"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 the
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.

Chris

In article , chris117@btinternet
com (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 the
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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel.

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

In article , chris117@btinternet
com (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 the
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.

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel.

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

In article ,
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
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.

It's not quiet as simple as that. Police officers, and traffic wardens
employed by the police, had discretion not to issue tickets under the
old, criminal, system. They also had no financial incentive to issue
tickets that they knew someone else would cancel on appeal. Under the
decriminalised system discretion has moved from the street to the town
hall, and it is rarely, if ever, exercised.

Stopping to help at the scene of an accident isn't a lawful excuse for
parking on a yellow line, by the way, so a good sense of discretion in
these cases is essential. What the parking attendant should have been
doing is helping the injured and/or helping to keep traffic moving by
directing it and/or summoning help on their police radio, which is what
would have happened if they were a police traffic warden. Instead this
jobsworth issues pointless parking penalties! And it seems fair enough
to you?

--

U n d e r a c h i e v e r

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
(U n d e r a c h i e v e r) wrote:

*Subject:* Off Topic - Parking Wardens
*From:* U n d e r a c h i e v e r
*Date:* Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:26:00 +0000

In article ,
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
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.

It's not quiet as simple as that. Police officers, and traffic
wardens employed by the police, had discretion not to issue tickets
under the old, criminal, system. They also had no financial
incentive to issue tickets that they knew someone else would cancel
on appeal. Under the decriminalised system discretion has moved
from the street to the town hall, and it is rarely, if ever,
exercised.

Not at all. Quite a high proportion of Cambridge tickets are cancelled.

Stopping to help at the scene of an accident isn't a lawful excuse
for parking on a yellow line, by the way, so a good sense of
discretion in these cases is essential. What the parking attendant
should have been doing is helping the injured and/or helping to
keep traffic moving by directing it and/or summoning help on their
police radio, which is what would have happened if they were a
police traffic warden. Instead this jobsworth issues pointless
parking penalties! And it seems fair enough to you?

You misunderstand the new system. When did you last see a traffic warden
under the old system?

--
Colin Rosenstiel.

In article ,
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

cix email? wow! is that still going?

In article ,
(U n d e r a c h i e v e r) wrote:

*Subject:* Off Topic - Parking Wardens
*From:* U n d e r a c h i e v e r
*Date:* Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:26:00 +0000

In article ,
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
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.

It's not quiet as simple as that. Police officers, and traffic
wardens employed by the police, had discretion not to issue tickets
under the old, criminal, system. They also had no financial
incentive to issue tickets that they knew someone else would cancel
on appeal. Under the decriminalised system discretion has moved
from the street to the town hall, and it is rarely, if ever,
exercised.

Not at all. Quite a high proportion of Cambridge tickets are cancelled.

Well, I was commenting on London. In London a significant proportion of
tickets are cancelled because they were issued for non-offences (eg
loading/unloading taking place); the proportion cancelled on
discretionary grounds is very, very small. The proportion cancelled on
discretionary grounds in Cambridge might be a lot higher, as, I guess
most of the recipients live in Cambridge and the council might not want
to upset local residents and get a bad press. Westminster, along with
most London boroughs I guess, mainly issue to non-residents and really
don't have the same incentives to be judicious in their application of
the law -- they behave as though they just want the money.

Stopping to help at the scene of an accident isn't a lawful excuse
for parking on a yellow line, by the way, so a good sense of
discretion in these cases is essential. What the parking attendant
should have been doing is helping the injured and/or helping to
keep traffic moving by directing it and/or summoning help on their
police radio, which is what would have happened if they were a
police traffic warden. Instead this jobsworth issues pointless
parking penalties! And it seems fair enough to you?

You misunderstand the new system. When did you last see a traffic warden
under the old system?

I know the new system extremely well. And in many respects a locally run
enforcement operation could be made to be effective and fair: but at the
moment they are run for profit.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com