Bill Posters Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 I am surprised that 'drive thru's' haven't caught on here yet. (I recently saw an advert for a drive through funeral home - very funny) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deejay Denzel Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 I am surprised that 'drive thru's' haven't caught on here yet. (I recently saw an advert for a drive through funeral home - very funny) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> they're all the rage in America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mo beats experience Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 It's not really that big a deal as far as I'm concerned. We all know the consequences of parking illegally - you get a small fine and everyone forgets about it. The admin costs of reimbursing everyone due to this technicality would be sky high. I'm sure some of those claiming that we should all get a refund are the first to complain when "blood sucking lawyers" manage to get a defendant off on a technicality. These are just parking tickets. Laugh at the fools in charge who got it wrong, but let it go. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed, i've paid a stack of fines, i've lost a load of cash due to my lazy parking, but i won't be asking for any money back, instead i'll just be rather pleased about the other stack of unpaid ones i've got that i can now gleefully forget about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Agreed, i've paid a stack of fines, i've lost a load of cash due to my lazy parking, but i won't be asking for any money back, instead i'll just be rather pleased about the other stack of unpaid ones i've got that i can now gleefully forget about <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But that is the problem. Unless YOU complain you are still obliged to pay up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 "I don't really see why the govermnent hasn't whisked in some quick legislation to apply this retrospectively and be done with it." New laws cannot be introduced retrospectively and it is not in the interest of natural justice for such to be done. Those that have paid have paid on the understanding that the tickets posted on their car windows were lawful. Technically they were not. So all payers should receive an automatic refund unless the Authorities are prepared to challenge their innocence. The judiciary is at fault here ultimately by punishing people without authority under proper lawful process. One does not need to seek legal advice to see that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So the law-breakers get away with it, and the law-abiding driver has paid for parking uneccessarily, and will have to pay to reimburse the law-breakers. Is this the justice you keep banging on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Hey, "The law is the law" except when shamus breaks it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 "Hey, "The law is the law" except when shamus breaks it!" I think that is a little unfair. My point is that if laws are created then they must be administered by those with proper legal authority which this fiasco proves has not been the case. Therefore in view of that then those that have tickets slapped on their wind screens are just as innocent as a burglar etc. until proven guilty. In this case we have a situation where the accuser had no lawful authority to accuse. It is the technicality I am pointing out here and whether you like it or not it is such points that matter in law. Sorry if any spelling is wrong but I trust folk will grasp the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 "Hey, "The law is the law" except when shamus breaks it!" I think that is a little unfair. My point is that if laws are created then they must be administered by those with proper legal authority which this fiasco proves has not been the case. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But the point is that up until now nobody even questioned the authority of the parking controllers - not the courts, the public, the government, nor the parking controllers themselves. In that situation where everybody is completely clear in the role that these individuals have assumed, nobody is taking unfair advantage - there is no injustice. There only remains a relatively minor faux pas in a naming convention. Nobody (who eventually paid the fine) has questioned the fact that they, the motorists concerned had broken the law. Everybody is aware of the due punishments for those caught breaking the law in this way, so why, combining this fact with the previous one, in all common sense should they be entitled to the money back at this stage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 New laws cannot be introduced retrospectively and it is not in the interest of natural justice for such to be done.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> They can actually, believe it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Aw, come Obs. When did 'shamus' ever let the facts get in the way of a sweeping statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasha Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Agreed, i've paid a stack of fines, i've lost a load of cash due to my lazy parking, but i won't be asking for any money back, instead i'll just be rather pleased about the other stack of unpaid ones i've got that i can now gleefully forget about <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But that is the problem. Unless YOU complain you are still obliged to pay up! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Surely not, www.iomonline.co.im had an article stating that anyone who had unpaid fines (issued by a parking controller) does not have to pay the fine. I have filed my unpaid one in the bin so I hope I am right! I won't be claiming back any from the last few years either. As people have said, the costs would be huge for that and we, the taxpayers, would end up paying it anyway, so it's like claiming back money from yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 What a splendid topic! Two years i spent over there and never got one fine! Why? Because i stayed within the law. Your biggest problem over there is your disc system, 2 hours gives you little time for delays etc. Metered Parking bays are a much better idea, you pay your money for as long as you require, have flexibility to extend times etc. and have a quality spot.(Continued free parking for residents of course) I regulary go into central Manchester and pay on average £2.50 per hour, but i have a good choice of parking lots, close to wherever i have a meeting. How many people have gone on a bender the night before, put 8am on thier disc to move the car at 10am the next day, and probably been still over the drink drive limit? Ok the department have dropped a clanger, but trying to re-emburse £3 Million is going to end up farcical. At the end of the day.....you broke the laws. The cost has to come from somewhere as Declan pointed out. Perhaps discounted taxi fares or free bus trips for a month might be a better idea, to return some of the money back to the people. And as Ans says...walk, i used to, it can be a pleasant experience, you get to see all those frustrated workers trying to find spaces etc. Surely much more revenue would come from parking monies, rather than fines, and less face it how many times have you seen a row of cars in Athol St. for example, ticket on from about 11.15am and still there at 5pm with the one ticket, divide the cost of the fine imposed, and divide it by the hours used...quite good value i'd say. Stick a ticket on every 2 hours, that would make it a little less attractive. And don't for get your public transport, you have the cleanest, most punctual bus service i have ever used...and iv'e been on the top deck of a few buses i can tell you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Jampton Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Perhaps I should buy a car to join this debate, but I have free all day parking throughout the week on the prom................I have a motorbike..sxxxxxx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 ...the mere fact that the general public has paid the aforementioned tickets uncontested surely constitutes a technical admission of guilt to each offence committed, irrespective of who wrote the ticket in the first place. It's almost like a signed confession of a motoring offence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The fine was paid and, therefore, the case is closed as it would if the driver had pleaded guilty in criminal proceedings. Today's IOM Online Article in full Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 You gave them the idea! You total total git! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.