Fixed penalty notice (not speeding)
Discussion
Chaps,
To cut a long story short, I have just had a fixed penalty notice put on my car. It is from the "City of London Police", and claims I committed offence number 040, namely "Driving vehicle other than a road" (sic.)
I was parked on private land (the bottom of the Lloyds building) and the cops are claiming that I would have had to cross a footpath to get there. The full story is that they thought my car was a terrorist threat, but it wasn't, and I think they wanted to do me for something, but were not terribly fussed what.
Now, they didn't see me driving over the pavement. And the vehicle was parked on private property, And there was a lowered kerb for me to drive up. And the copper in question told me that if the Lloyds building staff had a wheelclamp, they would have wheelclamped me ("so consider yourself lucky as that would have been more expensive.")
Is this a valid ticket? They are claiming that I did something which they didn't see me do, on the basis of where they saw my car. Is this valid grounds for appeal?
Currently I am looking at a £30 fine. If I argue and ask to have it taken to court, can they issue me with a fine greater than £30? (i.e. Do I have anything to lose?)
Answers on a postcard ....
Oli.
To cut a long story short, I have just had a fixed penalty notice put on my car. It is from the "City of London Police", and claims I committed offence number 040, namely "Driving vehicle other than a road" (sic.)
I was parked on private land (the bottom of the Lloyds building) and the cops are claiming that I would have had to cross a footpath to get there. The full story is that they thought my car was a terrorist threat, but it wasn't, and I think they wanted to do me for something, but were not terribly fussed what.
Now, they didn't see me driving over the pavement. And the vehicle was parked on private property, And there was a lowered kerb for me to drive up. And the copper in question told me that if the Lloyds building staff had a wheelclamp, they would have wheelclamped me ("so consider yourself lucky as that would have been more expensive.")
Is this a valid ticket? They are claiming that I did something which they didn't see me do, on the basis of where they saw my car. Is this valid grounds for appeal?
Currently I am looking at a £30 fine. If I argue and ask to have it taken to court, can they issue me with a fine greater than £30? (i.e. Do I have anything to lose?)
Answers on a postcard ....
Oli.
I appreciate that they did not see you 'commit'the offence but if you decide to go not guilty can you explain to the magistrates how bit actually got there, might be a difficult one unless your mate who happens to have a HIAB on his truck turns up to also give evidence. (sorry for the slightly sarcastic nature of the reply but I often have to go to court and listen to some really far fetched excuses)
John Robson, Boosted,
Thanks for your comments.
Having thought about it, the centre of my frustration is that I was given a ticket because they wanted to do me for something, but didn't know what. (I had parked at the bottom of the Lloyds building, on Lloyds property, and had left a perfectly innocent wiring diagram on display inside the car. The police saw this and thought that I was a terrorist threat, and got quite agitated about it.) The only thing they could pin on me was that I had driven across a pavement to get to the parking space I occupied, although the space itself wasn't under their juristriction.
However, there were other cars parked there (presumably employees of Lloyds) and they had also driven across the same pavement to get to their spaces. Quite probably they had driven over the lowered kerb placed there to allow you to drive up. But they didn't have tickets. (And I also drive over a pavement every time I drive into my own car parking space in front of my house.) Therefore, it's both the circumstantial nature of the evidence, and the inconsistent issuing of tickets which annoys me.
If I take this to a magistrates court, and I am not successful in arguing the toss, can I be hit with a fine of anything more than the £30? (Court Costs, increased fine etc?)
All answers gratefully received.
Oli.
Thanks for your comments.
Having thought about it, the centre of my frustration is that I was given a ticket because they wanted to do me for something, but didn't know what. (I had parked at the bottom of the Lloyds building, on Lloyds property, and had left a perfectly innocent wiring diagram on display inside the car. The police saw this and thought that I was a terrorist threat, and got quite agitated about it.) The only thing they could pin on me was that I had driven across a pavement to get to the parking space I occupied, although the space itself wasn't under their juristriction.
However, there were other cars parked there (presumably employees of Lloyds) and they had also driven across the same pavement to get to their spaces. Quite probably they had driven over the lowered kerb placed there to allow you to drive up. But they didn't have tickets. (And I also drive over a pavement every time I drive into my own car parking space in front of my house.) Therefore, it's both the circumstantial nature of the evidence, and the inconsistent issuing of tickets which annoys me.
If I take this to a magistrates court, and I am not successful in arguing the toss, can I be hit with a fine of anything more than the £30? (Court Costs, increased fine etc?)
All answers gratefully received.
Oli.
Not worth the hassle.
If i were you i would pay the £30 and that will be the end of the matter........perhaps next time leave a note in the windscreen saying where you are and a phone number.
It does sound to me that they are giving you a ticket for tickets sake....but, because of where it was parked and the amount of time spent on terrorism etc etc......i can understand it.If it was me i would just pay and put it down to experience.
If i were you i would pay the £30 and that will be the end of the matter........perhaps next time leave a note in the windscreen saying where you are and a phone number.
It does sound to me that they are giving you a ticket for tickets sake....but, because of where it was parked and the amount of time spent on terrorism etc etc......i can understand it.If it was me i would just pay and put it down to experience.
Tonyrec,
Thanks for posting. I was hoping that you, streaky or Dwight Van Driver would see this and put a line or two up.
Yes, I agree that coughing up £30 is the easy way out. Trouble is that I am quite attached to those 30 greenbacks, and am reluctant to pay them if the ticket is unjust. (Yes, I am saying "But it's the principle ..." - petty, perhaps.)
My viewpoint is that if they want to try and make a meal of a potential terrorist threat, they should do so ON THAT BASIS. However, given that it was an "innocent mistake" - in the words of the copper who I suspect wrote out the ticket - they would be hard pressed to do so.
The pavement I drove over had a lowered kerb, and was obviously designed to be driven over. Others had done so, and escaped a fine. Why should I be singled out for this?
If I was to try and argue it, would I have a leg to stand on? Or would it be a fait accompli in court that I was guilty?
Oli.
>> Edited by zcacogp on Monday 29th March 09:25
Thanks for posting. I was hoping that you, streaky or Dwight Van Driver would see this and put a line or two up.
Yes, I agree that coughing up £30 is the easy way out. Trouble is that I am quite attached to those 30 greenbacks, and am reluctant to pay them if the ticket is unjust. (Yes, I am saying "But it's the principle ..." - petty, perhaps.)
My viewpoint is that if they want to try and make a meal of a potential terrorist threat, they should do so ON THAT BASIS. However, given that it was an "innocent mistake" - in the words of the copper who I suspect wrote out the ticket - they would be hard pressed to do so.
The pavement I drove over had a lowered kerb, and was obviously designed to be driven over. Others had done so, and escaped a fine. Why should I be singled out for this?
If I was to try and argue it, would I have a leg to stand on? Or would it be a fait accompli in court that I was guilty?
Oli.
>> Edited by zcacogp on Monday 29th March 09:25
zcacogp said:Nice to be wanted (
Tonyrec,
Thanks for posting. I was hoping that you, streaky or Dwight Van Driver would see this and put a line or two up.
); however, I am neither a lawyer nor a policeman. I try to apply tests of comonsense and "reasonableness" in (the majority of) my replies. In this case, there is an appearance of "unreasonableness", assuming the other vehicles were not ticketed and were there at the time the ticket was issued to your vehicle. Demonstrating that (let alone proving it) could be a challenge (!). I note Tony's comment about the amount of time spent dealing with "terrorism", however I feel strongly that no-one should be unfairly persecuted simply because some time was taken checking and clearing a vehicle of potential involvement.
What you say about the dropped kerb may well be true and if you were working in the Lloyds' building and the land is theirs and other vehicles park there and there is no other means of access (than the dropped kerb), then I suggest you write (with appropriate submissions) to explain.
If you are concerned about any potential disadvantages of pleading not-guilty, I strongly suggest you contact a lawyer. Check your household insurance policy (if you have one that is), you might be covered for legal fees.
Streaky
streaky said:
[Nice to be wanted (
This surprises me. Your posts seem to speak with an authority which I assumed was gained from being on the other end of prceedings - so to speak.
No, I was not working in, employed by or visiting the Lloyds building at the time. (I was actually in church, and was greeted by three BiB's as I left the meeting. When I asked how they knew I was in there, I was told that I had been watched on CCTV leaving the car, and walking to the church. Therefore, they knew where I was and could have come to find me if they had wanted.)
However, I would ask what is the relevance of this to the ticket? My employment (either by Lloyds or not) is not relevant to whether I drove over the pavement or not. If they are to do me for driving over the pavement, let's see them do all of the Lloyds employees for the same thing. (Additionally, if Lloyds want to fine me for trespass then that is a different point, and I would put my hands up as guilty.)
Good point about checking with a legal chap and looking at an insurance policy to see whether I have legal cover. I'll check the home and car insurance documents this evening, and see what they say.
Thanks for your input. Anyone else?
Oli.
Personally I would resist/oppose this ticket on the basis of abuse of process. The reason 'driving other than a road' is both too broad and ambiguous'. The ambiguity makes a mockery of the law. Most people will drive on 'other than a road' during the course of their day. People entering their domestic driveways is probably a prime example. Anybody who accesses a town centre car park will at some point drive on ' other than a road'. In fact, starting your engine in your back yard can be construed as 'driving other than a road'. I would in the first instance write to the Chief Constable and argue the toss without making any admissions. Use the facts (not the suppositions) as the police saw them ie that you were parked in front of a building in a car parking space.
just read this. Hilarious.
Let me get this straight. You parked your vehicle under Lloyds. You left a wiring diagram in full view and no note for officials. No phone number nothing. You then get out and wander off casually to a church.
You're lucky they didn't call in the bomb squad and have the thing blown sky high.
30 quid seems a pretty fair price for parking in london anyway...
Let me get this straight. You parked your vehicle under Lloyds. You left a wiring diagram in full view and no note for officials. No phone number nothing. You then get out and wander off casually to a church.
You're lucky they didn't call in the bomb squad and have the thing blown sky high.
30 quid seems a pretty fair price for parking in london anyway...
Um ... Highway Code - pgh 123.
"You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridlepath - except to gain lawful access to property"
However, the description you give seems to suggest that this was a parking area - given that the other car drivers allegedly park there on regular basis and were not persecuted. Perhaps you could use excuse of "lawful access to property" on that basis?
"You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridlepath - except to gain lawful access to property"
However, the description you give seems to suggest that this was a parking area - given that the other car drivers allegedly park there on regular basis and were not persecuted. Perhaps you could use excuse of "lawful access to property" on that basis?
Chaps,
The idea of writing to the local plod, complaining, seems to be a good way of going. I think I'll do just this. They have given me a 28 day deadline to cough up, which I will be mindful of. If I write to discuss the matter, does the clock continue to tick for this deadline, or is it stopped temporarily?
Oli.
Thanks.
Just alongside, not quite under. But this is a minor detail.
In a nutshell. In complete innocence. I am building a solar-panel based power supply, and had left printed wiring diagrams in the passenger footwell, clearly marked "Solar Power Supply". In retrospect, a bit of a silly thing to do I'll grant you, but not having anything to hide I didn't even think about what was left in the car. It could have been a copy of a London A-Z, Aesops Fables or the Qu'ran for all I thought of it.
Was met leaving church by three coppers who said that they had come very close to doing just this - a controlled explosion on my car. I half wish that they had done, as I would then have had real reason for complaining - they would have heard from my very-expensive-city-based solicitors at around 9.01am this morning.
Not when all single-yellow lines were free at that time of night (Sunday evening), but all convenient spaces were taken.
Oli.
The idea of writing to the local plod, complaining, seems to be a good way of going. I think I'll do just this. They have given me a 28 day deadline to cough up, which I will be mindful of. If I write to discuss the matter, does the clock continue to tick for this deadline, or is it stopped temporarily?
Oli.
walsingham said:
just read this. Hilarious.
Thanks.
walsingham said:
Let me get this straight. You parked your vehicle under Lloyds.
Just alongside, not quite under. But this is a minor detail.
walsingham said:
You left a wiring diagram in full view and no note for officials. No phone number nothing. You then get out and wander off casually to a church.
In a nutshell. In complete innocence. I am building a solar-panel based power supply, and had left printed wiring diagrams in the passenger footwell, clearly marked "Solar Power Supply". In retrospect, a bit of a silly thing to do I'll grant you, but not having anything to hide I didn't even think about what was left in the car. It could have been a copy of a London A-Z, Aesops Fables or the Qu'ran for all I thought of it.
walsingham said:
You're lucky they didn't call in the bomb squad and have the thing blown sky high.
Was met leaving church by three coppers who said that they had come very close to doing just this - a controlled explosion on my car. I half wish that they had done, as I would then have had real reason for complaining - they would have heard from my very-expensive-city-based solicitors at around 9.01am this morning.
walsingham said:
30 quid seems a pretty fair price for parking in london anyway...
Not when all single-yellow lines were free at that time of night (Sunday evening), but all convenient spaces were taken.
Oli.
very expensive city based solicitors eh?
And you're haggling over 30 quid.
Listen, didn't mean to offend. I was just trying to point out that I'm sure we would all be suspicious, I'm glad they've got their eyes peeled to be honest.
They'll probably let you off anyway. Good luck
And now, the news
Bomb squad officials described the scene in the City today as 'funny' when they performed a controlled explosion on a car full of 'rawl plugs'.
Police blow up what they thought was a solar panelled incediary device in the city after witnesses described a shifty looking bloke scurrying into a nearby church to repent his sins. The car, which had clearly broken the law by driving over a pavement, had been dumped by one of the city's prime targets, Lloyds of London.
An insurance broker commented - no-one round here drives old golfs, we knew straight away that something wasn't right.
Another eye witness described the aftermath as 'a terrible waste of other road-taxpayers money', the police overtime alone must have cost way over £30...
>> Edited by walsingham on Monday 29th March 15:25
And you're haggling over 30 quid.
Listen, didn't mean to offend. I was just trying to point out that I'm sure we would all be suspicious, I'm glad they've got their eyes peeled to be honest.
They'll probably let you off anyway. Good luck
And now, the news
Bomb squad officials described the scene in the City today as 'funny' when they performed a controlled explosion on a car full of 'rawl plugs'.
Police blow up what they thought was a solar panelled incediary device in the city after witnesses described a shifty looking bloke scurrying into a nearby church to repent his sins. The car, which had clearly broken the law by driving over a pavement, had been dumped by one of the city's prime targets, Lloyds of London.
An insurance broker commented - no-one round here drives old golfs, we knew straight away that something wasn't right.
Another eye witness described the aftermath as 'a terrible waste of other road-taxpayers money', the police overtime alone must have cost way over £30...
>> Edited by walsingham on Monday 29th March 15:25
zcacogp said:"However, I would ask what is the relevance of this to the ticket? My employment (either by Lloyds or not) is not relevant to whether I drove over the pavement or not." - it is, "You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridlepath - except to gain lawful access to property" (as posted by WildCat). If the parking area belongs to Lloyds and you were working there, then "lawful access" might apply. If you were not working there you were trespassing which would negate the "lawful access". The same applies if the parking area belongs to other than the church.
[Nice to be wanted (
This surprises me. Your posts seem to speak with an authority which I assumed was gained from being on the other end of prceedings - so to speak.
No, I was not working in, employed by or visiting the Lloyds building at the time. (I was actually in church, and was greeted by three BiB's as I left the meeting. When I asked how they knew I was in there, I was told that I had been watched on CCTV leaving the car, and walking to the church. Therefore, they knew where I was and could have come to find me if they had wanted.)
However, I would ask what is the relevance of this to the ticket? My employment (either by Lloyds or not) is not relevant to whether I drove over the pavement or not. If they are to do me for driving over the pavement, let's see them do all of the Lloyds employees for the same thing. (Additionally, if Lloyds want to fine me for trespass then that is a different point, and I would put my hands up as guilty.)
Good point about checking with a legal chap and looking at an insurance policy to see whether I have legal cover. I'll check the home and car insurance documents this evening, and see what they say.
Thanks for your input. Anyone else?
Oli.
WRT to "Your posts seem to speak with an authority which I assumed was gained from being on the other end of prceedings - so to speak." - I have indeed "been on the other end of proceedings" ... as an expert witness. I have therefore worked closely with lawyers (criminal and civil, in UK and abroad) on both sides of hearings (interesting thing about expert witnesses is that you discuss and usefully agree many things - vocabulary for example - with your opposite number, and get to sit in lawyer's benches throughout the trial; ofttimes you sit in court through legal discussions, "in camera" hearings, etc.; sometimes you get to have discssions in Judges' Chambers). In other guises I have worked closely with the civil and military police and other investigators and agencies in some 20 countries.
Streaky
WildCat said:
Um ... Highway Code - pgh 123.
"You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridlepath - except to gain lawful access to property"
Would it have been lawful access though? If you were using Lloyds' own parking space without permission.
[edit.. beaten by Streaky
] Anyway, why didn't the police just come and find you in the church if they were so worried about your car?
>> Edited by john_p on Monday 29th March 15:31
Oh what a lot of excellent replies!
Walsingham - no offence taken! Sorry if my post was a bit sniffy. And I loved the news article! (Note to self - must remove references to old golfs from the profile.)
Yes, we are haggling over £30. Petty? (I think I said this earlier.) Yes. But :bangsdeskinrage: IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING! And the fact that know they wouldn't have given a rats fart if I didn't have the wiring diagram there - I strongly suspect that the ticket was issued out of pique from the kink I caused in their day.
Streaky - I am humbled by your greater experience and knowledge. Thanks for your help.
Yes, the "Lawful access" bit would seem to stuff my chances a little, wouldn't it. I think I'll try writing a letter to the local chief super and enclose a cheque for £30, dated 27 days in advance, and see what comes of it. Worth a try. Nothing to lose.
Why didn't they come into church to talk to me? A little known bit of cannonical law states that uniformed policemen can only enter a consecrated building on official business with the express permission of the encumbant minister, or curate. Given that the minister in question was enjoying his tea in Borough, and the senior curate was in the church at the time, they couldn't get such permission so it would have been illegal. I doubt whether they knew this detail, but they wouldn't come over the church doorstep - they insisted that I came out to meet them. More likely to be superstition than anything else.
(Another point of such law. Police cannot arrest anyone anywhere in a church or other CoE consecrated building in the UK, under any circumstances. Sometimes useful to know ... )
Oli.
Walsingham - no offence taken! Sorry if my post was a bit sniffy. And I loved the news article! (Note to self - must remove references to old golfs from the profile.)
Yes, we are haggling over £30. Petty? (I think I said this earlier.) Yes. But :bangsdeskinrage: IT'S THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING! And the fact that know they wouldn't have given a rats fart if I didn't have the wiring diagram there - I strongly suspect that the ticket was issued out of pique from the kink I caused in their day.
Streaky - I am humbled by your greater experience and knowledge. Thanks for your help.
Yes, the "Lawful access" bit would seem to stuff my chances a little, wouldn't it. I think I'll try writing a letter to the local chief super and enclose a cheque for £30, dated 27 days in advance, and see what comes of it. Worth a try. Nothing to lose.
Why didn't they come into church to talk to me? A little known bit of cannonical law states that uniformed policemen can only enter a consecrated building on official business with the express permission of the encumbant minister, or curate. Given that the minister in question was enjoying his tea in Borough, and the senior curate was in the church at the time, they couldn't get such permission so it would have been illegal. I doubt whether they knew this detail, but they wouldn't come over the church doorstep - they insisted that I came out to meet them. More likely to be superstition than anything else.
(Another point of such law. Police cannot arrest anyone anywhere in a church or other CoE consecrated building in the UK, under any circumstances. Sometimes useful to know ... )
Oli.
If you mean Lloyd's (with the apostrophe), they don't have any parking spaces by the building, only a drop off zone which is constantly monitored by uniformed staff and clearly marked as private property, it's not even acceptable to walk across it as it is usually chained off. Considering the 2 very well publicised bombs which affected that part of the city, it is a bit unreasonable to assume you could abandon your car anywhere you chose?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff