable amount of paper work and time out of someones life to sort out.
But for every hole in the system that benefits the council, (which i'm sure they are aware of), there should be holes in the system in favour of the motorist to counter-balance that. Those in a small minority determined enough to look for them should have a way to be able to find them to allow justice to be done against these corrupt councils.
So, sticking on the main topic, how exactly do you think they can enforce anything in the scenario I laid out in my original post? I can assure you there will be many loopholes and ways around the system that have not yet been exploited by enough people for them to have been closed yet. It's just a matter of finding them.
Edited by Vastarray on Friday 14th September 23:11
Edited by Vastarray on Friday 14th September 23:14
Edited by Vastarray on Friday 14th September 23:16
Edited by Vastarray on Friday 14th September 23:18
Edited by Vastarray on Friday 14th September 23:22
OP has form for weird posts:
Such as how to tax a car in a Post Office - but when said PO is shut - https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Scroll down half way for the "full complexity of the situation"
Such as how to tax a car in a Post Office - but when said PO is shut - https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Scroll down half way for the "full complexity of the situation"
Amazing what you can find on google.
https://www.thatsnonsense.com/park-anywhere-for-fr...
"In 2005 the issue made its way to the House of Lords, where a question was posed to then Deputy Chief Whip Lord Bryan Davies regarding whether traffic wardens could legally remove a vehicle cover to establish identity of a vehicle for the purposes of potentially issuing a ticket. His response –
While there is no specific legislation which permits, or prohibits, the removal of vehicle covers for the purpose of establishing its identity, it is an offence under Section 43 of the Vehicle Excise Registration Act 1994 to obscure a vehicle’s registration plate. Parking attendants have a legitimate interest in determining registration details if they believe a vehicle is contravening a traffic law. I understand that parking attendants do remove covers to establish a vehicle’s identity and it would be, ultimately, for the courts to decide on the legality of such actions."
OP tried to restart an old thread (from 2006) on it at the start of August & was also ignored then.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=26...
https://www.thatsnonsense.com/park-anywhere-for-fr...
"In 2005 the issue made its way to the House of Lords, where a question was posed to then Deputy Chief Whip Lord Bryan Davies regarding whether traffic wardens could legally remove a vehicle cover to establish identity of a vehicle for the purposes of potentially issuing a ticket. His response –
While there is no specific legislation which permits, or prohibits, the removal of vehicle covers for the purpose of establishing its identity, it is an offence under Section 43 of the Vehicle Excise Registration Act 1994 to obscure a vehicle’s registration plate. Parking attendants have a legitimate interest in determining registration details if they believe a vehicle is contravening a traffic law. I understand that parking attendants do remove covers to establish a vehicle’s identity and it would be, ultimately, for the courts to decide on the legality of such actions."
OP tried to restart an old thread (from 2006) on it at the start of August & was also ignored then.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=26...
paintman said:
Amazing what you can find on google.
https://www.thatsnonsense.com/park-anywhere-for-fr...
"In 2005 the issue made its way to the House of Lords, where a question was posed to then Deputy Chief Whip Lord Bryan Davies regarding whether traffic wardens could legally remove a vehicle cover to establish identity of a vehicle for the purposes of potentially issuing a ticket. His response –
While there is no specific legislation which permits, or prohibits, the removal of vehicle covers for the purpose of establishing its identity, it is an offence under Section 43 of the Vehicle Excise Registration Act 1994 to obscure a vehicle’s registration plate. Parking attendants have a legitimate interest in determining registration details if they believe a vehicle is contravening a traffic law. I understand that parking attendants do remove covers to establish a vehicle’s identity and it would be, ultimately, for the courts to decide on the legality of such actions."
OP tried to restart an old thread (from 2006) on it at the start of August & was also ignored then.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=26...
I already read that article before posting on here. Although, it may seem similar on the surface, if you read the detail of what I have actually said, you will find that it is actually quite a different scenario to the one which I have described. Perhaps you should re-read my initial post. For a start off, they are talking about removing a cover which has not been tied down. In my scenario, the cover is tied down which means they can't remove it without commiting criminal damage.https://www.thatsnonsense.com/park-anywhere-for-fr...
"In 2005 the issue made its way to the House of Lords, where a question was posed to then Deputy Chief Whip Lord Bryan Davies regarding whether traffic wardens could legally remove a vehicle cover to establish identity of a vehicle for the purposes of potentially issuing a ticket. His response –
While there is no specific legislation which permits, or prohibits, the removal of vehicle covers for the purpose of establishing its identity, it is an offence under Section 43 of the Vehicle Excise Registration Act 1994 to obscure a vehicle’s registration plate. Parking attendants have a legitimate interest in determining registration details if they believe a vehicle is contravening a traffic law. I understand that parking attendants do remove covers to establish a vehicle’s identity and it would be, ultimately, for the courts to decide on the legality of such actions."
OP tried to restart an old thread (from 2006) on it at the start of August & was also ignored then.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=26...
Edited by Vastarray on Friday 14th September 23:32
Edited by Vastarray on Saturday 15th September 00:00
AlexRS2782 said:
OP has form for weird posts:
Such as how to tax a car in a Post Office - but when said PO is shut - https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Scroll down half way for the "full complexity of the situation"
If by weird, you mean unusual and complex, then what is wrong with that? It is by coming up with new ideas and concepts not considered before that we move forward and evolve as a species. You may brush this idea off as wacky or weird, but people end up in unusual and unforseen situations all the time, and once you actually find yourself in one of those unusual complex scenarios, you might start to realise that they are much more of a legitimate concern to be considered than you thought.Such as how to tax a car in a Post Office - but when said PO is shut - https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Scroll down half way for the "full complexity of the situation"
Vastarray said:
As for the ethical part of it. Being ticketed is not usually as a result of bad parking. What is unethical is making residents pay extortionate amounts of money for a permit just to park on their own street. Nobody has such a right. It doesn't matter if a corrupt council voted in favour of the measure, it is still unethical.
Just so we are clear as your language is ambiguous. Are you saying the council are charging you to park in their street, and you think that is unethical? Or that they are charging you to park in your street, which so long as you own the street they can't do. But it it's their street why can't they decide who can park there?Vastarray said:
I already read that article before posting on here. Although, it may seem similar on the surface, if you read the detail of what I have actually said, you will find that it is actually quite a different scenario to the one which I have described. Perhaps you should re-read my initial post. For a start of, they are talking about removing a cover which has not been tied down. In my scenario, the cover is tied down which means they can't remove it without commiting criminal damage.
Ehm but you will show the Vin number, it's trivial for them to get the VRM from the VIN so what have you achieved except getting fines for the parking and the Vehicle excise offence. Edited by Vastarray on Friday 14th September 23:32
Graveworm said:
Just so we are clear as your language is ambiguous. Are you saying the council are charging you to park in their street, and you think that is unethical? Or that they are charging you to park in your street, which so long as you own the street they can't do. But it it's their street why can't they decide who can park there?
Hmm, interesting point. I had to think a little about that one. If when you talk about who "owns" the street you mean who paid for the asphalt to be layed and for the road to be maintained, their could be multiple organisations. Either the highways agency, the district council or the local council. In two out of 3 of those it is not the same organisation which is demanding payment. Lets assume though that it is maintained by the same agency who is demanding payment to park on it. Even then, a rational intelligent impartial person should be making the decision on whether it is reasonable to require people to pay to park there and the system through which that determination is made must be legitimate and reasonable. Council members do not meet these criteria for all sorts of reasons, and neither do local democratic systems.But lets assume they do and it is ethically right to make people pay just to park on the street in which they live, and the road was paid for by the council asking for payment. Even then the manner in which many of these parking systems are implented are unethical and unreasonable. There is no need to require personal information for example. Not only is it unnecessary, but it is an infringement of personal privacy and civil liberties. Life is too short to be spending time on such beaurocratic nonsense and peoples time is too valuable to justify it.
And even if you don't accept that argument, there are STILL endless scenarios where, even if it is reasonable to expect people to do all that, some tickets are illegitimate due to an ineffective appeals system, or other unfair ways in which the system is implemented. Once you start with an authoritarian concept like this, you open up a whole new can of worms and set of ways in which it can cause trouble in peoples already busy and problematic lives. It is simply not acceptable. Most members of the public do not, in my experience, consider these systems to be fair or reasonable and if a system does not have the support of most rationally thinking members of the public, then it has no legitimacy if it is being implemented by an organisation that is supposed to represent public opinion and act in the public interest.
Bottom line.. these kind of things are one big scam dressed up with a surface venere to make it look legitimate and necessary for whatever reasons (excuses) are given. But once you start to examine it in greater detail, the whole scam starts to become more obvious, and it's apparent legitimacy on the surface falls to pieces for anyone intelligent enough to understand it once you dig a bit deeper.
(p.s feel free to nitpick on inevitable spelling and grammar mistakes in all that as it was written quickly. It usually just show how lacking someone is with regards to any real counter-argument).
Edited by Vastarray on Saturday 15th September 00:47
Edited by Vastarray on Saturday 15th September 00:51
Graveworm said:
Ehm but you will show the Vin number, it's trivial for them to get the VRM from the VIN so what have you achieved except getting fines for the parking and the Vehicle excise offence.
Who are you taking about when you say 'them'? If you mean the police, that is fine. The whole point is for them to know the VRM so that they can establish the car is legitimately road legal. If, however when you say 'them' you mean the council issuing the ticket, then you MIGHT have more of a point. But I would like to know how you think it would be 'trivial' for the council to establish the VRM from the VIN. They have no official channels through which to do that which I am aware of, although I may well be wrong so I am happy to be enlightened on that.However, even if the council have a way of establishing the VRM from the VIN/chasis number, then that still doesn't necessarily mean that they can issue a ticket. They have to take photographs of the car including the number plate. This may well be a requirement. But they can't take a picture of that if it is covered up. They may unofficially know the number plate from the VIN, but they may not 'officially' know it, unless there is a legal channel which allows them to 'officially' know it, and therefore may still not be able to legally issue a ticket. This is just speculation from life experience about how these beaurocratic systems tend to work though.
Also, I don't know what 'vehicle excise' offence you mean. I assume you mean the failing to display number plate offence? In which case, as I said, I can imagine the police may be unlikely to prosecute if they know the car is otherwise legal. It seems likely that a fine was brought in for that to stop people jsut getting away with not having road legal cars or paying tax. The law was passed back in 1994 when you had to display a tax disc which is now no longer required, and back in a time when the police probably couldn't just check the particulars of a car on a computer very easily just from the VIN. Also, it was also a law which assumed that the chasis number would not be visible if the car was covered or that the chasis number was visible at all even if everything except the number plate was uncovered. As a result, I would hazard a guess that it is not a law that most police officers are generally trained to use or even know about. They are more obsessed with focusing on a smaller number of offences these days like those relating to car insurance as that makes more money for the corrupt insurance industry who the police are in bed with.
Edited by Vastarray on Saturday 15th September 01:16
Edited by Vastarray on Saturday 15th September 01:18
Vastarray said:
stuff
You are either one of the planets lost great pedants, unbelievably stupid or mentally ill. Possibly a combination thereof.But no matter. We're all different.
You've clearly given the subject (far too much) thought. However, if we were to concede all your points, what system would you like to see in replacement of the current state of affairs?
Vastarray said:
Who are you taking about when you say 'them'? If you mean the police, that is fine. The whole point is for them to know the VRM so that they can establish the car is legitimately road legal. If, however when you say 'them' you mean the council issuing the ticket, then you MIGHT have more of a point. But I would like to know how you think it would be 'trivial' for the council to establish the VRM from the VIN. They have no official channels through which to do that which I am aware of, although I may well be wrong so I am happy to be enlightened on that.
However, even if the council have a way of establishing the VRM from the VIN/chasis number, then that still doesn't necessarily mean that they can issue a ticket. They have to take photographs of the car including the number plate. This may well be a requirement. But they can't take a picture of that if it is covered up. They may unofficially know the number plate from the VIN, but they may not 'officially' know it, unless there is a legal channel which allows them to 'officially' know it, and therefore may still not be able to legally issue a ticket. This is just speculation from life experience about how these beaurocratic systems tend to work though.
Also, I don't know what 'vehicle excise' offence you mean. I assume you mean the failing to display number plate offence? In which case, as I said, I can imagine the police may be unlikely to prosecute if they know the car is otherwise legal. It seems likely that a fine was brought in for that to stop people jsut getting away with not having road legal cars or paying tax. The law was passed back in 1994 when you had to display a tax disc which is now no longer required, and back in a time when the police probably couldn't just check the particulars of a car on a computer very easily just from the VIN. Also, it was also a law which assumed that the chasis number would not be visible if the car was covered or that the chasis number was visible at all even if everything except the number plate was uncovered. As a result, I would hazard a guess that it is not a law that most police officers are generally trained to use or even know about. They are more obsessed with focusing on a smaller number of offences these days like those relating to car insurance as that makes more money for the corrupt insurance industry who the police are in bed with.
Police, whilst technically able to, don't enforce Vehicle Excise offences other than as a third party providing information to the enforcement authority,which the local authority can also do. However, even if the council have a way of establishing the VRM from the VIN/chasis number, then that still doesn't necessarily mean that they can issue a ticket. They have to take photographs of the car including the number plate. This may well be a requirement. But they can't take a picture of that if it is covered up. They may unofficially know the number plate from the VIN, but they may not 'officially' know it, unless there is a legal channel which allows them to 'officially' know it, and therefore may still not be able to legally issue a ticket. This is just speculation from life experience about how these beaurocratic systems tend to work though.
Also, I don't know what 'vehicle excise' offence you mean. I assume you mean the failing to display number plate offence? In which case, as I said, I can imagine the police may be unlikely to prosecute if they know the car is otherwise legal. It seems likely that a fine was brought in for that to stop people jsut getting away with not having road legal cars or paying tax. The law was passed back in 1994 when you had to display a tax disc which is now no longer required, and back in a time when the police probably couldn't just check the particulars of a car on a computer very easily just from the VIN. Also, it was also a law which assumed that the chasis number would not be visible if the car was covered or that the chasis number was visible at all even if everything except the number plate was uncovered. As a result, I would hazard a guess that it is not a law that most police officers are generally trained to use or even know about. They are more obsessed with focusing on a smaller number of offences these days like those relating to car insurance as that makes more money for the corrupt insurance industry who the police are in bed with.
Edited by Vastarray on Saturday 15th September 01:16
Edited by Vastarray on Saturday 15th September 01:18
Local authorities do have access to the DVLA database (They often have it suspended for violations) but can get VRM and keeper details from a VIN.
They can issue a penalty charge if they can show the car is illegally parked. The photos etc are procedure to make it easier. But I imagine a photo of the cover and the VIN would satisfy an appeal body that it was parked illegally.
But I suggest giving it a go. I have a car cover, but it has windows for the number plates. Of course you could just take your number plates off which would be exactly the same effect with exactly the same outcome.
Vastarray said:
Being ticketed is not usually as a result of bad parking. What is unethical is making residents pay extortionate amounts of money for a permit just to park on their own street. Nobody has such a right.
Yes, they do.You might live on that road, you do not own that road. It's a public road, and the public authorities have EVERY right to impose whatever parking restrictions they like.
Vastarray said:
It doesn't matter if a corrupt council voted in favour of the measure, it is still unethical.
IYHO. Which carries zero weight, because it IS legal. By the way, calling them "corrupt" is a fairly serious allegation of criminality...If you don't like complying with the law over parking there, register your protest by not parking there. Don't park there then whinge the inevitable has happened.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff