Forum Topic

Aaaagh! parking & motoring fines!!!

So, Hounslow council is 'considering' putting details of cctv cameras on their website.  Well, how about also adding some very large signs on the roads that these cctv cameras cover telling everyone to be super careful.  Or is that all together too sensible a thing to do?I momentarily stopped in the yellow box by Kew bridge, which I had to do since another car jumped a light and blocked my path.  The offending car was clearly visible on the photo the council sent me of ‘my’ offence, and they completely ignored my protest.On another occasion I parked for 5 minutes on Brentford High Street at 7 in the morning whilst I went to the cash point machine. I wasn't blocking anyone and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.   Bingo - £50 ticket through the post.  Parked in a loading bay on Chiswick High Road whilst I went to a paint shop to collect and load tins of paint into my car.  The camera operator made a point of taking a photo of my car when the hatch was down rather than when it was up and I was loading the paint.  £50 ticket for parking in a loading bay!And to cap it all I've even been given a PCN for parking my car in a resident’s bay outside my house.  Needless to say I always park in the same spot and my residents permit is in exactly the same place it has always been.  A bit of snow and I get a PCN for a permit not being clearly visible!So in the last year I have been issued with £400 of fines for acting in a perfectly reasonable and law abiding way.  Lucky me though, as I get a 'discount' of 50% if I pay promptly. Using PCNs solely to raise revenue is not a fair and reasonable way to act. The council is completely ignoring the ‘test of reasonableness’ that is inherent to English law.  The courts ruled a few years ago that speeding cameras had to be marked in yellow with warning signs because councils were using them for fund rasing.  Now I suppose we have to wait for another ruling covering cctv.  Come on Hounslow, do the right thing by choice, before you're forced to do it.

Lorne Gifford ● 5916d7 Comments

Another issue is that very often, when contesting, a 'decision' is made over what contravention is made.Several cases have been won of late in that the contravention must be and can only be that as marked on the issue of the penalty ticket.A camera cannot take in the circumstances even when a vehicle is stationary in a restricted position.Mr. Brandt is correct that currently far too many people are simply paying the fines when they have actually not committed a full offence.The appeals process is deliberately structured to make this time consuming and difficult to succeed. Whilst payment is the easy option. On top of that, you can be prosecuted by a photograph but many authorities will not accept yours or witnesses photographs in your defence. In the case of red route fines, there have been 100% watertight cases with all manner of evidence and still the complainant has failed to win. By the refusal of the courts to accept submitted evidence but also not willing to question the statements of wardens. (which are often written by other senior staff. Many cannot write english and this is seen as rather beneficial by their employers.)To make it even more of a gamble not only does your fine get doubled but you can get hit for up to £2,000 court costs.Hardly what Gordon Brown describes as a 'Fair Britain'  Having worked in this  field, it is true that the marketing data supplied as a business plan to contractors does indicate the reluctance of the UK public to contest issue of an authorative fine and that just a single figure percentage will ever take the matter further. This makes parking contracts quite lucrative as a business opportunity.Of course the best policy is to be ever vigilant and don't give them a chance. But if you are sure you were not knowingly offending with no reasonable means of such then as has been reccomended by others. Contest it.

Anthony Waller ● 5914d

Thanks' for the tips Michael.  I make a rule of always contesting PCNs, but so far I've obviously been using the wrong method - just telling them that it's not fair or reasonable, and in response being told they've 'looked at my protest with due consideration but have decided I broke rule number 16.43.w.d revision c', or similar.  From now on my car will be a dual use light goods vehicle and will be parked with the handbrake off!

Lorne Gifford ● 5915d

The no stopping is obvious, but it is not an offence to pull over and stop a vehicle in a parking bay or on certain yellow lines. Parked with an engine running is only an offence if a prohibition is clearly displayed. It mainly applies to HGV parks and buses.It is also parked if the driver vacates the controls ie gets out of a vehicle.The goods vehicle rule is vague. Many businesses use cars and estate cars as a dual purpose vehicle. A Light van can be taxed as a private car so there is no legal defination of goods vehicle and most bays are not intended for HGV's which do not in the main make local deliveries.It's the same issue If you can prove you are loading unloading, take a photo make notes and get the consignee to date and time your delivery collection.Then contest it.But my point is that if you are clear that you did not commit an offence then you should contest it and not just pay up.Why should anyone pay a fine for something they are not actually guilty of just because it is easier than going through the hoops to contest it?

Michael Brandt ● 5915d

The no stopping is obvious, but it is not an offence to pull over and stop a vehicle in a parking bay or on certain yellow lines. Parked with an engine running is only an offence if a prohibition is clearly displayed. It mainly applies to HGV parks and buses.It is also parked if the driver vacates the controls ie gets out of a vehicle.The goods vehicle rule is vague. Many businesses use cars and estate cars as a dual purpose vehicle. A Light van can be taxed as a private car so there is no legal defination of goods vehicle and most bays are not intended for HGV's which do not in the main make local deliveries.It's the same issue If you can prove you are loading unloading, take a photo make notes and get the consignee to date and time your delivery collection.Then contest it.But my point is that if you are clear that you did not commit an offence then you should contest it and not just pay up.Why should anyone pay a fine for something they are not actually guilty of just because it is easier than going through the hoops to contest it?

Michael Brandt ● 5915d

"As a point, cameras have been ticketing motorists who pull over to read maps or make phone calls. Both are the correct procedure in line with the highway code."It's not correct procedure if they are done where there is a 'no stopping' rule such as on a red route or at a bus stop, which is the sort of contravention that cameraas are used for. Cameras are not normally used for ordinary parking contraventions by cars because generally it needs a CEO to be there to read any permit or Blue Badge on the car."It is not a parking offence unless the engine is stopped ..."I don't think that's true either.  There is in fact a contravention code (63) for "parked with engine running where prohibited".Re Lorne's original post:  There are a number of camera signs around our roads; perhaps you've mever noticed them!Parts of Brentford High Street have a parking and loading ban from 7 - 10 a.m. in order to allow the morning peak to flow more smoothly.  Flouting rush-hour restrictions is not "perfectly reasonable".Some loading bays in Chiswick, including one near a paint shop, are for goods vehicles only, in order to ensure that vans delivering to shops have somewhere to park.  I guess you parked your car in one of those.  In fact that restriction to goods vehicles is being reviewed, but it is clearly signed."A bit of snow and I get a PCN for a permit not being clearly visible!"If you're saying that you got a PCN purely because there was snow on the windscreen, that does sound unreasonable of the council.  Have you challenged it, and what was the response?

Richard Jennings ● 5916d

With CCTV there are so many falabilities that you will almost certainly win if you contest them.The whole thing is based on the fact that the British public will rant and whinge but vary rarely do much more than that. Unlike our American and Europeans who will not tolerate such zealous enforcement of trivial offences.We do not like to cause a fuss or take on authority as individuals. Businesses know that and so do authorities.But those who are in the right and have a case should take the trouble to contest.We have a society that now struggles between defining right and wrong. Yet this is one of the most fundamental underpins of a civilised society.The problem is that the moral goalposts are being moved by redefing an offence purely to make money...for someone, somewhere.If the authorities persued and enforced dangerous dog owners, anti social behaviour, vandalism, property crime and all the other nasties that have come to dominate our society then maybe hitting a car driver for pulling over to the side of the road would be more justifiable.As a point, cameras have been ticketing motorists who pull over to read maps or make phone calls. Both are the correct procedure in line with the highway code.It is not a parking offence unless the engine is stopped the gears disengaged and the parking brake applied. No camera exists that can prove that and so far challenges based on this cannot be disproved.Never, never pay without a challenge- Unless you know you were in the wrong.

Michael Brandt ● 5916d

Hounslow featured in the 'Tonight' programme on CCTV last night re parking fines, however, I think the case in question was not a good example as I am told the man in question could have got 3 penalty points on his licence had the Police caught him!

Vanessa Smith ● 5916d