PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Police Traffic Warden at Airport summons rec'd updated
poshtaxi
post Thu, 8 Sep 2005 - 12:39
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Member No.: 1,420



Was at Airport a few weeks ago to collect a client from arrivals terminal. A long 140 metre stretch of concourse with double yellow lines commonly used for pulling up and collecting passengers. In the past the Traffic Wardens have asked me and other drivers to circle the stretch until their passengers are there to load and be on our way. 3 Wardens were patrolling this stretch on the day and one walked over and I predicted her words and said 'you want me to circle' and I drove the stretch and exited and had to repeat this until I spotted client. Approached the 140metre stretch again and drove slowly along hoping to spot client. Lots of other cars and taxi's just pulled over on the stretch waiting with Wardens loitering.

After literally 6 circuits I pulled over at the start of the stretch with the 3 traffic wardens towards the end of the stretch and waited out of the way for a phone call or message from the client who had booked me. Few minutes later the wardens walked down the stretch towards other parked cars and I guessed it was time to move and circle again. I pulled out and drove up the stretch and one of the wardens signalled for me to pull over. I wound my window and asked what the problem was and she said 'pull over' I replied by saying 'you asked me to circle 10 minutes ago' and she said she was giving me a ticket. One of the Wardens stood in front of my car whilst the other began taking reg etc. I was a tad agrieved and reversed the car a foot or so and drove around the warden in front. The warden said I'd be summonsed if I drove off and I said 'whatever' and carried on circling and pulling over until I collected client.

S172 arrived today addressed to my mother the reg. keeper for offence 482 NO waiting at any time requesting  drivers details at time of offence.
Highlighted in red marker is the following:



YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ON THE FORM ATTACHED

Good to see PACE witness statements being a thorn in their side   biggrin.gif

My mother lives abroad so just wondering what course of action to follow.
I could use this to my advantage but naturally don't want her convicted in her absence. So if she gives my details to the Police and they write to me requesting confirmation I was driver I'm tempted to go PACE witness statement blah blah route.

Is this offence endorsable or non endorsable fixed penalty as it does'nt state on S172. Thanks in advance.

Oh - got the whole incident on vhs video from my windscreen mounted forward facing camera. Don't fancy my chances of a magistrate siding with me compared to a revenue raising officer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 8 Sep 2005 - 12:39
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
patdavies
post Mon, 12 Sep 2005 - 17:35
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,352
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Newbury
Member No.: 1,625



As I see it.

You have been served with an S172 request which alleges an offence.  That, IMO, is enough to make the request valid.

The various posts re. the 14 day rule are irrelevant because, AFAIK, parking is not a NIPable offence and therefore no NIP is being issued.

The important question is whether this is a police traffic warden or  a civvy working with decriminalised parking.  If the latter, then the completed parking ticket must be handed to the driver or affixed to the stationary vehicle.  This type of warden have no power to cause you to stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Insider
post Mon, 12 Sep 2005 - 19:07
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,410
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
From: Inside somewhere ;-)
Member No.: 1,871



QUOTE
The important question is whether this is a police traffic warden or  a civvy working with decriminalised parking.  If the latter, then the completed parking ticket must be handed to the driver or affixed to the stationary vehicle.  This type of warden have no power to cause you to stop


Err, but de-criminalised civilian wardens (who have no connection to the police) wouldn't be able to 'pop in to the nick' and ask the local plod to hit you with a S172 request would they  :roll:


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poshtaxi
post Mon, 12 Sep 2005 - 20:24
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Member No.: 1,420



So if it is not a NIP'able offence for prosecution then why do the police want to S172 me? To give a fine only for the offence of 'Waiting' in my vehicle?

I take it PACE witness statement can be used if/ when returning S172 as I have only used PACE previously (and successfully) with NIP I had
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
patdavies
post Mon, 12 Sep 2005 - 22:03
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,352
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Newbury
Member No.: 1,625



QUOTE (Insider)
QUOTE
The important question is whether this is a police traffic warden or  a civvy working with decriminalised parking.  If the latter, then the completed parking ticket must be handed to the driver or affixed to the stationary vehicle.  This type of warden have no power to cause you to stop


Err, but de-criminalised civilian wardens (who have no connection to the police) wouldn't be able to 'pop in to the nick' and ask the local plod to hit you with a S172 request would they  :roll:


Um, yes icon_redface.gif   Missed that bit completely

QUOTE
So if it is not a NIP'able offence for prosecution then why do the police want to S172 me?


Just because it's not NIPable, doesn't mean you can't be prosecuted.  Also, it's not unknown for plod to send out S172 requests in 'fear of God' mode even when they know they can't do anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Tue, 13 Sep 2005 - 01:22
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (patdavies)
it's not unknown for plod to send out S172 requests in 'fear of God' mode even when they know they can't do anything.

Apparently, S172 gives Fife police the authority to arrest someone for not giving them the registration number of their car, which was not alleged to be involved in an offence. icon_evil.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Tue, 13 Sep 2005 - 01:27
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (poshtaxi)
So if it is not a NIP'able offence for prosecution then why do the police want to S172 me? To give a fine only for the offence of 'Waiting' in my vehicle?

Yes.
QUOTE (poshtaxi)
I take it PACE witness statement can be used if/ when returning S172 as I have only used PACE previously (and successfully) with NIP I had

Yes, but since 'No Waiting' is not endorsable, do you really want to possibly end up having to defend a S172 prosecution, notwithstanding that it should be beatable. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lance
post Tue, 13 Sep 2005 - 08:33
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,771
Joined: 2 Feb 2004
From: London
Member No.: 843



I thought that parking offences were usually the responsibility of the registered keeper, not the driver? Or does it depend?

The only endorsable parking offence I can recall off the top of my head is for parking on the zig-zags at a pedestrian crossing - this would presumably be the responsibility of the driver.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Wed, 14 Sep 2005 - 01:08
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (Lance)
I thought that parking offences were usually the responsibility of the registered keeper, not the driver? Or does it depend?

I think it depends, and, in any case, I think it's only the owner's responsibilty once the ticket has been affixed to the vehicle.
I may be wrong, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poshtaxi
post Mon, 10 Oct 2005 - 10:38
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Member No.: 1,420



Received S172 after my mother returned S172 to name driver (me). The usual letter but sent RECORDED Delivery (the warden issuing must really want to 'do' me).

I'm not sure what to do as Jeffrey Archer again makes a valid point with my situation: Why risk an S172 endorsement when its only a £60 fine (I think). There is no mention on the letter regarding the penalty I the driver faces just the S172 requirement with the same sentence highlighted in red and underlined with capital letters which states

'YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ON THE FORM ATTACHED'

But PACE does not require me to provide the information 'on the form attached' but just to provide the information (on a random piece of paper).

I am inclined to think they have had problems in the past from others sending PACE which is why the bitter warden has highlighted the sentence.

If I was to send PACE witness statement and was summonsed to court for an S172 charge could'nt I infact refer to one of the many precedents where S172 charges have been dropped. As DW190 says his pal had his S172 charge dropped on appearing at court due to sending PACE.

Does it depend on which side of the bed the Magistrate gets out of on the day or can I refer them to cases where those have been thrown out


icon_question.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Tue, 11 Oct 2005 - 00:23
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (poshtaxi)
But PACE does not require me to provide the information 'on the form attached' but just to provide the information

It's not PACE that provides that, it's Jones v DPP [2004].
QUOTE (poshtaxi)
If I was to send PACE witness statement and was summonsed to court for an S172 charge could'nt I infact refer to one of the many precedents where S172 charges have been dropped.

Magistrates Courts do not create precedents; even less of a precedent if they didn't even get to court. rolleyes.gif
Jones v DPP (above) is your authority.
I have to say though, why are you still messing about with a possible S172 over a 'No Waiting' offence? icon_eek.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poshtaxi
post Tue, 11 Oct 2005 - 10:34
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Member No.: 1,420



I object to being scammed for a fine for waiting in my car at the airport amongst a dozen or so others. You think I should just pay it? I'd love to put the VHS footage I have on here if it was easy to do so. What are my options instead of risking S172 charge? Go to court and show the film?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemo
post Tue, 11 Oct 2005 - 11:13
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 21 Dec 2004
From: -------------
Member No.: 2,073



QUOTE (poshtaxi)
You think I should just pay it?

I think what people are saying is take it one step at at a time.

Sending a PACE statement satisfies the requirements of the s172 notice and gets rid of the possibility of an MS90 offence (3 points plus £250-£300 fine plus possible increase in insurance premiums). A s172 conviction whilst trying to avert a 'parking' fine makes no sense...

Once the PACE statement has been sent, you can plan your defence depending on what turns up in the post - but it won't be s172...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poshtaxi
post Wed, 12 Oct 2005 - 03:18
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Member No.: 1,420



Well then either I am confused or Jeffrey Archer was as to my next step  :?

My next step was to send the PACE witness statement but with Jeffrey's comments I thought his point was why risk an S172 charge (by sending PACE witness statement). I know though that I would not incur an S172 charge as the my personal details on the witness statement would satisfy the requirements of the S172.

Has it been known for drivers to be charged with S172 as they did'nt fill out their details on the form provided as my S172 states and highlighted in red marker:

'You are required to provide the information on the form attached'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Wed, 12 Oct 2005 - 03:29
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (poshtaxi)
Well then either I am confused or Jeffrey Archer was as to my next step  :?

My next step was to send the PACE witness statement but with Jeffrey's comments I thought his point was why risk an S172 charge (by sending PACE witness statement). I know though that I would not incur an S172 charge as the my personal details on the witness statement would satisfy the requirements of the S172.

Has it been known for drivers to be charged with S172 as they did'nt fill out their details on the form provided as my S172 states and highlighted in red marker:

'You are required to provide the information on the form attached'

You have not misunderstood me.
Whilst the case law against having to use the form is solid, people have been charged with it.
My point is simply why risk points, no matter how small that risk is.
Your call, of course, but I wouldn't.
Just suppose you were convicted of S172, you'd then have to appeal.
You should win, but is it worth the candle? No.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poshtaxi
post Wed, 30 Nov 2005 - 21:59
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Member No.: 1,420



I received my summons yesterday

witness statement

summons


I'd like to point out that the Traffic Warden was not as courteous as she makes out. Her witness statement says she explained to me 'I can't keep asking you to move, I have explained twice'. This was not said and neither were the warnings other than me pre - empting the words of a male Traffic Warden when I said 'you want me to circle'.

The terminal was very quiet and I would completely understand had it been busy. The paragraph where she states 'the free flow of traffic is essential at all times to facilitate it's use by the emergency services should the need arise' attempts to imply that I and every other car in the LAY-BY were causing an obstruction. Anyone who is familiar with Terminal 2 Arrivals at Manchester will know that there are 5 lanes in total:

Lane 1 is a lay - by for black cabs
Lane 2 is a free flow lane
Lane 3 is a lay - by for loading (the lane I was in)
Lane 4 is a free flow lane (which I was not obstructing)
Lane 5 is a free flow lane wide enough for cars to park and others to flow    

Everything else in the statement is as described.

I would like to know why i've been summonsed other than for the personal pleasure of the Warden on her high horse as there is no mention of what my fate may be other than I can expect court costs to be a minimum of £25.

The notes accompanying the summons say to bring license if stated on summons (not required) and how I wish to plea to the charge.

Ideas and opinions please
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 30 Nov 2005 - 22:32
Post #36


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,837
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (poshtaxi)
Ideas and opinions please


1. Post the entire bundle (with personal details removed).
2. Use imageshack (instructions in the FAQ).


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poshtaxi
post Wed, 30 Nov 2005 - 23:53
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Member No.: 1,420



Easier said than done Andy - even with instructions found in the faq I am hopeless with this kind of thing. I only managed to upload the summons and witness statement with a friend doing most of it on snapfish software. Have registered with imageshack but even dragging the sidebar link into the bookmarks tool bar is not as straight forward as it is explained.

Anyhow, I have scrutinised every page in the bundle which is 7 pages:

1 'Summons'

2 'Witness statement'

3 'Summary Trial form 27A' which explains plea options and looks like a  
  standard form sent to all:
 
  Section 1 Pleading guilty by post
  Section 2  Pleading guilty at court
4 Section 3  Pleading not guilty where it states a new court date will be                    
  set and Pre trial Review where I'll be required to attend.

It states for 'Motoring cases':

If you plead guilty by post, the magistrates will normally convict and sentence you on the date shown in the summons. But if the court is considering a driving disqualification, it will not finish your case on that date. The court will send you a notice saying when you must attend before the magistrates on a later date.

5 'Summary Trial Form 28A' which is just a tick box for plea and signature

6 'Notice to Defendant - Proof by Written Statement' which simply explains
   that a witness statement is attached and will be tendered in evidence
   against me and whether I wish her to give oral (no she was a munter)
   evidence.

7 Final page is a tick box reply form for me to confirm I have received the    
  documents relating to the case and whether I object to any statement
  being read out in court and the attendance of the Police witnes (traffic
  warden)


If you click on the witness statement she has only signed at the bottom and not in the section 2 inches down the page where it states 'this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence blah blah prosecution if false.

Signature not witnessed at bottom either   :?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 1 Dec 2005 - 00:18
Post #38


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,837
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (poshtaxi)
If you click on the witness statement she has only signed at the bottom and not in the section 2 inches down the page where it states 'this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence blah blah prosecution if false.

Signature not witnessed at bottom either   :?


The statute only requires that the statement contain the declaration, and that the statement isigned. As long as the statement is at the top, there is no requirment to sign it.

There is also no requirement (in England and Wales) for the statement to be witnessed.


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poshtaxi
post Thu, 1 Dec 2005 - 00:36
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Member No.: 1,420



Thanks Andy. So do you think on the face of things I'm looking at a large fine
for what is a summons for no waiting and then driving off?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lance
post Thu, 1 Dec 2005 - 11:30
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,771
Joined: 2 Feb 2004
From: London
Member No.: 843



I know that certain parking tickets are not issued until they have actually hit the windscreen of the car, or been handed to the driver, and in these cases there is no requirement to wait until the ticket is so issued. I don't know whether this applies in this case, though.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 24th February 2020 - 23:28
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.