Bournemouth council's parking fine policy blasted by solicitor (From Thisisdorset)
When news happens send us your pictures, video and views. Text BE to 80360 or contact us by email
Bournemouth council's parking fine policy blasted by solicitor
9:00am Sunday 23rd September 2012 in Latest By Melanie Vass
TOUGH ON TICKETS: Penalty charge notices are ‘issued in good faith’.
A SOLICITOR who won an eight-month battle with Bournemouth council over a parking fine has blasted its ‘high-handed and oppressive’ approach.
Peter Dymock, a solicitor based in Portsmouth, was issued with a £50 fine after the ticket he had bought slipped down the dashboard of his car, which was parked in Manor Road.
He explained the situation to Bournemouth council and sent a copy of his £2 pay and display ticket, expecting the fine to be written off.
But he said he was then ‘pursued relentlessly’ by the council for the £50 penalty charge, resulting in the case ending up at a Traffic Penalty Tribunal in Manchester.
There, the adjudicator found in Mr Dymock’s favour and found fault with the council’s case in several respects, including the fact it did not produce the traffic regulation it relied upon.
The decision coincides with the council’s decision to temporarily suspend enforcement of parking restrictions in all areas covered by parking meters , after a judgement claiming Traffic Regulation Orders may be wrongly worded.
Mr Dymock said: “What really annoys me is that the council pursued this at the local taxpayers’ expense when clearly this was totally over the top. They already had my £2.
“Several times I wondered whether I might just pay the £50 and stop fighting but not only is £50 a lot of money, it was unfair and it was the principle of the situation. How many people would just cough up and be done with it?
“It would not be nearly so irritating save that on a cold January morning, there were hardly any cars parked in Manor Road.
“I rang the council parking manager Gary Powell to challenge him and all he could tell me is that it is council policy to pursue these cases.”
Mr Powell, the parking and traffic manager, said: “Penalty charge notices are issued in good faith where there appears to have been a breach of the parking restrictions.
“A robust appeals process is in place to protect both the council and the motorist and we would encourage anyone who believes they have been wrongly issued with a PCN to use this process, as Mr Dymock did.”
Comments(36)
platypus
says...
9:56am Sun 23 Sep 12
Frank28
says...
10:06am Sun 23 Sep 12
ed Councils. I hope everyone challenges their parking tickets in the future.
penhale
says...
10:10am Sun 23 Sep 12
platypus wrote:If the word turd offends you then don't come on here, snob.
When are you going to stop bad and offensive language being used on the comments columns.The Echo is the only newspaper to allow this which only shows these articles are hardly read by your editing team.
sea poole
says...
10:13am Sun 23 Sep 12
pete woodley
says...
10:25am Sun 23 Sep 12
platypus wrote:I fully agree,and have complained several times,it appears that if you use an asterisk,star,etc you can get away with it.Some users often, use foul language,it makes them feel big,i suppose,i think you are the first one to complain here openly.Foul language is NOT needed on this site,and should not be encouraged.
When are you going to stop bad and offensive language being used on the comments columns.The Echo is the only newspaper to allow this which only shows these articles are hardly read by your editing team.
pete woodley
says...
11:03am Sun 23 Sep 12
t some words a lot worse.
fifty shades of brown envelopes
says...
11:23am Sun 23 Sep 12
Oldcastle
says...
11:30am Sun 23 Sep 12
penhale wrote:A dislike of bad language is not snobbery.
platypus wrote:If the word turd offends you then don't come on here, snob.
When are you going to stop bad and offensive language being used on the comments columns.The Echo is the only newspaper to allow this which only shows these articles are hardly read by your editing team.
manyogie
says...
11:35am Sun 23 Sep 12
Sovietobserver
says...
11:40am Sun 23 Sep 12
" The Council says the Appellant should have checked before leaving the vehicle. Hindsight will no doubt dictate such future conduct. It seeks a strict interpretation of the requirements to display a ticket. It is of course entitled to do so. However in providing such a close examination it is evident that there is simply on the wording selected and used, only a requirement to display.
Having satisfied that requirement, there is nothing in the Article cited ( or to which I am referred ), that imposed a continuing obligation for the ticket to remain clearly displayed throughout the period of parking. In deed the definition for 'relevant position' is silent both as to an obligation, as well as the way in which the tickets' particulars are readily visible. In seeking to interpret the Traffic Regulation Order it is not appropriate that I insert words that have been omitted or considered unnecessary in order to prosecute the Council's position.
I am satisfied and find that the Apellant displayed a ticket. Having fulfilled that condition it was immaterial that the ticket slipped behind the black strip at the apex of the windscreen and dashboard.
I find the requirements for parking in place were not contravened".
My comment is what this adjudicator is apparently saying, is what we all keep saying to our stinking, rotten, greedy parking dictatorship, is that you have to be reasonable. Accidents happen, Peter Dymock bought a ticket and he could prove it, and any fair, moral and ethical person would simply just cancel the PCN ( it was fair to issue it, as the ticket had slipped off, so was not visible). Bournemouth Borough Council can't have it both ways, they rely on the crappiest, thinnest non-adhesive tickets that even a passing fly could blow off a windscreen / dashboard, and also issue refuse to cancel tickets when the inadequate tickets float off. When are our Councillors going to start telling Officers that they need to run this crappy scheme fairly. This is our town, and we pay for this scheme to be run on our terms, instead we are still being bullied, years after this flawed mess was introduced. Fairness is not happening, and it is only our Councillors who can do something about the behaviour of their own Officers. It should not be up to individuals to have to challenge tickets like this.
Lord Spring
says...
11:52am Sun 23 Sep 12
platypus wrote:Have you a dictionary the word equates to a ball of dung.
When are you going to stop bad and offensive language being used on the comments columns.The Echo is the only newspaper to allow this which only shows these articles are hardly read by your editing team.
BmthNewshound
says...
11:55am Sun 23 Sep 12
.. How much did it cost Bournemouth Council to relentlessly pursue this £50 penalty charge ? - considerably more than £50 I suspect.
.
If there was an Olympic event for jobsworth council officers who lack even the most elementary ability to demonstrate common sense Bournemouth Borough Council would win gold every time.
ekimnoslen
says...
12:30pm Sun 23 Sep 12
ILoveBoscombe
says...
12:38pm Sun 23 Sep 12
justanoldie
says...
12:39pm Sun 23 Sep 12
Phixer
says...
12:54pm Sun 23 Sep 12
ekimnoslen wrote:That's a philosophy long lost on those who have forgotten who is paying for their holidays and Christmas presents.
Well done. Public servants are paid to assist not persecute those who pay their salaries and pensions.
penhale
says...
1:13pm Sun 23 Sep 12
sea poole wrote:oh dear, the dictionary police have arrived, get a life.
Penhale -'snob?' Didn't you get the initial consonant wrong? Don't think it's 's'...!
RobJ57
says...
1:21pm Sun 23 Sep 12
RobJ57
says...
1:22pm Sun 23 Sep 12
muscliffman
says...
1:54pm Sun 23 Sep 12
RobJ57 wrote:Phew! Could have been worse.
Before you comment - I know I spelt public incorrectly in the previous post.
TheDistrict
says...
2:59pm Sun 23 Sep 12
BIGTONE
says...
3:23pm Sun 23 Sep 12
fifty shades of brown envelopes
says...
4:49pm Sun 23 Sep 12
he may be a bit senile
but never a turd,
poolebob
says...
5:01pm Sun 23 Sep 12
In Absentia
says...
6:22pm Sun 23 Sep 12
ayer (delete which one as necessary) is the last of their consideration. Many of the local councillors add to this problem.
tbpoole
says...
9:43pm Sun 23 Sep 12
Phixer wrote:...and who pays for yours I wonder? Wherever you work, the customers who pay for the service you provide, or the product you make, also pay for your holidays etc. etc. What is so different about public sector workers, nurses, firemen, etc? I'd rather be paying for that than for a new car for a premiership footballer.
ekimnoslen wrote:That's a philosophy long lost on those who have forgotten who is paying for their holidays and Christmas presents.
Well done. Public servants are paid to assist not persecute those who pay their salaries and pensions.
Yankee1
says...
11:04pm Sun 23 Sep 12
Lord Spring wrote:And waste hundreds of thousands on 'surf reefs'.
This results from the cost cutting policy of not now issuing adhesive tickets from the machines.
They would skin a turd for a half penny
scrumpyjack
says...
8:40am Mon 24 Sep 12
penhale wrote:I suspect he was suggesting a 'k' be used instead of an ''s' when you used the word snob. He was not attacking you.
sea poole wrote:oh dear, the dictionary police have arrived, get a life.
Penhale -'snob?' Didn't you get the initial consonant wrong? Don't think it's 's'...!
rayc
says...
8:57am Mon 24 Sep 12
Perihelion
says...
10:44am Mon 24 Sep 12
rayc
says...
11:26am Mon 24 Sep 12
Perihelion wrote:"No ticket displayed = fine to be paid. Simples."
Is there absolute proof that the parker paid? Maybe he have obtained a ticket from someone else to cover the time when the fine was issued when he saw the fine on his car? (it does happen). What part of 'display' (your ticket) is not understood? I like the 'zero tollerance' of Bmth Council. No ticket displayed = fine to be paid. Simples.
Not in this case though thanks to the common sense of the adjudicator.
polblagger
says...
12:28pm Mon 24 Sep 12
pete woodley
says...
12:44pm Mon 24 Sep 12
Perihelion wrote:It is as you say easily wangled,the excuse,is a often used one.
Is there absolute proof that the parker paid? Maybe he have obtained a ticket from someone else to cover the time when the fine was issued when he saw the fine on his car? (it does happen). What part of 'display' (your ticket) is not understood? I like the 'zero tollerance' of Bmth Council. No ticket displayed = fine to be paid. Simples.
Sovietobserver
says...
1:17pm Mon 24 Sep 12
polblagger wrote:The Manchester office of the Traffic Penalties Tribunal decides on all the appeals against penalties issued by Civil Enforcement Authorities in England (outside London) and Wales , and against bus-lane penalties issued in England (outside London).
Can anybody explain why the appeal was held in Manchester?
polblagger
says...
7:04pm Mon 24 Sep 12
Sovietobserver wrote:Thanks for the reply.
polblagger wrote:The Manchester office of the Traffic Penalties Tribunal decides on all the appeals against penalties issued by Civil Enforcement Authorities in England (outside London) and Wales , and against bus-lane penalties issued in England (outside London).
Can anybody explain why the appeal was held in Manchester?
What a ridiculous and unfair system. I've had to take time off work to fight parking tickets in London, which is bad enough.
I've noticed that in my cases councils will force an appeal right the way to the adjudicator in the hope that a driver will capitulate because of time or money. Then they drop the case in your favour, often with less than 24hrs notice.
Lord Spring says...
9:15am Sun 23 Sep 12
They would skin a turd for a half penny