Fixed Charge Notice

Wicklowcpl

I have received a Fixed Charge Notice - Parking on a Footway - (Driver) contrary to section 35(5) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994. The reg number of the car is correct, however the car was actually parked on a grass verge, and only the name of the town where the car was parked is listed, as in at Aughrim, Aughrim, Wicklow.

I have three questions.
1. Should a copy of the notice not have been placed on the car, a ticket?
2. Should the Fixed Charge Notice not state ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997, section 36 (2) (i)?
3. Should the name of the Road where the car was parked not be listed?

Basically if I fail to pay this and get a court summons what are my chances of the Judge striking out the conviction, if the Garda in question turns up, and states the name of the Road & that is was in fact parked on a grass verge, even though this information is not on the Fixed Charge Notice.

seamus

I don't know the regulations in regards to posting the notice on the car. I suspect they're not obliged to, as the notice could easily blow away or melt in the rain.

The "ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997, section 36 (2) (i)" states what does and does not constitute an offence, but it's "section 35(5) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994" which actually lays down the fact that contravening the regulation is an offence.

Should the name of the Road where the car was parked not be listed?

If only to avoid ambiguity. Many small towns (like Aughrim) may not actually have road names.

In Addition, the regulation you quote from the 1997 act specifically states that it's illegal to park on a "grass margin", so the fact that it wasn't a footpath is irrelevant.

Trojan911

Wicklowcpl wrote: »

1. Should a copy of the notice not have been placed on the car, a ticket?

Not required to do this.

Hooch

Wicklowcpl wrote: »

I have received a Fixed Charge Notice - Parking on a Footway - (Driver) contrary to section 35(5) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994. The reg number of the car is correct, however the car was actually parked on a grass verge, and only the name of the town where the car was parked is listed, as in at Aughrim, Aughrim, Wicklow.

I have three questions.
1. Should a copy of the notice not have been placed on the car, a ticket?
2. Should the Fixed Charge Notice not state ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997, section 36 (2) (i)?
3. Should the name of the Road where the car was parked not be listed?

Basically if I fail to pay this and get a court summons what are my chances of the Judge striking out the conviction, if the Garda in question turns up, and states the name of the Road & that is was in fact parked on a grass verge, even though this information is not on the Fixed Charge Notice.

Was the ticket.....for parking on a grass verge??

1. A copy is not placed on the vehicle
2. No a Fixed Charge notice can cover many sections within the Road Traffic Act. It depends on the one you breached.
3. The name of the road could be used, the townland could be used and with case law behind it a locally know name could be used.

The whole facts need not be on the notice. It is the evidence given in court that counts. To be honest your looking for a way out thats not there.

Wicklowcpl

nice guy

So what your saying is that the Garda can summons you with one set of evidence, & if it goes to court, change the evidence in the court action, from the evidence provided to get you into court in the first place?. How can this be allowed?

I'm not a legal person but you seem to know what your talking about ,so if the Act of 1994, does not stage grass verge, and the Regulations of 1997 post date the Act, and the ACT has been updated a number of times since then, Then why not state the current Act?

dermot_sheehan

Wicklowcpl wrote: »

nice guy

So what your saying is that the Garda can summons you with one set of evidence, & if it goes to court, change the evidence in the court action, from the evidence provided to get you into court in the first place?. How can this be allowed?

I'm not a legal person but you seem to know what your talking about ,so if the Act of 1994, does not stage grass verge, and the Regulations of 1997 post date the Act, and the ACT has been updated a number of times since then, Then why not state the current Act?

Yes since the particulars on the ticket are not evidence rather viva voce evidence given in court is the evidence (note a parking ticket is not a summons in any case).


All a summons has to do is show jurisdiction on the face, that is it must give adequate particulars so that you the person summoned knows that the court has jurisdiction to deal with the claim and that you must respond to the summons. All a summons does is order you to come to court and all it has to show is on the face of it jurisdiction that the court has the power to deal with the case and therefore summonse you.

So a summons will recite an allegation that a particular statute was violated, the fact that an application in accordance with the courts act 1986 was made on a certain date (for petty sessions act time limits). The summons will recite the ingredients of an offence in its description of the offence charged (i.e. that you, mr. x, did drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place where your blood alcohol content was found within 3 hours of driving to be more then y), it will recite the district the offence was alleged to have occurred in since the district court only has jurisdiction to deal with offences from that district.

It's for this reason that a defective registration number or address on a summons is not enough to get it struck out. The fact that you were allegedly driving a mechanically propelled vehicle with one registration plate rather then another is irrelevant since the summons still shows jurisdiction on the face and its the evidence from the garda at trial that matters. It's an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle regardless of its registration. Similarly your address does not matter as the district court has jurisdiction to deal with an offence which takes place within its district, regardless of where the defendant lives.

Wicklowcpl

So what this boils down to is that the Garda can record incorrect details of a car reg number, or registered address for a car, or incorrect information from a driving licence to apply to a fixed charge notice. And because the alleged offence happened 300km from where you live, and you never got the notice because of the incorrect address. You could still be summoned to the district court 300km from your home, based on incorrect information provided by the Garda and convicted on evidence presented in court that is different?

Now we know why Donegal happened. The whole system is corrupt.

the locust

Wicklowcpl wrote: »

Now we know why Donegal happened. The whole system is corrupt.

No, the whole system isn't corrupt, the Garda has given you a ticket for parking your vehicle where he thought was - illegal. Now you've got a letter telling you, you've committed an offence and you're irate and nitpicking between section a or section b a footway (where people walk) or on grass beside the road (also where people walk) and your trying to get out of it... is that it? I'm sure the Garda will have his evidence - notes taken at the time and his observations for court if you want.
...And Gardai issuing parking tickets aren't why Donegal happened.

seamus

Indeed, Wicklowcpl it's ironic that you're complaining about Garda corruption because you're unable to find a loophole to escape a summons which by your own admission is just and correct.

Tonnes of our legal time is wasted with legal nitpicking, indeed it's why our legal system is so slow. The courts should have more freedom to ignore errors or omissions unless they impact on the fundamental facts of the case.

Wicklowcpl

No I'm not looking for a loophole. At the start of this I said the notice was based on Parking on a Footway - (Driver) contrary to section 35(5) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994.

My point was that I parked on a grass verge which is not noted as being illegal under the 1994 Act, but is actually illegal under ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997, section 36 (2) (i). Even since then the Road Traffic Act has been updated.

What I was asking should I not have received the Notice based on the CURRENT ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, or even based on the ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997, section 36 (2) (i).

Finally my point on Donegal is that the Garda it appears can use one ACT to summons you to Court for not paying a Fixed Charge Notice, then go into Court and provide evidence which relates to a different Act or Regulations under the Act as was stated on the Fixed Charge Notice in the first place. That to me is corruption or in the case of ALL Garda & Judges in this corrupt country of ours incompetence.

Jo King

The summons is simply a device to get you into court. It is not evidence of the facts stated on it, even of the date it was applied for. It directs you to attend in Court on a particular day in connection with the parking of your vehicle. The guard will have to give his evidence. If evidence is given that you are unprepared to deal with you can request an adjournment. You are entitled to see his notebook before he starts. You are entitled to submit that no offence has been shown on the evidence. You are entitled to give evidence yourself. You are entitled to ask that the Regulations which you are alleged to have offended against be produced in court.

Victor

ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997.

The Minister for the Environment, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sections 3 and 35 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 (No. 7 of 1994) hereby makes the following Regulations:—

The regulations stem from the act, I contend that it is therefore legal to summons you under the act.