In uk.transport.london, Colin Rosenstiel belched forth and ejected the
following:

In article ,
(Whinging Courier) wrote:

In uk.transport.london, Colin Rosenstiel belched forth and ejected
the following:

In article ,
(Chris Read) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote:

You misunderstand how parking enforcement works nowadays. The
parking attendant (not a warden) is there simply to issue
tickets. He or she is only concerned with whether a parking
infringement has occurred, not with the reasons.

The council appeals system is there to deal with reasons why
infringement was reasonable. Contact the council and explain
the circumstances. I can't imagine that they won't then cancel
the ticket. If they don't, appeal to the independent parking
adjudication service.

In other words, someone (the attendant/their employer/the local
authority, or a combination of), makes a lot of money from
issuing tickets without any regard for what one might term
'common sense'.

To deal with the vast number of tickets which are consequently
disputed, an elaborate multi-stage appeals process is then put
in place. Funded by the taxpayer, no doubt.

No. You stop contrary to parking regulations, you get a ticket.
If you had a lawful excuse that didn't become apparent in time, the
ticket is cancelled. Seems fair enough to me.

How do you know it's cancelled?

It's a lot more bloody inconvenient to have to contest a ticket
that may drag on for months than just not be issued one in the
first place.

Not if they adhere to the standards adopted by Cambridge City Council,
amongst others.

Ah. Civilisation.

As you were p