need advice, very questionable parking ticket!

[hedders]

Please look at these pictures and tell me why i got a parking ticket.

On the ticket is says:
contravention believed committed: 60
parked on an urban road with 1 or more wheels resting on a f/w. grass verge or space.

Clearly there is no grass verge, don't know what a 'space' is and i am assuming an F/w is a footway? like a pavement ...but there is not even a pavement where the car is.

[pic]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/390868/tn_DSCF0057.JPG')[/pic]

[pic] <a href="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/390868/tn_DSCF0058.JPG">http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/390868/tn_DSCF0058.JPG</a> [/pic]

[pic]<a href="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/390868/tn_DSCF0055.JPG">http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/390868/tn_DSCF0055.JPG</a> [/pic]

[pic]<a href="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/390868/tn_DSCF0056.JPG">http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/390868/tn_DSCF0056.JPG</a> [/pic]

Any advice would be appreciated as i intend to dispute this one!

PS. why did it not post my pics???




>>> Edited by hedders on Saturday 4th October 17:29

>>> Edited by hedders on Saturday 4th October 17:48

[gh0st]

Would say that you could get away with this as the lines are not continuous plus you are out the way of mainstream traffic and not causing an obstruction.

Were there any "NO PARKING" or "DO NOT BLOCK ACCESS" style of signs around?

[tja]

You don't need the "a href" bit...






I assume that the green "fence" is a permanent structure? Or does it open in some way? If so, aren't you parking across someones right of way?

[hedders]

Thanks for posting them for me

The green fence is semi permanent, it has been 'opened' once in about a year, so i risk the owenrs arrving and having me towed, but i do not think i should be issued a parking ticket there.

There are no parking signs at all..the blue sign on the fence is a construction sign advising the wearing of hard hats i think.

[joust]

Hmm - looks like the "road" carried up to the front of the building - and hence you were parking in the middle of it.

However, the yellow lines you could argue are not "terminated" correctly, and hence you should be able to get it thrown out, but you may need to take it all the way to court.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1752927.stm - case history is therefore set and you will get it overturned IMHO.

Make sure you take a picture using a *normal* camera and get an independant witness to date and sign them - digital photos are not admissable in court.

J

[hedders]

Thanks for the tips joust, i will grab a disposable camera ...I don't know how they would tell these were digital pics if i printed them on photopaper though

[joust]

hedders said:

Thanks for the tips joust, i will grab a disposable camera ...I don't know how they would tell these were digital pics if i printed them on photopaper though

Unless you use a dye sub printer, you can always tell

Still - better to be safe than sorry.

J

[hedders]

Wait a second here....

Digital pics are not admissable in a court of law???

where does that leave these digital gatzo's then?

[5ltr-chim]

From recent personal experience :

If the ticket was issued by a traffic warden and he/she didn't see the person who parked it there, go to court pleading NOT guilty.

They have no proof that you parked it there and once they've finished their case you can just enter "NO case to answer". They cannot prove you parked it there, therefore cannot find you guilty.

I WON on this for parking 2 wheels on the path outside my own house .

:edited because I must proof read grammer first:

>> Edited by 5ltr-chim on Saturday 4th October 22:14

[outlaw]

5ltr-chim said:

From recent personal experience : If the ticket was issued by a traffic warden and he/she didn't see the person who parked it there, go to court pleading NOT guilty. They have no proof that you parked it there and once they've finished their case you can just enter "NO case to answer". They cannot prove you parked it there, therefore cannot find you guilty. I WON on this for parking 2 wheels on the path outside my own house . :edited because I must proof read grammer first: >> Edited by 5ltr-chim on Saturday 4th October 22:14

yep spot on m8

pluss rember the cant ask who the driver was under s172 because in most places parking has been privatised and in now a civl matter.

[MoJocvh]

hedders said:

Wait a second here.... Digital pics are not admissable in a court of law??? where does that leave these digital gatzo's then?

OOOYeah I think were on a roll here.........MoJo.

[outlaw]

think about name one case where they have convicted on the evidence of the scammers pic.

you wont find one, there playing it down as they dont want a high profile case on it.

remember they just keep saying its to identifi index no to send a nip too not to prove who the drive was.

>> Edited by outlaw on Saturday 4th October 22:34

[5ltr-chim]

outlaw said:

pluss rember the cant ask who the driver was under s172 because in most places parking has been privatised and in now a civl matter.

Thames Valley area - wardens still part of the Bib - they don't send a driver disclosure form for parking offences only speeding as far as I can tell. You cannot be asked who parked it there as you are offering no defence case, so no cross examination -
NO case to answer

edited because html commands only work in preview these days..

>> Edited by 5ltr-chim on Saturday 4th October 22:36

[joust]

hedders said:

Wait a second here.... Digital pics are not admissable in a court of law??? where does that leave these digital gatzo's then?

They have special dispensation as they are digitally signed to prevent modification.

So - sorry - not a way out of them

J

[Boosted LS1]

I have a thread running on this. Basically they will ticket you regardless and then keep upping the anti. You then do a lot of running around and eventually have to challenge the ticket. They refute the challenge and tell you it's going to arbitration via an independant lawyer. They produce photos supporting them. You take non-digital photos and sent them off for arbitration. Council write back saying they aren't going to bother and cancel the ticket after you've done all the leg work. It's designed to be punitive.

My advice is to do very little until the point whereby you have to challenge the ticket. I won because the lines were broken and have the letter from the council admitting broken lines are unenforcible etc. Yet they still pursued me even after they had sent me the letter!

[hedders]

joust said:

hedders said: Wait a second here.... Digital pics are not admissable in a court of law??? where does that leave these digital gatzo's then? They have special dispensation as they are digitally signed to prevent modification. So - sorry - not a way out of them J

Digitally signed indeed...sounds like hogwash to me..


Chim:

Let me get this straight, you are saying that i wait for the opportunity to go to court to fight the ticket, i plead not guilty, and then i just deny it was me that parked the car?

That sounds a little too easy...That is a way out of every parking ticket surely?

[Mr2Mike]

5ltr-chim said:

I WON on this for parking 2 wheels on the path outside my own house

Hmm, I do this everyday, along with the rest of the street as it's not wide enough to park on the road without obstructing traffic, but the pavements are quite wide. Spoke to a local plod about this and he said he'd rather see cars parked slightly on the pavement rather than block the road totaly, as long as it wasn't causing an obstruction for pedestrians.

I wonder if the whole street is going to end up with tickets one day...

[stuuu]

hedders said:

Wait a second here.... Digital pics are not admissable in a court of law??? where does that leave these digital gatzo's then?

I'm sure digital images are being used in court as long as the person who is taking them stands up and says that they are the photo's he/she took and they have not been tampered with. Although the person who took them may have to be qualified/ public servant etc????

[t-c]

I use digital photographs quite regularly in court, and providing you can certify when they were taken and by whom you wont have a problem, although I should point out that these days I only appear before District and High Court Judges in civil cases rather than Magistrates.

The fact that there are no termination lines immidiately makes the issuing of a ticket unlawfull. Likewise if there are no clear signs advising of restrictions than that is also unlawfull. Quite often the signs don't marry up to the lines in any case, and to rub salt into their wounds, if you pay a vist to the local library and obtain a copy of the traffic order, I bey if you measured the actual restriction to what is written in the order it will be miles out which also makes it unlawful.

It may also be worth speaking to your local Police Traffic management officer as they are really clued up on parking restrictions and the traffic order that goes with them, and chances are that they will support you and provide the appropriate evidence.

[Byff]

Mr2Mike said:

5ltr-chim said: I WON on this for parking 2 wheels on the path outside my own house Hmm, I do this everyday, along with the rest of the street as it's not wide enough to park on the road without obstructing traffic, but the pavements are quite wide. Spoke to a local plod about this and he said he'd rather see cars parked slightly on the pavement rather than block the road totaly, as long as it wasn't causing an obstruction for pedestrians. I wonder if the whole street is going to end up with tickets one day...

If you can't park in the street without causing an obstruction, then you can't park in the street. Just because it's infront of your house don't matter to the blind bloke or wife pushing the pushchair.

I can't park in my street so I dug up the garden and made an extra wide driveway.