Police Traffic Warden at Airport summons rec'd updated |
Police Traffic Warden at Airport summons rec'd updated |
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 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. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 8 Sep 2005 - 12:39
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 12 Sep 2005 - 17:35
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,353 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. |
|
|
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: -------------------- Regards, Insider
Forum Moderator Your Help & Assistance Required Please sign the SafeSpeed online petition against Speed Cameras and make your views known as a motorist - CLICK HERE Please sign the online petition against road pricing/tolls and make your views known as a motorist - CLICK HERE |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Mon, 12 Sep 2005 - 22:03
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,353 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 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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. -------------------- |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. 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? |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
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' |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Wed, 30 Nov 2005 - 22:32
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 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
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
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 :? |
|
|
Thu, 1 Dec 2005 - 00:18
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 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
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
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? |
|
|
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.
-------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:35 |