Guy pays parking fine in coins - ok or not?

[The Peeps]

While that is a troubling story, you can't expect us all to be working with such knowledge. I judged the man from what I saw in the video. I didn't judge him on someone else's misfortunes. I appreciate that there is a possibility that he was in a situation similar to the person you wrote about but it's just as likely that he was in the wrong.

 

Yes I could give the guy in the video the benefit of the doubt. I could very easily do that and think 'yeah, well done you're getting your own back'... but he doesn't come across that way for me. He's rude and obnoxious to people that aren't involved in any kind of appeal process or in issuing tickets. It's basically a receptionist and possibly her manager? Why would I give this man the benefit of the doubt after seeing his actions. There was no back story offered with the video, no frame of reference. Just his actions. He went to a bank specifically to get lots of small change and proceeded to shove it in that woman's face. No, he doesn't get the benefit of my doubt.

 

So Fuck you instead. I appreciate how you might not have been in a positive mood after typing all of that but don't start getting up in my face for judging him on his actions. What the hell does it matter to him what I think anyway? What does it matter to you what I think about him? You've said yourself he was being a bit of a dick and that's all anyone was even saying about him.

 

I did read your whole post though and I sympathise with the person in that situation. I'm glad he wasn't charged anything in the end but as you say it's hardly a consolation for what he ended up going through.

[Rummy]

Because the systems are broken. They're made by the people who enforce them, with little regard for the people implicated by them. It's easy for the council to slap a ticket on a car, it is far from easy for the ticketee to get it undone. There seemed to be an assumption by some that because the guy got a ticket, he obviously parked like a dick.

 

My question is: what else does he do? With no form of retribution(though arguably he might have had some)? I understand that you're judging him on the video alone - but I find it extremely shallow to judge on that alone. I personally don't believe someone who caught a fair cop for a parking fine would actually have the audacity to act like this. Of course, that's my belief against yours, but really he wasn't abusive or insulting. To me, I don't think that's someone who got a fair cop ticket, or was doing the change thing just for a laugh. I really don't think he ruined that girl's day all that much either. As for that guy, if he was her manager, and he works for the council and refuses to give his name - well, yeah that's not dickish at all.

[jayseven]

The specific by-law states;

 

244

 

You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.

Law GL(GP)A sect 15

 

Now obviously, based on teh picture, the car isn't parked in a way that truly obstructs the pavement. As a registered blind person I'd be fine navigating that street. In fact, the road I live on has pretty much ALL parked cars obstructing the pavement -- there is no way a pram can get through teh space left. At night coming home I am incredibly inconvenienced by the parking that occurs around here - the law above specifically uses "must not" and "should not" which would have impaired the argument if a council representative was there to fight against your 'driver'. The fact is the word of the law, not the spirit, says that it can't be done in london. If the law said "you cannot park in a way that inconveniences double-buggies" then it'd be a different story. The idea is that the car should inconvenience itself rather than pedestrians - it is a fairly wide road and parking properly on the street wouldn't inconvenience the car, so the question is why wasn't the car parked correctly?

[The Peeps]

Well I personally feel that if he was behaving as you suggest - in protest or however you'd describe it - he wouldn't have been so cocky and obnoxious about it. I think if he knew he was able to pay in that manner he would've said so in order to get them to actually process the money. What we see is him dropping the money, waiting until he gets told to leave and then doing so. What am I supposed to think from watching that? That he's a saint? That he had a terrible childhood? I can't relate to the man.

 

If he was acting in protest it really does not come across in the video and the video is all I have seen of his situation. It is not shallow to judge him on the only information out there especially when that information has come directly from him. I don't have this prior knowledge of the inner-workings of the council's parking ticket scam which is quite obviously the same everywhere in the world. If he wants sympathy from me he can put out a video where he's not acting like a bit of a dick and where he actually explains the whole story. Until then I am quite secure in my opinion of him.

 

You clearly have a personal tie to this situation but don't expect me to act like I do. I'm sure there are many people who get stuck in the situations you're talking about every day but in my opinion, from the video that man put out, he is not one of them. That's simply my opinion of him. You're coming from the other side and that's fine. I'm not judging you for your opinion, don't judge me for mine.

 

[edit] Jay - I think in that picture, the sign is permitting it?

[Rummy]

Here's another brief parking story.

 

Motorist goes to dentist at lunchtime. 11:30ish. Parks in a bay, restricted 9am-5pm to free parking to anyone, but only for 2 hours with no return within 2 hours.

Motorist goes to dentist, finds out he doesn't have the appointment as thought, makes one for afternoon. Leaves at 11:50am.

Returns at 14:30ish for dentist appointment, parks in same spot.

Gets ticket for parking beyond restrictions. This is because they observed the car in the morning, and ASSUMED it was there all day.

 

This is a genuine ticket(lower tier for £60, £30 reduced) I was helping someone to contest after they'd submitted an informal appeal, and missed the response in the timeframe so was liable for the 60. They explained it as it was, and it got rejected by the council. Sadly, due to some other stresses they decided to give in after getting a response to a request I made without telling me, and paid the fine. The evidence they got from the council per my request actually had them perfect to rights on the case; but the motorist didn't realise because there's nothing/no one to support them. The council's/CEO's evidence said the car was observed only twice, just gone 11:30 and later at 14:30 - meaning it's possible for the car to have left and returned more than two hours later. There was no observations of tyre positions or valve positions. These are the people left to enforce these tickets. They aren't council companies either, they're private companies with on target earnings usually.

 

Slightly relevant, the other stress was that an insurance company messed up their policy, and they got their car impounded 2 weeks ago(£300 release) and a potential fine(£200 or £300) and 6 points on their license for driving without insurance. Again, it's very easy for the insurance to mess up and claim no liability(as they did at first) however very lucky for the person in question after requesting transcripts/recording of the conversation with them they admitted they made a fault and provided a letter of indemnity. However, they're still out £60 for something that didn't occur, which they paid due to other stresses and not knowing not having the support to fight it.

 

Well I personally feel that if he was behaving as you suggest - in protest or however you'd describe it - he wouldn't have been so cocky and obnoxious about it. I think if he knew he was able to pay in that manner he would've said so in order to get them to actually process the money. What we see is him dropping the money, waiting until he gets told to leave and then doing so. What am I supposed to think from watching that? That he's a saint? That he had a terrible childhood? I can't relate to the man.

 

The reason I thought he might be innocent is he DOES seem to imply he can pay in that manner(see my earlier arguments re: legal tender) - he states it's not for a service rendered or goods supplied. That's kinda technical, as if someone's done their homework/research. Many of the things I presented in my earlier large posts are technical things I had to learn and discover myself through research for the case. Sadly the law can be very technical, and you have to be very technical sometimes to deal with it. Personally, I've only got experience in a few parking ticket cases and mostly from other stories. Someone like Blade would know more than me here.

 

If he was acting in protest it really does not come across in the video and the video is all I have seen of his situation. It is not shallow to judge him on the only information out there especially when that information has come directly from him. I don't have this prior knowledge of the inner-workings of the council's parking ticket scam which is quite obviously the same everywhere in the world. If he wants sympathy from me he can put out a video where he's not acting like a bit of a dick and where he actually explains the whole story. Until then I am quite secure in my opinion of him.

Now, do you judge everyone on what you immediately see? That's shallow, is it not? Judging on this video alone is shallow, is it not? I'm not saying that the parking systems are the same everywhere in the world, hell it could even be better in australia, but I'm just acknowledging that I'm seeing such a small portion of the case in this video that there could be much I don't know about.

 

You clearly have a personal tie to this situation but don't expect me to act like I do. I'm sure there are many people who get stuck in the situations you're talking about every day but in my opinion, from the video that man put out, he is not one of them. That's simply my opinion of him. You're coming from the other side and that's fine. I'm not judging you for your opinion, don't judge me for mine.

 

As I said - we'll be on two sides of it. It IS all open to intepretation - my only point is knowing we haven't seen the whole case why do so many people immediately assume he's some uber-dick? What defines him as a dick? Would he be more of a dick if he went to pay in sensible cash, but decided to cuss them out or insult them? To be abusive with it? There's people that do that I'm sure, but they're not likely to film themselves and show it to the world.

 

[edit] Jay - I think in that picture, the sign is permitting it?

 

@jayseven - quite. You're absolutely correct, however the blue P sign dis-applies the prohibition. It's defined elsewhere(to certain standards too, so as to be valid as an actual physical sign, as diagram 667 of the road traffic and signs manual iirc). I was actually somewhat disappointed the case never got considered in order to get the independent opinion on the legality of it, however I've seen what looked like a similar case in the PATAS record that was allowed. Of course each one is individual, but a lot of the advice in the case I presented suggested that it was going to be upheld at adjudication(and hence why it went there).

Edited September 18, 2013 by Rummy
Automerged Doublepost

[Josh64]

Geez, wtf @Guy ? When you're not bitching about public transport you're doing shit like this. Just stay at home.

 

 

/lamejoke

[Yvonne]

If coppers are not legal tender, then they should be completely discontinued. I haven't seen the video, but in general the person you end up talking to isn't the person who wronged you, really very rarely is it worth it or good to be a dick.

[jayseven]

@Rummy the use of "must" makes it difficult to argue with - common sense says that the car is parked fine, but thanks to some dickwad a few decades ago anywhere 'london' faces tighter controls than elsewhere in the country. I think that by-law should be more specific or at least looked at because it's grossly unfair to charge people who are parking on grass verges. The 'potential victims' will never be affected by that anyway. In any case this is an argument to be taken up with various government representatives.

 

In regards to coppers being legal tender - the point should be made again. If a company is offering a good or service then they have teh right to refuse your business, thus they have the right to refuse a mountain of coppers if they so choose. if you are legally obliged to make a payment then you usually have to make the payment in the way that is agreeable with the "charger", as it is their debt that is owed and thus they can, to an extent, dictate how it is repayed.

[Rummy]

@jayseven - The must is pretty damning, or at least looks so(in the highway code they refer to laws). I haven't seen a highway code since...a while ago and it would have been a 2004 edition, where I wouldn't have paid that item much mind. The thing about it is, that whilst this was 'illegal' since 1974(the reference is the Greater London Council(General Powers) Act 1974, section 15 of which is actually in front of me now but worded so legally I'm left confused) - I believe it's only actually become more enforceable via a PCN since the Traffic Management Act 2004 - taking time to filter through and the arguable increase of use of PCNs as revenue over enforcement recently, I believe it's actually a more recent 'offence' for which folks are being ticketed. Many of whom would have done it for years of their driving life with no problems - but that's not an excuse of course. Without getting too far off the point though - as said the sign apparently dis-applies the prohibition(in fact, what else is a motorist to do when seeing such a sign? It indicates a car parking with its wheels on the verge) - it overrides the must referred to. My issue is that, and despite presenting such a case to the council who issued it, they refused to acknowledge this. What sort of system is that?

 

EDIT: As another example of the must override - many bays in london boroughs are half on kerb half off. Now, if you go by the must alone...cars parked in those bays are parked illegally no? It's actually more complicated than that, but that's just food for thought.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Rummy

[The Peeps]

I disagree that it's shallow. If you see someone in the park trying to kick pigeons, do you think 'he should leave those birds alone, the rotten sod' or do you think 'oh no, his family must've been killed by pigeons. What a poor man.'? Am I really being called shallow for forming an opinion after watching a video? People are judged by their actions. It's not an immediate judgement at all.

 

I'm not saying my opinion of him isn't subject to change but my first impressions of that man is that he's a dick. Should I remain opinionless? Should I refrain from commenting on anything unless I've spent 5 hours researching the subject? I formed an opinion based on the only information available. It's a shitty 2 minute video on youtube that was posted in the funny stuff thread. I made a passing comment. In that situation I found that man to be a bit of a dick. My opinion has always been within the context of that video and you should treat it as such. I'm not judging his entire life, I've seen that moment alone and that's what I'm commenting on. So no it's not shallow.

[Magnus]

Oh my God, nobody cares how he parked.

 

If I take issue with the way Ashley and Shorty run N-E, I don't fill up Peeps's inbox with spam to protest it.

 

"But they gave me a warning I don't deserve and I have no way to contest it!"

 

Suck on that, Peeps. That'll teach them a lesson.

[Rummy]

Oh my God, nobody cares how he parked.

 

If I take issue with the way Ashley and Shorty run N-E, I don't fill up Peeps's inbox with spam to protest it.

 

"But they gave me a warning I don't deserve and I have no way to contest it!"

 

Suck on that, Peeps. That'll teach them a lesson.

 

The more apt example of that would be filling the inbox of mods, as they have a tie to the forum. Which actually does happen.

 

He didn't go and give all the change/complaints to another random person using the services and trying to pay tickets.

[Magnus]

Yeah, you're right, my point is completely moot now.

 

Sorry.

 

I'll make sure to send seven paragraphs about why I don't deserve a warning to all of the mods one word at a time next time.

[Diageo]

The man was abrupt but not insulting. You may see not conforming to common niceties as rudeness, or you may not. Depends on your point of view. If you see his behaviour as "dickish" then the right opinion is to say that the behaviour itself is dickish. However, to conclude that the man himself is a dick is a shallow opinion. People sometimes act on emotion and there are many factors controlling someone's behaviour that are not always rational. Judging people based on one action is not optimal.

 

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is not becoming opinionless.

[The Peeps]

I've explained why I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt and I've also explained I wasn't ever judging the man's entire lifestyle. I watched a video and I commented on the video. In the video, a man was being a dick. I'm not saying he's a dick everywhere he goes. Not giving someone the benefit of the doubt is not a crime. If I see someone acting in a way I don't like, I will think less of that person. I'm not going to stop on their behalf and try to imagine a backstory where they're in the right. I don't have to. It would be different if it wasn't just a bloody video on youtube. It's not like I've called him a dick to his face.

[Magnus]

Well, the next time you comment on a YouTube video, you'd better do what everyone else does and spend a few hours doing research and considering the feelings of the people in the video first.

[Diageo]

You don't have to spend 5 hours. You can just think, while his behaviour is bad it's not necessarily a good representation of that man's personality. I don't know if you specifically called him a dick or his behaviour. I just don't like when people are quick to label others and wanted to voice my opinion on the matter. It is not a post directly aimed at you.

[jayseven]

@jayseven - The must is pretty damning, or at least looks so(in the highway code they refer to laws). I haven't seen a highway code since...a while ago and it would have been a 2004 edition, where I wouldn't have paid that item much mind. The thing about it is, that whilst this was 'illegal' since 1974(the reference is the Greater London Council(General Powers) Act 1974, section 15 of which is actually in front of me now but worded so legally I'm left confused) - I believe it's only actually become more enforceable via a PCN since the Traffic Management Act 2004 - taking time to filter through and the arguable increase of use of PCNs as revenue over enforcement recently, I believe it's actually a more recent 'offence' for which folks are being ticketed. Many of whom would have done it for years of their driving life with no problems - but that's not an excuse of course. Without getting too far off the point though - as said the sign apparently dis-applies the prohibition(in fact, what else is a motorist to do when seeing such a sign? It indicates a car parking with its wheels on the verge) - it overrides the must referred to. My issue is that, and despite presenting such a case to the council who issued it, they refused to acknowledge this. What sort of system is that?

 

EDIT: As another example of the must override - many bays in london boroughs are half on kerb half off. Now, if you go by the must alone...cars parked in those bays are parked illegally no? It's actually more complicated than that, but that's just food for thought.

 

What is your job now? Sounds interesting. Dealing with financial legislation is one of the more 'fun' and interesting parts of my job. I don't know what a PCN is btw - I must've missed that.

 

But yeah - what's the point in having a sign that negates the law if the law overrides the sign? It seems that, as you say, the first thing a warden (is that the PCN?) does is ticket everything they possibly can and let the argument happen later. Most people will not bother contesting simply because they don't know the law so it's an issue of -- much like what I contest with banks and complaints handling in my job -- extortion through ignorance.

[EEVILMURRAY]

If coppers are not legal tender, then they should be completely discontinued. I haven't seen the video, but in general the person you end up talking to isn't the person who wronged you, really very rarely is it worth it or good to be a dick.

It's not that they're not legal tender, it's that in this instance it isn't an acceptable denomination, as outlined in that law whoever posted however many pages back. Just because it is legal tender (like Scottish notes and £50 notes) doesn't mean they have to be accepted. I think this is what Rummy was going for.

 

However I would love for 1p and 2ps to go. I'm sick of stuff being X.99p.

ARGUMENT OVER FUCKERS. PAY IN CONKERS INSTEAD: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pay-park-car-conkers-100642269.html

[Rummy]

What is your job now? Sounds interesting. Dealing with financial legislation is one of the more 'fun' and interesting parts of my job. I don't know what a PCN is btw - I must've missed that.

 

But yeah - what's the point in having a sign that negates the law if the law overrides the sign? It seems that, as you say, the first thing a warden (is that the PCN?) does is ticket everything they possibly can and let the argument happen later. Most people will not bother contesting simply because they don't know the law so it's an issue of -- much like what I contest with banks and complaints handling in my job -- extortion through ignorance.

 

Oh, none of this is related to my job. I've just done research into it(for the case above that I went into great detail about) and learnt stuff in the process. I've seen how people can be slighted by the system and am happy to try and help with parking tickets(along with great help from the pepipoo forums). The reason I had that section of the law in front of me is I kept hold of the council's evidence pack from the case and had it in front of me for reference when I posted - it was one of the things added to their case for the adjudication.

 

I had a look yesterday at 2011-2012's stats from PATAS, just under 50% of cases that went to PATAS(london) adjudication were allowed. However only 1.3% of all parking&traffic offense cases were taken through to that stage. I think people don't have the knowledge or confidence to pursue cases usually, especially when tempted by an apparent 50% discount instead. I also sometimes check the register of appeals for my borough and a nearby one on occasion - found an appeal yesterday that shows how bad councils can be in some cases.

 

Appeal Decision: Allowed

Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons: Mrs Cattini, the Appellant, appeared before me, accompanied by her daughter Miss Caroline Cattini.

 

I found them both to be credible and honest witnesses and I accepted the accounts.

 

The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a permit holders' parking place Green Lane on Monday, 13 May 2013 without displaying a valid permit. It is not disputed that the location was reserved for permit holders only from Monday to Friday from 9:30 AM to 11 AM. The council assert that the penalty charge notice was issued at 10:57 AM.

 

Mrs Cattini told me that she is a nursery assistant and for eight years has worked as a nursery in Green Lane and is well aware that parking is restricted until 11 AM. She parked that morning at 11 AM having checked the time on her vehicle's clock and on her mobile phone. She disputes that the penalty charge notice was issued at 11:57 AM.

 

The Council rely upon the evidence of their civil enforcement officer. The copy of the penalty charge notice before me records an issue time of 10:57 AM. However, the Council's case report records that the vehicle was first observed at 10:57:30 seconds, whereas the officer's manuscript note records the first observation at 10:52 AM. The manuscript note does not give a time when the penalty charge notice was fixed to the windscreen. This is unusual. Further, the "On Street Log Detail" records the officer in Park View Road at 10:52 AM and also in Green Lane at 10:52 AM. Mrs Cattini and her daughter told me that they have subsequently walked from the junction of Park View Road to where her vehicle was located and that this walk takes a minimum of 3 minutes. Further, the Log records the penalty charge notice being issued at 10:58 AM.

 

Given the totality of the council's evidence and the unexplained inconsistencies in it, I cannot be satisfied that the officer has correctly recorded his timings and therefore I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred.

 

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

 

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=2130380312

 

 

It just shocks me really. Easy to issue - difficult to contest.

 

The PCN(penalty charge notice) is the 'ticket' put onto the car. It gives the option of paying, but is actually a sort of informal serving to notify you that a formal charge(Notice to Owner/NtO) will be issued in due course on the registered keeper of the car - it lets the motorist pay before that stage and gives the option to offer the 50% 'discount'. An NtO will be for the full amount.

[jayseven]

It's not that they're not legal tender, it's that in this instance it isn't an acceptable denomination, as outlined in that law whoever posted however many pages back. Just because it is legal tender (like Scottish notes and £50 notes) doesn't mean they have to be accepted. I think this is what Rummy was going for.

 

However I would love for 1p and 2ps to go. I'm sick of stuff being X.99p.

ARGUMENT OVER FUCKERS. PAY IN CONKERS INSTEAD: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pay-park-car-conkers-100642269.html

 

Just FYI in oz 1 and 2 cents are gone (and they're thinking of getting rid of the 5 cent coin too) but prices are still 99c. They basically have rounding - so you get to the till and things may cost 2 cents more or less as the figure is rounded to the nearest 5.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Just FYI in oz 1 and 2 cents are gone (and they're thinking of getting rid of the 5 cent coin too) but prices are still 99c. They basically have rounding - so you get to the till and things may cost 2 cents more or less as the figure is rounded to the nearest 5.

 

I don't care about Aussie's stupid pricing/rounding system:

A] No point in having 99c if there is no denomination of attaining it, leading to B:

B] They round it up anyway.

 

They do this at our local Maryland Chicken, which pisses me off as I want my damn penny.

[Diageo]

They don't round it up if you pay by card. So there is a point to it.

[jayseven]

I don't care about Aussie's stupid pricing/rounding system:

A] No point in having 99c if there is no denomination of attaining it, leading to B:

B] They round it up anyway.

 

They do this at our local Maryland Chicken, which pisses me off as I want my damn penny.

I think the "aussie pricing/rounding system" is smarter than you, and it doesn't even HAVE two brain cells!

[Iun]

Just FYI in oz 1 and 2 cents are gone (and they're thinking of getting rid of the 5 cent coin too) but prices are still 99c. They basically have rounding - so you get to the till and things may cost 2 cents more or less as the figure is rounded to the nearest 5.

 

As I understand it from my time in retail, the £xx.99 thing is both a psychological trick -it sounds significantly less than the rounded-up amount, thus encouraging purchase- and also a security ploy by the retailer: cashiers are forced to open the till in order to get the penny out. Opening the till generates a customer receipt and a record on the journal roll.