General Discussion
Parking in Richmond Place Contd..............
Following the thread about this I contacted the council about a pcn I recieved in July 2008 (9 months ago!). Following a conversation with Sue Edwards at Teignbridge council at that time, where I was accused of lying! I never heard any more. She has emailed back yesterday (9 months later!)to say that just because the road markings are unclear this does not mean the ticket will be cancelled on technical grounds. She is therefore sending me a 'notice to owner' (which should have been done 9 monts ago) to sort out this matter. I have told her I am willing to persue this as far as I can. People have been parking in Richmond place for years. I only parked there as I had a business in town and contacted DCC and the Police who both told me it was ok to park there as the sineage and markings were not legal. I also asked why, last Saturday, I witnessed a warden booking a car within 60 seconds of it parking legally in Brunswick while the owner was walking to the ticket machine to pay for his parking! Not surprisingly she didnt answer this. I would urge anyone who has an issue with parking to contact Sue Edwards. Sineage needs to be legal, wardens need better training and Teignbridge needs to address its over zealous and frankly heavy handed approach to parking enforcement.
Could not agree more with the last thread except one minor point. "Notice to Owner", does not have a time limit placed on it for it's delivery, but if you do receive one, there is a time limit placed on you - 28days.
However, photo's are a necessary part of collected evidence. There are photo's available -aabb20@gmail.com. Send me your email address And I will send you some photo's if you require them.
The law say's RTRA 1984 section 64(2) Traffic signs shall be of the size,colour and type prescribed by regulations, and those regulations referred to are the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
If we have to abide by the law, then so do they.
Traffic Regulation Orders procedures state section 18.-- (1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority (Devon County Council) shall take such steps as are necessary to secure-
(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requsite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so lond as the order remains in force;
and
(c) in a case were the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers reqisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.
Anyone that has visted the Dawlish Hospital will have noticed (or maybe not) that they have placed PINK double lines on the entrance- they have no meaning in LAW.
I will add to the above - They cannot ignore the law, but they will hope that you will cave in long before the baliffs are ordered to recover the unpaid penalty by the courts.
For those that are unsure what now happens.
Penalty Charge Notices are informing you that you may have committed an offence in parking (parking has become decriminalized)and there is a charge for that offence. That penalty has to be paid unless you have grounds to challenge.
I would advice everybody to follow to the letter, the challenge that you are going to make, KEEP RECORDS. The Adudication service is a National body where you will have to go if your local challenge is refused (eventually). If your challenge is refused, the authority may apply to the courts stating that you have not paid your debt, then the Baliffs are involved and then things can get a bit messy.
IT IS YOUR COUNCILLORS THAT HAVE BROUGHT THIS ABOUT, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE STICKING THE KNIFE IN - AND TURNING IT. WE CANNOT GO ON WASTING MONEY ANY LONGER IN CORRECTING THEIR ERRORS. THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE IN PARKING IN SLEEPY DAWLISH, THAN THERE IS IN TRYING TO PARK IN THE MIDDLE OF A MAJOR CITY.
CHARGING FOR PARKING IS NOT ABOUT MAKING MONEY - IT IS ABOUT EASING CONGESTION. THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.
Thank you Viaduct, If I need any further pictures I will be in touch. I recieved my notice to owner, and, following some serious online research I found the following. Thought you might be interested, especially if you are aware of anyone who has recieved a notice to owner later than 6 months from getting their PCN like I did.
Time limit for service of notice to owner:
Statutory Instruments 2007, No. 3483, Road Traffic, England, The civil enforcement of parking contraventions (England)general regulations 2007
Para 20 (1) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months begining with the relevant date.
The relevant date:
(2) The relevant date.
(d) in any other case, is the date on which the relevant PCN was served under regulation 9.
Basically you cannot be served a notice to owner after 6 months from the date on your parking ticket.
I will continue my battle over this matter, this is not just a matter of parking now, but also a matter of those who are paid by us in the council not having a grasp on 1. their responsibillities as a public servant and 2. Not having the legal or technical knowledge to sucessfully carry on thier duties. This leaves us, the public at the mercy of inept and poorly trained local authority.
And how else could these poor Council workers justify their existance and inflated salaries except by creating ill informed and endless correspondancies? Really, they have to do something to keep themselves awake...
Maybe some people should grow up and accept they have done wrong instead of spitting the dummy all the time? At cost to the tax payer.
The only reason it cost the taxpayer is because authorities do not take the time and trouble to get things right in the first place, so dont blame the public for spotting their mistakes.
you are totally blind are you not. the fact remains tax payers money was wasted for someone to point out a bit of paint was missing, you know what, I'm going to wait until the signs at Tesco stating "shoplifters will be prosecuted" are hardly legible, then I'm gonna have one helluva shoplifting spree! My defence? The signs were not made clear... d'ya think I will get off on a technicality? NOT ON YOUR MR HARRY! When he got his first ticket, he had been made aware of his offence ( and dont tell me he did not know the restrictions prior, i bet he flippin well did!)
Get Mr Harry on these topics on here, let's hear him defend his own honour! not just baby words from his groupies.
Fel699. So what you are saying is that we should all roll over and do as we are told? The legal system in this country was built by people challenging and questioning authority. Not all of us are yes men who roll over and let authority control us. I won my appeal, and for your information, without cost to the tax payer. Infact I have saved the tax payer money by making the council aware of their own costly admin errors, admin errors we pay for!
So please, dont use this forum to take cheap shots at people, use it as a means to debate and discuss issues that we may not all agree on but can openly confront without resorting to sarcasm or personal gripes! These are not baby words from Mr Harrys groupies Fel699!
FFl-669 Your comment 'When he got his first ticket, he had been made aware of his offence' I have seen the documentation and Mr Harry notified them immediately of their mistake, but in their arrogance they continued to give him tickets. TDC also told me that the CEO's are fully trained to recognise illegal signs and lines, I watched them put a ticket on a car in a courtesy disabled bay without the 'Blue badge needs to be displayed sign' when I pointed out to them that the car belonged to the person living in the house infront and that the bay was put there for him, and it did not need a blue badge they still ticketed him -later cancelled- so much for their training. In Roy's and your view he should have accepted and paid the ticket.
User4549 wrote: I watched them put a ticket on a car in a courtesy disabled bay without the 'Blue badge needs to be displayed sign' when I pointed out to them that the car belonged to the person living in the house infront and that the bay was put there for him, and it did not need a blue badge they still ticketed him -later cancelled- so much for their training. In Roy's and your view he should have accepted and paid the ticket.
That's an entirely different scenario to the Peter Harry one. The warden in your example (I'll call them warden's because that's what us lay people know them as) had made a stupid mistake that was quite rightly resolved.
Peter Harry meanwhile was deliberately flouting the law left, right and centre. It's got nothing to do with challenging the law - he's not some great public-serving crusader, he's a self-serving law-breaker. He tried to get away with illegal parking, but got caught and then went crying to all and sundry about a minor technicality.
I am intrigued though by the apparent number of people on here who seem to have very detailed knowledge of him and his whinging. I wonder, do you all live in the same sheltered accommodation? I bet that's a laugh-a-minute crib.
You just dont get it do you Roy in your bigoted mind 'Peter Harry meanwhile was deliberately flouting the law left, right and centre'
LETS TRY IN BIG LETTERS, MAYBE THEN YOU WILL GET IT. HE INFORMED THEM IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIVING THE FIRST TICKET, THEY IN THEIR WISDOM CONTINUED TO TICKET HIM. EVENUTALLY CANCELLING THEM BECAUSE HE HAD NOT PARKED ILLEGALY.
Which sheltered home to you live in? Langdon?
Listen, there's no point discussing this any further with you and your cronies, because you obviously have a vested personal interest (i.e. your relationships with Peter Harry) which you failed to declare when you started to defend the miscreant. Like most single-issue nutjobs, you will never see/acknowledge that an opposite point of view exists.
BTW, using capitals on a forum is regarded as SHOUTING and is bad form in the world of netiquette.
I don't live at the Langdon Hospital. I am, however, very proud of our NHS and the work that they do in the field of psychiatry and forensic psychiatry at Langdon.
Hey Roy chew on this one, they MAY have to act. see the Daily Mail, see what I mean about authorities do not always get it right
£20million in speeding fines may be repaid after police error
Ah - the Daily Mail. The rational voice of middle England. I'd sooner stick a fork in my eye than believe a word that rag publishes.
More interestingly (and factually), it's just been announced that the number of people killed on UK roads has reached a record low - 14% lower than the previous year.
Amazingly, the number of road deaths has reduced by 40% since the mid-1990's.
There are no doubt lots of contributory factors that affect this excellent news, however I'm sure they include the use of safety cameras and traffic calming methods.
You said 14% FACTUALLY,
how about this;
'The number of fatalities on British roads fell last year by 7%, according to figures released today by the Department for Transport.
So come on you smart old man who is right?
Mr Harry (rainbow) who I know very well, has asked me to point out this to the boys and girls who appear to have no idea of what has gone on and worse than that, they have no idea.
Marine Parade – He received a ticket, he challenged it as clearly the road markings were not as prescribed in the law. Mr Gary Powell of Devon County Council, informed him – that when we becomes aware of any deviation from that which is not prescribed – we suspend enforcement until such time as remedial measures can be taken. Unfortunately, (even when Mr Harry pointed out to some of the miscreants who masquerade as something they are clearly not) that the enforcement of parking in Marine Parade has been suspended, yet they continued to issue him with tickets – whose fault is that? Further, the Highway’s Agency spent three days in Marine Parade, grinding out the wrong lines, to be replaced by the correct lines. Now if as some on here would have it, that it was only a technicality that Mr Harry fought them on, then why did they spend so much of tax – payers money on what was clearly wrong if it was right? Does it make it right that because others are ignorant of the law, then those that do understand it are also wrong? Ignorance of the law is no defence, or did he also get that wrong?
The van. It was parked on land that is not part of the highway, therefore no one had any right to place tickets for what ever reason on that vehicle. There is a process to be followed when things do not go according to what some may think. Some tried to take matters into their own hands (anarchy) by luring others including inexperienced police officers and CPSO’s without the knowledge of the law, into trying to force his hand. It is well established who those anti-social behaviourists are.
The caravans. Had the piece of land been part of the highway, then they too would be breaking the law. But as things are at the moment they are safe. All trailers, (which in law) that is what a caravan is, must have lights displayed at the rear and must be attached to a towing vehicle when on the highway, unless in an emergency. Those unsightly caravans have been there for over two years – hardly left there for an emergency.
The next person you can challenge is a Devon County Councillor as he has picked up on the fact that many motorist have been illegally fined for the same non prescribed parking areas in Exeter. so watch this space for the outcome.
Come on Roy surely you can give a better answer than that, but do keep up the good work its a real giggle
Why do the likes of you find it so hard to admit that you were wrong??
7% = 2007 reduction.
14% = 2008 reduction.
Come on donut, for once, admit you were wrong.
When you do your "investigations" in future, I suggest that you look beyond the first page of Google... Gotcha!
You are welcome, I wonder if FFl-699 will also apologise for his mistake on 'Looney Toon Peter Harry at it again' forum.
I wonder if FFl-699 will also apologise for his mistake on 'Looney Toon Peter Harry at it again' forum. - who, are you sure you've go the right person? Never heard of FF1-699 old boy
will i bollocks, satisfied? reduced me to your level now. you may get me banned from the forum, but you cannot ban me from dawlish...
Hallelujah Roy! I return the same compliment you sent me! we are not alone! (in fact, regardless of what Viaduct/User4549 think, we are the majority, it's that readers of these posts seek entertainment, they don't wish to raise their blood pressure getting involved and I envy them for their restraint!)
User4549, do you not realise that while occasionally, UPPER CASE can be used to EMPHASISE a point, it can also be construed as aggression?
WHERE ARE THE MODERATORS?
If you had any idea of my username, you would think twice about your abusive comments... oh, sorry, i am wrong on that count, you do not recognise authority and apparently you do know who i am.
-.-. .- .-. . ..-. ..- .-.. -. --- .--
" If you had any idea of my username, you would think twice about your abusive comments..."
I have thought twice, and now what Julian?
can i just apologise for the jibe about (drug)user on a post? i found an old post where you were referred to as that and saw it wound you up and thought i would have a go. can see it didnt work though and i feel a little shameful i stole from someone else to get a laugh. you do realise though that you would have been able to sue for that though?