www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22993060
I am not really a vindictive person but I would love to see the council prosecuted if possible!
I am fed up that motorists get charged and fined for as much as seems possible as a cash cow!
|
I know that the picture shows a speed camera, but it seems the ones at question here are used for parking offences.
So, where is the possible failure?
If it was a problem with the radar equipment in a speed camera, I get it. But a picture from a traffic warden's camera? I am obviously missing the point.
|
>> I am obviously missing the point.
>>
I think you are, we must abide by the rules, why shouldn't the council? If the council does not have to comply with the law they can in theory fine you for anything, not that it would make much difference these days, wrong day bin on the pavement fine anyone? :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 21 Jun 13 at 17:07
|
>> >> I am obviously missing the point.
>> >>
>>
>> I think you are, we must abide by the rules, why shouldn't the council? If
>> the council does not have to comply with the law they can in theory fine
>> you for anything, not that it would make much difference these days, wrong day bin
>> on the pavement fine anyone? :-)
>>
You've always got the elections to look forward to ;-)
Councillor canvases a man in the street:
“Good afternoon Sir. Beautiful days isn’t it? Can I count on your vote at the election?”
Man in the Street:
“Yes, you certainly can”
Councillor:
“Thank you Sir”
MitS: “What for?”
Cllr: “Your vote, Sir. Thank you”
MitS: ”I wouldn’t vote for you if you were the only candidate standing”
Cllr: “You just said you’d vote for me”
MitS: “No I never”
Cllr: “Yes you did, I just heard you”
MitS: “Welcome to the electorates view of politics”
|
>> >> I am obviously missing the point.
>> >>
>>
>> I think you are, we must abide by the rules, why shouldn't the council? If
>> the council does not have to comply with the law they can in theory fine
>> you for anything, not that it would make much difference these days, wrong day bin
>> on the pavement fine anyone? :-)
The camera must be of an 'approved' type. That's what the regs say. If the 'offender' appealed on that basis he'd get the ticket cancelled by the adjudicator if not the Council.
If however he accepts his 'guilt' and pays the penalty charge then it's game over; nothing to challenge.
|
|
Some camera record a code called EXIF that details picture parameters perhaps the cameras used did not. Or the images might be compressed which means that they have been changed and may not 100% reflect what was seen.
|
>> Some camera record a code called EXIF that details picture parameters perhaps the cameras used
>> did not. Or the images might be compressed which means that they have been changed
>> and may not 100% reflect what was seen.
Changing the registration number to another one you mean?
|
>> I know that the picture shows a speed camera, but it seems the ones at
>> question here are used for parking offences.
>>
>> So, where is the possible failure?
>>
>> If it was a problem with the radar equipment in a speed camera, I get
>> it. But a picture from a traffic warden's camera? I am obviously missing the point.
clearly thats the way any legal process will look at it as well.
"As other councils have established in law when involved in similar cases on a much larger scale, we will therefore not be allowing appeals on tickets paid in relation to these cameras."
|
Actually they drive round in vans equipped with cameras and snap cars waiting on yellow lines while the driver nips across the pavement to the money machine. Claiming that such cars are 'parked' is obviously a snivelling quasi-legal form of fraud. Councils go in for these forms in a big way.
Time was when parking wardens had to give a car ten minutes before ticketing it. These days the swag-bellied, smelly aldermen put their filthy paws straight in your pocket and rob you directly by machine. 'The camera cannot lie', in a goddam pig's ear.
To the stocks with the carphounds!
|
|
On a recent (thankfully short) visit to London, I parked near my BiL's house, in a resident permit or pay and display zone. I was stood at a parking ticket machine about 3 meters from my car when a parking person on a scooter screeched to a standstill at my car. He had spotted that my car did not have a residents permit. He looked displeased (probably at the thought of his commission disappearing) when I shouted at him that I was getting a P&D ticket.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 21 Jun 13 at 17:50
|
Headlining in todays evening paper, A Salford traffic wardeness ticketing a couple of mums on the school run.
Only when one appealed the fine did the council find out that they were legally parked . The warden had photographed the signs in a nearby street to back up her tickets.
Both fines refunded and a case in the Crown Court led to the silly mare being given a suspended jail term and some sort of community service.........and the sack, of course.
Perverting the course, etc. Surely there are enough illegal parkers to keep your figures up ?
Ted
|
>>in a little over two years issued 2,550 parking tickets
I find that more worrying!
|
>> >>in a little over two years issued 2,550 parking tickets
>>
>> I find that more worrying!
She'd have been sacked in London for that.
Thats way to low, 10,000 minimum required to be issued.
|
>> She'd have been sacked in London for that.
>>
>> Thats way to low, 10,000 minimum required to be issued.
Not sure if you're joking Zero, but that figure is totally unrealistic.
If a warden worked a 40 hour week, they would have to issue about one every 12 minutes.
I've observed plenty of wardens in various parts of London, and none of the ones I've seen are issuing a ticket every 12 minutes.
I'm sure that they are pressurised/incentivised to issue a decent amount of tickets, but not 10,000 a year.
|
According to The Guardian:
"The busiest traffic wardens were in Liverpool, handing out an average of 2,616 parking fines each in 2011, followed by those in Coventry (2,220) and Worcester (2,125). This compared to just 296 fines per warden in 2011 in Sunderland."
www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/may/25/parking-tickets-soar
EDIT: Back in 2010, it seems that the target in London was 7 per day (perhaps 1,700 a year).
tinyurl.com/yeyw5t7
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sat 22 Jun 13 at 18:27
|
>> >> She'd have been sacked in London for that.
>> >>
>> >> Thats way to low, 10,000 minimum required to be issued.
>>
>> Not sure if you're joking Zero, but that figure is totally unrealistic.
Actually not.
It was a two year period remember, so thats 5k a year. Assume 250 working days a year, and you have 20 a day. Parking enforcement in London is from 08:00 till 18:00 so thats 10 hours.
Any warden who cant issue a ticket every 30 minutes in london will get the elbow.
Next question?
|
>> It was a two year period remember, so thats 5k a year. Assume 250 working
>> days a year, and you have 20 a day. Parking enforcement in London is from
>> 08:00 till 18:00 so thats 10 hours.
>>
>> Any warden who cant issue a ticket every 30 minutes in london will get the
>> elbow.
>>
>> Next question?
The next question is:
How do you explain the fact that (in 2011) the highest average number of tickets per warden in an English council was 2,616 (which was in Liverpool) and that the internal target in London was 0.9 per hour (or 7 per day, or about 1,700 per year). Neither of those figures is even close to this supposed 5,000 per year minimum to avoid getting sacked, as you are claiming.
Where exactly do you get your figures from?
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sat 22 Jun 13 at 20:17
|
Obtaining Monies By Deception - No FM2R
