PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

040 offence for parking without a clock
LUCYDOG
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 12:04
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22 May 2019
Member No.: 103,986



Hello All
I would really like some opinions if possible.

I recently got a ticket from Carlisle City Council for not displaying my clock along with my blue badge in an on street bay. It was limited to 1 hour. While there were plenty of signs up remind one to display a badge of course nothing to say it required a clock.

Anyway I was issued with a ticket within 2 minutes of parking, honestly they must have seen me leave the car. However this area of Carlisle is a disc zone ( I didn't realise as Im not local) but surely I should have been given a 035 ticket which is failure to show a disc in the prescribed manner rather than a 040 offence? The 035 offence is at the lower rate than the 040.

I have made an appeal to CCC already which they have rejected, their reasoning being that failure to show a clock invalidates my blue badge. I don't think this argument stands however, the badge remains valid surely even if a clock is not shown and it is clearly displayed in their pictures.

if I had parked in a normal bay I would have been issued with a 035 offence surely, so I would have thought this would be the same with a blue badge?

I have checked the TRO for the central area, and it only states disc zone parking.

I do not dispute that I failed to show a clock but I do dispute the nature of the ticket and their reasoning. I also imagine they catch loads of people here!

Id love to hear your opinions as I am minded to take it to adjudication but Id like to know if you think Im on a hiding to nothing! Cheers.


This post has been edited by LUCYDOG: Wed, 22 May 2019 - 12:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 50)
Advertisement
post Wed, 22 May 2019 - 12:04
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 14:01
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,189
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



If what we're told about the order is correct, then there isn't even a provision restricting parking to a specified time.

On the general point, it is clear from my comments that I feel any argument based in 'the sign doesn't say I must display a clock/the order only specifies in the prescribed manner' is flawed. I will not support such an approach until there's a body of decisions in favour. Our job surely is to pass on to OPs the current state of play and not minority views which challenge the basis of the law as widely understood and applied. Reminiscent of the 'they cannot make me pay to release my towed car' debate of a couple of years ago.

There might be other forums for this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 14:02
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,106
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 26 May 2019 - 14:44) *
IMO the badge cannot be divorced from the clock it the waiting is legitimately time limited

8(4) Where the period of the prohibition exceeds 3 hours the exemption shall be for a period of 3 hours subject to the conditions that–

(a) the period of exempted waiting does not begin less than one hour after a previous period of exempted waiting by the same vehicle in the same road on the same day;

(b) a parking disc is displayed in the relevant position on the vehicle marked to show the quarter hour period during which the period of exempted waiting began.

could an adjudicator feel the same? then could a 3 hour limit be made to fit into (exceeds 3 hours) ?

See para 7 of Michelle Dhillon:

8. The only reference to a disc or clock is in the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled
Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 where it must be displayed in circumstances where the display of the
badge provides an exemption from a yellow line waiting restriction (see Regulation 8).


We are not concerned here with a yellow line restriction, so regulation 8 does not apply. We can't say anything about Anthony Pearce v London Borough of Croydon because we don't know what submissions and evidence were before the tribunal.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 15:11
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,517
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I see PMB's logic in a time limited parking space requiring either a clock or a permit/ticket indicating arrival or departure time. Otherwise there could be abuse.

However if this were a paid parking bay, or one of the Council's disc bays then the TRO would specify the need for a parking ticket or a parking clock to be displayed.

It cannot be a default position to assume that a sign relating to limited parking means a clock or ticket must be displayed. One would have to check the TRO for that requirement.

My concern with the TRO we have mentioned is that it seems to be version 53 of the original Order and, as hca has already commented, there could be other amendments floating about which might destroy our "no clock" case.

I would prefer that the OP have other irons in the fire----mitigation or proof of the parking period via receipts etc.

So we need more narrative from the OP.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 15:39
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,106
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think its worth noting that, in general, amendments seldom if ever change the articles of an order, generally only the schedules get amended.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 17:41
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,509
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 26 May 2019 - 16:11) *
I see PMB's logic in a time limited parking space requiring either a clock or a permit/ticket indicating arrival or departure time. Otherwise there could be abuse.

However if this were a paid parking bay, or one of the Council's disc bays then the TRO would specify the need for a parking ticket or a parking clock to be displayed.

It cannot be a default position to assume that a sign relating to limited parking means a clock or ticket must be displayed. One would have to check the TRO for that requirement.

My concern with the TRO we have mentioned is that it seems to be version 53 of the original Order and, as hca has already commented, there could be other amendments floating about which might destroy our "no clock" case.

I would prefer that the OP have other irons in the fire----mitigation or proof of the parking period via receipts etc.

So we need more narrative from the OP.

Mick


If it was just my logic, Mick I would shut up but an adjudicator found the requirement for the clock, so with what we know at present it is 1 all as regards the direction of findings.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 18:12
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,106
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 26 May 2019 - 18:41) *
If it was just my logic, Mick I would shut up but an adjudicator found the requirement for the clock, so with what we know at present it is 1 all as regards the direction of findings.

Do we have the submissions that were before that adjudicator?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 20:03
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,509
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 26 May 2019 - 19:12) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 26 May 2019 - 18:41) *
If it was just my logic, Mick I would shut up but an adjudicator found the requirement for the clock, so with what we know at present it is 1 all as regards the direction of findings.

Do we have the submissions that were before that adjudicator?


Yes will e mail them to you


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LUCYDOG
post Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 11:26
Post #48


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22 May 2019
Member No.: 103,986



Thanks for all your thoughts. I have been away so was unable to respond.

personally I don't think I have any mitigating circumstances, I simply didn't realise I needed to show a clock as I am not local and there are no signs around to say it was required. So I believed rightly or wrongly that I had displayed in correctly.

I have appealed again, on several grounds stated here, but I do think they are digging their heals in on this one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 11:29
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,106
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



LUCYDOG shw us what you sent.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 12:01
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,189
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



It cannot be a default position to assume that a sign relating to limited parking means a clock or ticket must be displayed. One would have to check the TRO for that requirement.

But it is. We're mistaking the meaning of a sign for what the TRO might require: they are not the same.

A permit or similar traffic sign MAY NOT include the term 'display clock' or similar because this is not permitted.

Permits and BBs are issued upon request and it is made clear on issue that their use is subject to conditions with which the user must comply. A traffic sign doesn't state 'clearly visible' or 'dashboard' or whatever because these terms are stated in the Ts and Cs of use on issue.

Sorry to say, but IMO the argument about the sign not stating display a clock is not only without merit, it is misleading and a distraction.

But whether this is stated in the TRO is another matter.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 12:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 12:37
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,106
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think we're all in agreement that regardless of the merits of whether a sign should or shouldn't mention a clock, the issue in this case is that the requirement does not exist in the TRO, so there has been no breach of the TRO. hcandersen and I can discuss the merits of other issues another time but not in this thread, as it wouldn't be relevant to the OP's case.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Thursday, 20th June 2019 - 04:08
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.