notomob.co.uk

General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: BGB on 03 December, 2013, 03:27:40 PM

Title: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: BGB on 03 December, 2013, 03:27:40 PM
... to issue a PCN for pavement parking.

Now what has PaTAS previously said on this issue?  I remember...

"The CEO's own vehicle appears to be stopped at the same location and therefore also in contravention. It would therefore offend the rules of natural justice for the enforcement authority to continue enforcing this penalty charge notice. "

PaTAS case 2120136111.

Clearly it is one rule for the Council and one for the serfs.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: 2b1ask1 on 03 December, 2013, 07:18:47 PM
Well the lazy w-anchor could have parked on the white zig-zag!
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 03 December, 2013, 08:47:29 PM
Well the lazy w-anchor could have parked on the white zig-zag!

Except he'd then be committing a Criminal Offence.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: BGB on 03 December, 2013, 09:14:29 PM
Well the lazy w-anchor could have parked on the white zig-zag!

He could even have parked in the parking bay opposite!
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 03 December, 2013, 09:43:52 PM
Well the lazy w-anchor could have parked on the white zig-zag!

He could even have parked in the parking bay opposite!


What! Actually walk somewhere?  :o
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Pat Pending on 03 December, 2013, 10:24:58 PM
You can bet your b*ll*cks he did not walk it on or off the pavement. This will also be a criminal offence I think. Driving on a footway?
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 04 December, 2013, 04:24:23 PM
You can bet your b*ll*cks he did not walk it on or off the pavement. This will also be a criminal offence I think. Driving on a footway?

I actually meant Parking Legally and then walking to where the alleged Contravention was occuring.  :)

But yes, had a Police Officer seen him, he could have been stuck on.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 05 December, 2013, 05:05:59 PM
I would be interested to hear the council spokesweasel's slant on this.

"We would like to thank the member of the public for bringing to our attention that enforcement by CEO is difficult, sensitive and not practical. We will now be using mobile CCTV cars to to improve the service we provide to our customers, especially near schools. If the customer who took the pictures would like to tell us where he was parked, we can then issue him with a PCN."

 :o
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: BGB on 05 December, 2013, 10:56:02 PM
Interestingly, the vehicle being ticketed for footway parking were unloading building materials to an adjacent property so if they appeal to PaTAS their PCN will be cancelled as there is a statutory exemption.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 07 December, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
Interestingly, the vehicle being ticketed for footway parking were unloading building materials to an adjacent property so if they appeal to PaTAS their PCN will be cancelled as there is a statutory exemption.

"Builders dropping off or picking up tools from a site are exempt, but the vehicle must be removed immediately the loading and unloading has been completed. If it is essential for a vehicle to be parked nearby while working (e.g. a glazier’s or scaffolder’s vehicle) then you should contact the council to make special arrangements."

So if the correct observation time was given the PCN could be upheld - not that this excuses the appalling double standard of ticketing a vehicle while commiting the same Contravention.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: BGB on 31 December, 2013, 03:28:19 PM
Interestingly, the vehicle being ticketed for footway parking were unloading building materials to an adjacent property so if they appeal to PaTAS their PCN will be cancelled as there is a statutory exemption.

"Builders dropping off or picking up tools from a site are exempt, but the vehicle must be removed immediately the loading and unloading has been completed. If it is essential for a vehicle to be parked nearby while working (e.g. a glazier’s or scaffolder’s vehicle) then you should contact the council to make special arrangements."

So if the correct observation time was given the PCN could be upheld - not that this excuses the appalling double standard of ticketing a vehicle while commiting the same Contravention.

If the correct observation time was given, then the CEO would have noted activity around the vehicle.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 01 January, 2014, 09:09:37 AM
I'll bet the contemporaneous notes say something like "No loading observed" and that the wily weasel waited for the lads to disappear before slapping the PCN on and getting a quick shot of the deserted truck. Either that or a creative camera angle from the front.

There's obviously some loading activity in your snap so the only contravention I can see is the one the weasel has committed.

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-char016.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 01 January, 2014, 12:03:43 PM
Ahem! :schucks:

Zigzag lines on a pedestrian crossing? ::)
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Pat Pending on 01 January, 2014, 12:31:46 PM
Ahem...... :schucks:  I thought the Police enforced Zig Zags not CEO's  as it's a 3 point on your License jobby.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 01 January, 2014, 01:55:23 PM
Ahem. :schucks:

I think you'll find contravention code 99 is the appropriate one for civil enforcement. Old Bill can still do you too, and that is indeed a 3 pointer AND a fine.

Mrs Eagle often spouts the old adage, "I married Mr Right. Problem was I didn't realise his first name was Always."

Maybe she's onto something, but I'm sure you will all now be queuing up to point out all the times I was Mr Wrong.

Bring it on. I can take it! ???

Hehehehehehehe. ;D
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: BGB on 01 January, 2014, 02:50:39 PM
ahem,

The zig-zag only applies to the carriageway, not the footway so parking on the footway adjacent to the zig-zag is not a parking on the zig-zag offence. :o

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/contents/made (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/contents/made)

"20.  (2) Except as provided in regulations 21 and 22 the driver of a vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it to stop in a controlled area."

"“controlled area” means a Pelican controlled area, a Puffin controlled area or a Zebra controlled area;"

"“Zebra controlled area” means an area of carriageway in the vicinity of a Zebra crossing the limits of which are indicated in accordance with regulation 6(1) and Part II of Schedule 1;"

"“carriageway” means—
(a)in relation to a crossing on a highway in England or Wales or on a road in Scotland, a way constituting or comprised in the highway or road being a way over which the public has a right of way for the passage of vehicles;
"





Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 01 January, 2014, 04:20:08 PM
I'm sure you will all now be queuing up to point out all the times I was Mr Wrong.


(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent105.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 01 January, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
Whoops!

I stand corrected. Mea culpa. :schucks:

I thought the truck had two wheels on the carriageway. I didn't study the picture properly.

I must tell Mrs Eagle that she married neither Mr Right OR Mr Always. :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks: :schucks:
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Pat Pending on 01 January, 2014, 05:55:21 PM
Ahem......Ahem....... Ahem...... Sounds like we need shit load of cough medicine around here!  ;D
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 02 January, 2014, 04:58:09 PM
I have a picture which demonstrates contravention code 99. A council spokeweasel said, "Being stopped on a crossing area marked by zig-zags is very dangerous indeed, especially to children and the elderly. We encourage our CEOs to park there whenever possible which effectively prevents selfish drivers from parking there and consequently maintains safety."

(http://www.thecomet.net/polopoly_fs/parking_1_1_1107902!image/1612141032.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/1612141032.jpg)
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Overlord on 02 January, 2014, 06:36:04 PM
 :bashy: "Being stopped on a crossing area marked by zig-zags is very dangerous indeed, especially to children and the elderly." So says the council spokes person. But when a council vehicle is stopped on a crossing area marked by zig-zags it doesn't cause a blind spot and is perfectly safe, especially to children and the elderly. It's still a vehicle stopped on an area marked by zig-zags causing a blind spot. Does this council spokes person think that children and the elderly can see through their vehicles? What excuses will these people come up with next to try and legitimise their own contraventions? These plebs must think we've just arrived with the morning frost.

Perhaps it's time the police took a hand and started issuing their own contravention notices and fines to these law breakers.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 02 January, 2014, 06:45:24 PM
What excuses will these people come up with next to try and legitimise their own contraventions? These plebs must think we've just arrived with the morning frost. Perhaps it's time the police took a hand and started issuing their own contravention notices and fines to these law breakers.

I can only speak for myself, but I'd have no hesitation in issuing an FPN(E) to that van. One of the lovely new pink forms we've got - 3 points and £100 and the Driver would have to explain him/herself to a Magistrate if he/she wanted to contest it! I might have to look up the Offence Code mind you - not many people are stupid/inconsiderate/arrogant (delete as appropriate) enough to do it.


Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Overlord on 02 January, 2014, 10:18:21 PM
Are you a police officer by any chance DastardlyDick? I'd love to see that. What a hoot!  :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl: By the way, what is an FPN(E)?
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: BGB on 02 January, 2014, 10:29:59 PM
Fixed Penalty Notice (Endorsable) [3 points]
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 02 January, 2014, 11:04:55 PM
Fixed Penalty Notice (Endorsable) [3 points]

And £100
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 03 January, 2014, 10:23:25 AM
Or £200 + 6 points if you are, how did you put it again Dick? ah yes, stupid/inconsiderate/arrogant.

http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/123890-traffic-warden-parks-van-on-zig-zags-offence-or-not/ (http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/123890-traffic-warden-parks-van-on-zig-zags-offence-or-not/)

post #7, I have done this!! CEO contested my ticket saying that he had special dispensation to park 'anywhere in order to issue a ticket in line with his role'. It went to mags court and he was fined £200 plus 6 points on his licence!!!!!!!! Judge said he should by far know better and the punishment to him should act as a warning to other CEO's. Clearly it didn't!!

also of note, post # 8, Excellent! The witnesses to this are now being sought by Herts Traffic so that statements can be taken....

Then post # 14, I have issued a ticket for this in the past to a CEO and they paid up, also reported a CEO for taxi touting in the West End on his night off, 3 month disqualification and a £600 fine, amazing when you think the lack of punishment people get for other offences.

It seems the average cozzer is not happy about these cowboys running round town doing as they please.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: «THÖMÅS®©™» on 06 January, 2014, 06:00:07 AM
Hello No To Mob...

I am new to this forum, and would like to say that your cause is admirable...

In relation to this thread:

It is an offence under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to ride/drive a motor vehicle on a pavement or bridleway.  The consequences are that you could have your vehicle seized and crushed if you don't pay a fine (issued by the police) to get your vehicle back within a 2 week period (varies by force)

It is also an offence under section 34 if the Road Traffic Act 1988 to ride/drive a motor vehicle on a pavement or bridleway with consequences of points on ones licence and/or an unlimited fine.

So by riding his moped on the path (as seen on the pictures) he has committed 2 different offences in addition to the PCN... The joys of knowing this stuff!
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 06 January, 2014, 08:08:22 AM
Hello No To Mob...

I am new to this forum, and would like to say that your cause is admirable...

In relation to this thread:

It is an offence under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to ride/drive a motor vehicle on a pavement or bridleway.  The consequences are that you could have your vehicle seized and crushed if you don't pay a fine (issued by the police) to get your vehicle back within a 2 week period (varies by force)

It is also an offence under section 34 if the Road Traffic Act 1988 to ride/drive a motor vehicle on a pavement or bridleway with consequences of points on ones licence and/or an unlimited fine.

So by riding his moped on the path (as seen on the pictures) he has committed 2 different offences in addition to the PCN... The joys of knowing this stuff!

All perfectly true but first of all a Police Officer has to actually see the Offence being committed, and to seize a vehicle under s.59 PRA a warning has to be given first.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 06 January, 2014, 10:42:22 AM
Hello No To Mob...

I am new to this forum, and would like to say that your cause is admirable...

In relation to this thread:

It is an offence under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to ride/drive a motor vehicle on a pavement or bridleway.  The consequences are that you could have your vehicle seized and crushed if you don't pay a fine (issued by the police) to get your vehicle back within a 2 week period (varies by force)

It is also an offence under section 34 if the Road Traffic Act 1988 to ride/drive a motor vehicle on a pavement or bridleway with consequences of points on ones licence and/or an unlimited fine.

So by riding his moped on the path (as seen on the pictures) he has committed 2 different offences in addition to the PCN... The joys of knowing this stuff!

Hello «THÖMÅS®©™» and welcome.

Please feel free to contribute as you see fit. All intel is good intel. ;D
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 06 January, 2014, 10:51:35 AM
Or £200 + 6 points if you are, how did you put it again Dick? ah yes, stupid/inconsiderate/arrogant.

[url]http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/123890-traffic-warden-parks-van-on-zig-zags-offence-or-not/[/url] ([url]http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/123890-traffic-warden-parks-van-on-zig-zags-offence-or-not/[/url])

post #7, I have done this!! CEO contested my ticket saying that he had special dispensation to park 'anywhere in order to issue a ticket in line with his role'. It went to mags court and he was fined £200 plus 6 points on his licence!!!!!!!! Judge said he should by far know better and the punishment to him should act as a warning to other CEO's. Clearly it didn't!!

also of note, post # 8, Excellent! The witnesses to this are now being sought by Herts Traffic so that statements can be taken....

Then post # 14, I have issued a ticket for this in the past to a CEO and they paid up, also reported a CEO for taxi touting in the West End on his night off, 3 month disqualification and a £600 fine, amazing when you think the lack of punishment people get for other offences.

It seems the average cozzer is not happy about these cowboys running round town doing as they please.


It would appear that the Magistrates aren't happy either - more than trebling the fine and doubling the points is very rare.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: «THÖMÅS®©™» on 07 January, 2014, 05:28:00 AM
All perfectly true but first of all a Police Officer has to actually see the Offence being committed, and to seize a vehicle under s.59 PRA a warning has to be given first.

No DD, you are incorrect, it clearly states "reasonable grounds to believe" not that a police officer has to see it happen...  I quote:

Quote
59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

(1)Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—

(a)contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and

(b)is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,

he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).

(2)A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).

(3)Those powers are—

(a)power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;

(b)power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;

(c)power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;

(d)power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).

(4)A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless—

(a)he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and

(b)it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.

(5)Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if—

(a)the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;

(b)the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;

(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or

(d)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.

(6)A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Need I say more?  I know that the rider/driver has to be given a warning first, but as stated, sometimes it is impractical for an officer to do so.  Never the less, an officer can issue a section 59 warning pursuant to subsection 1 as above.   In short, he does not have to see the offence in action to act on it.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 07 January, 2014, 09:32:09 AM
Yes, that's the Law, but policy is that the Officer has to see the Offence otherwise CPS won't take it to Court.

If you take the example of this CEO in Southwark, how do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Offence has actually been comitted? After all, it is perfectly possible that the rider got off his/her scooter on the carriageway and then wheeled it to where it is seen in the picture which is not an Offence.

Contrary to some opinion, we do not live in a Police State and, IMO, seizing a vehicle under the circumstances seen in these pictures would lead to the Police being sued which doesn't go down well with the Cheif Officer, and could also lead to the Officer who seized it being subject to Disiplinary procedures or even Criminal Charges.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: «THÖMÅS®©™» on 10 January, 2014, 10:05:37 AM
Perhaps...

The point I am making is that it's NOT what the law says.   Thus I believe that the police are not doing thier job correctly.
Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: DastardlyDick on 10 January, 2014, 11:42:01 AM
Thus I believe that the police are not doing thier job correctly.

Do I take it that you're advocating that the Police are to issue tickets which basically accuse people of Criminal Offences with absolutley no justification, let alone evidence, whatsoever?

Having a conviction against your name can seriously wreck your life - the US Authorities will view a conviction for Drink Driving as "moral turpitude" and can use it to bar you from entering the US.

Title: Re: Southwark CEO parks on the pavement...
Post by: «THÖMÅS®©™» on 12 January, 2014, 12:01:51 AM
I never said that and section 59 offences are not a criminal offence per say.  It is a way to prevent fools riding thier bikes on the pavements and on bridle ways and if reported enough, caught on camera, or seen by a police officer, first you get a warning and then if you are seen again, your vehicle is seized.  In Norfolk, I believe the recovery of the vehicle is £150 plus £12 per day storage.  This is how the police deal with these offences all over the country.

What I meant by the police "not doing thier job properly" was that I have reported 5 bikes, repeatedly for 7 months, and they have taken no action at all.  I have dates and times down to the minute in my diary.  This is evidence and can be used in court, especially when I have the number plates and recently the names of the fools riding the bikes in the manner described.  I do try to catch them on video doing it and if I do, I pay a visit to my local police station - less than 500 yards from my address and show them the video.  I did manage to get one on video in 2011 and I showed it to the police and they paid him a visit and gave him a section 59 warning...

That occasion was a good outcome.  But the 5 I am reporting repeatedly here is a much more complicated issue.  I hear them coming, literally.  But by the time I get my camera and get it running, they have pulled a wheelie past my address and are gone.  So, the only thing I can do is report them to the police, which I do, but they don't do anything despite section 59 (1) of the Police Reform Act 2002.

On November 18th 2013, one of the riders of these bikes (name is known as well as his address) gave me a load of verbal abuse on one of the roads near my address.  This happened at 12:40 after I left college GCSE maths lesson.  Of course, he wasn't expecting me to have a witness, who gave his details to the police when I reported the rider of the bike going past giving me verbal abuse.  He was given a £90 fixed penalty notice for a section 5 Public Order Offence and a PIN (Harassment Warning), but he still continues to harass me although much less often.  I have plans to write to he 2 brothers parents demanding that they cease and desist thier actions or I will be left with no choice but to apply to the county courts for an injunction preventing them from continuing thier conduct,  this will include power of arrest.  The reasons for this is that the police seem to be letting them get away with it, and all it is doing is causing me to go into depression.  Yet the police do nothing.

I am not sure what your problem is DD.