Scooby Soon!

I have just received a parking ticket from Ashford Borough Council, reason beeing i was late back by 6 minutes. The only place I can park is the street and for some stupid reason there is a maximum stay of 60minutes and no return same day or meter feeding. I have just opened the ticket up and it says that my vehicle is white it clearly isnt, can I reject this parking ticket using the appeal system? Has anyone else ever appealed succesfully under similar circumstances?

If not does anyone know of any parking ticket websites or forums where I can find info?

GC8

Dude; you're f*cked.....

/Robin Williams

Abdabz

Was it your car and where you parked for more than 60 minutes in a 60 minute zone?

boxst

Hello

If you were in the wrong and they have both your registration number and tax disk number I would say there is nothing you can do.

Steve.

suprabeast

id say appeal.... dont pay just cos everyone on here tells you that you are wrong... see if it you get away with it. what have you got to lose?

Trashman

I think if you appeal you have to pay then appeal. May vary with councils.

corradoboy

Have a read then see if hedgehog will give you some pointers. He seems to be good in these situations

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

Appeal, I've appealed twice n got off twice. They do try it on alot yknow. You paid for your ticket, n were slightly late, so what, appeal

StickyMicky

do the crime and do the time

dpb

If you were late you were late, fail to see your argument. In brighton anyway a photo is recorded so doesnt matter what 'es got written down ..........

hedgehog

Under British Law the Ashford Council have no more right to impose a fine upon you than I do. I have absolutely no right at all to impose a fine upon anyone.

In this situation you are protected by the 1689 Bill of Rights, the RTA 1991 which does not specifically repeal the BoR and the judgement of Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case.

People who wish to can not randomly impose fines upon others, otherwise I would be very rich indeed, the only body which can fine you in the UK is a court of law. With that in mind the action of the Council is illegal and may constitute harassment. (1997 Protection Against Harassment Act.)

GC8

My tuppence worth: Parliament cant repeal the Bill fo Rights, although Im sure theyve considered it.

warrenm2

lol at this BoR stuff - show me one one case thats gone to court and the defendant has won.... not case dropped or anything but court and won

Freak

What hedgehog said

In any case, the ticket has been incorrectly issued- so is technically void.

scott8629

Sorry to jump on this thread, I recieved a parking ticket the otherday.
I was on duty with the army recruting in Hull.
I had to use my own tranport to get there and I had a box full of leafltes so I parked in a nearly empty Hull City Council parking lot. I left a note explaining why I was here and what I was doing and a contact number but I still got a fine.

Only hours earlier I was talking to the lord mayor himself :-(

Is there anyway I can get off with this?

Scott

DJ73

i would appeal if the ticket isn't filled in correctly , if he can't fill the ticket in with the correct detail's what else has he got wrong , maybe an eyetest "f**king little hitler's"

hedgehog

As above. Note the following:

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151 ("Metric Martyrs" ruling) 18 Feb 2002 [Extract]

62 Where does this leave the constitutional position which I have stated? Mr Shrimpton would say that Factortame (No 1) was wrongly decided; and since the point was not argued, there is scope, within the limits of our law of precedent, to depart from it and to hold that implied repeal may bite on the ECA as readily as upon any other statute. I think that would be a wrong turning. My reasons are these. In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental: see for example such cases as Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 per Lord Hoffmann at 131, Pierson v Secretary of State [1998] AC 539, Leech [1994] QB 198, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1993] AC 534, and Witham [1998] QB 575. And from this a further insight follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The ECA clearly belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery of Community law. It may be there has never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute.

63 Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute. 64 This development of the common law regarding constitutional rights, and as I would say constitutional statutes, is highly beneficial. It gives us most of the benefits of a written constitution, in which fundamental rights are accorded special respect. But it preserves the sovereignty of the legislature and the flexibility of our uncodified constitution. It accepts the relation between legislative supremacy and fundamental rights is not fixed or brittle: rather the courts (in interpreting statutes, and now, applying the HRA) will pay more or less deference to the legislature, or other public decision-maker, according to the subject in hand. Nothing is plainer than that this benign development involves, as I have said, the recognition of the ECA as a constitutional statute.

In conjunction with:

BILL OF RIGHTS ACT [1689]


An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown


[Extract]

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

Leslie

Scott

Apart from all the other facets, why should actually talking to the Lord Mayor have any bearing on the problem?

You could always apply for a refund from the Army on your F1771!

Les

warrenm2

thats lovely hedgehog - but show me a case where this has been used as a successful defense, not case dropped, but gone to court......

scott8629

It was a bit ironic that I was tallking to the man, then hours later his traffic wardens are shafting me!