Motorist hit with penalty fine - for parking on stranger's driveway |
Motorist hit with penalty fine - for parking on stranger's driveway |
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 18:30
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 898 Joined: 8 Aug 2006 Member No.: 7,035 |
QUOTE A cheeky driver has been fined by police - after being caught parking on a stranger's driveway. The motorist was among 16 drivers ticketed in a police blitz on bad parking near Moor Green Primary School in Moseley . Other drivers were ticketed for speeding, leaving their car in a dangerous position or causing an obstruction in Moor Green Lane. Police posted pictures of offenders - including a Skoda driver who had parked on someone else’s driveway. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midla...arking-14917134 I was under the impression there was no legislation allowing for enforcement of cars parked on other peoples drives? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 18:30
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 19:49
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 15 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,183 |
Of course mistakes happen all the time, every FPN successfully defended in court was issued incorrectly. I don’t need to prove that as it’s self evidently blooming obvious. Doesn’t make it right, but more does it necessarily make it wrong, as long as the officer had a reasonably held belief the offence was committed then he can issue the fixed penalty. As an example D&C issue a CoFP with every NIP to the registered keeper, many won’t even have been driving. Mistakes certainly don't happen all the time. That would mean that every action was a mistake. Nonsense, at best. I could accept that mistakes happen sometimes, many times or often. But "all the time" is just nonsense. The Orifice may have held the belief you describe, but I suggest it's much more likely that he was told to go and ticket people in this area, as a result of residents' complaints. The police are there to uphold the law. Except they should make it up if you're speeding in a vehicle with good handling, or the officer thinks you're only a bit over the drink drive limit. But absolutely no bending the rules about parking. Top tip: when you write a post read it back and think if it sounds logical, consistent and intelligent. I know I need to spell things out, just for you. Here goes. Parking offences are rarely prosecuted by Plod. When they are, it's done because laws have been broken. Obviously not the case here. I tried to explain that arbitrary limits seem nonsensical when applied to competent drivers in well-engineered vehicles. The lowest common denominator shouldn't apply to all. I could ride a pushbike through a chicane, directly facing oncoming vehicles, at 20mph. I wouldn't be breaking any speed limits but most people would say I was a complete moron. No doubt you would say that, if the pushbike was doing 31mph through the chicane, the idiot deserved all he got. A sensible Orifice, following in a road traffic car, might use his judgment and come up with a different opinion, unless he had been told to target people there. |
|
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 19:51
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
The alcohol limit for drivers is 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood Are you saying 79mg is OK and 81mg isn't? Assuming prosecution starts when the limit is exceeded, then from a legal point of view 81mg is obviously not OK. Bit of a daft example. This post has been edited by peterguk: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 19:53 -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 - 21:23
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 15 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,183 |
The alcohol limit for drivers is 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood Are you saying 79mg is OK and 81mg isn't? Assuming prosecution starts when the limit is exceeded, then from a legal point of view 81mg is obviously not OK. Bit of a daft example. Prosecution doesn't start when the limit is exceeded. Leeway occurs. Most speed prosecutions occur when the driver has exceeded the limit by 10% + 2mph. Most alcohol prosecutions occur when the driver is 5mg over the limit. Those events occur when a driver has exceeded an arbitrary limit. Brake would panic that driving at 31mph in a 30 limit is heinous, either in a Lamborghini or a cement mixer. Either at 2am or at 8:30am. In the instant case, no law has been breached by parking on private property. Therefore no FPN should have been issued. It makes a mockery of enforcement, just like prosecution for a speed of 31mph in a 30 limit. Or 30.1mph if you prefer. Clearly the Orifices have more to do: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6799500/littl...ss-dance-video/ |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 00:23
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 195 Joined: 4 Mar 2014 Member No.: 69,189 |
QUOTE Other drivers were ticketed for speeding, leaving their car in a dangerous position or causing an obstruction in Moor Green Lane. In a civil enforcement area (like Birmingham) for parking contraventions the Police can enforce the above where it occurs on a public highway but a private driveway is not a public highway unless it is frequently accessed by the public and therefore classed as public highway, which I doubt is the case here. Parking on a private driveway may be a tad immoral but it is not a parking contravention. Loads of traveller caravans park on private land and nothing much happens to them other than being asked to move on. |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 08:23
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
.........Parking on a private driveway may be a tad immoral but it is not a parking contravention. Loads of traveller caravans park on private land and nothing much happens to them other than being asked to move on. That's why it is so intriguing. Police simply say tickets were handed out including one to the cheeky one. We are simply batting around options though TBH, none seem viable. And for all we know, the ticket may have been for something totally unrelated to the parking or no more then a flyer warning of dire consequences but toothless in reality. |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 09:51
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Mistakes certainly don't happen all the time. That would mean that every action was a mistake. That is seriously messed up logic! If you're going to behave like an idiot there is no point trying to have a discussion. Nonsense, at best. That at least is right! -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 10:26
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 15 Apr 2013 Member No.: 61,183 |
Mistakes certainly don't happen all the time. That would mean that every action was a mistake. That is seriously messed up logic! If you're going to behave like an idiot there is no point trying to have a discussion. Nonsense, at best. That at least is right! Do explain. You wrote that mistakes happen all the time. What is your understanding of the word "all"? Is English not your first language? I know English can be difficult to learn. |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 10:39
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Keep it civil. Final warning.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 13:47
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
I tried to explain that arbitrary limits seem nonsensical when applied to competent drivers in well-engineered vehicles. THE lowest common denominator shouldn't apply to all. Yes but the problem with your fantasy world where everyone does what they like is that police are human. Because of that, if they are allowed to set an arbitrary limit in their head some will set it lower than others. So you then have people feeling aggrieved because the police were too harsh. If you want to challenge it you have a potentially expensive day out with no certainty because the judge is human too and will be making an arbitrary judgement. £1,000 ish if you disagree. You only need to look at the complaints around S59 seizures, where police have considerable discretion, to see whether people agree with an arbitrary police assessment. So speed limits provide cement mixers and Audi drivers with a minimum standard. And for the rest of us they provide a number where absent of other factors the police cannot prosecute you. And if you want to dispute it in court you only need to prove one number and the case will be thrown out. With the driver here if he hasn't commited any offence then he can prove it as the police have published their own evidence. And if he was done for breach of the peace for arguing with the householder it just proves you shouldn't assume a story when there are boots on the ground who will know for sure. |
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 14:06
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
When I was a kid the coppers would give you a clip round the ear if you stepped out of line. They obviously cant do that now. But let the twassock defend it in court if they want to
Then if its found that the FPN is not the correct method of deterrent then perhaps waiting til the motorist returns, stopping them and spending an hour going over the car would be allowed. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 14:42
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
|
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 15:32
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 898 Joined: 8 Aug 2006 Member No.: 7,035 |
Could it be something unrelated to driving, is there a FPN for Anti Social Behaviour or something like that?
|
|
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 18:25
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,423 Joined: 15 Apr 2009 From: Winnersh, UK Member No.: 27,840 |
|
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 13:05
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 547 Joined: 5 Oct 2012 Member No.: 57,550 |
Just park him in and refuse to move your car for a few days.
|
|
|
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 - 14:12
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,768 Joined: 17 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,602 |
Just park him in and refuse to move your car for a few days. Such action is illegal under POFA 2012. Iif there is a gate & warning signs then it's OK to lock the gate to prevent them leaving. -------------------- British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:31 |