parking fine

johnnyb6

Hi six months my wife got a parking fine. On the day of the fine my wife was out of country and I was working miles away, which means the traffic warden was totally wrong. I had evidence to prove what I said is true but when I showed this to traffic warden office they wouldn't accept they were wrong.I tried to reason with them but to no avail. The result was that my wife had to go to court yesterday where the case was thrown out. however this dat in court cost traffic warden nothing, in fact he got days pay to be there.My wife had to take day off work and she had to have solicitor which all cost us money. A letter from traffic warden few days before court warned us that if they won , we would have to pay there costs. however we were told we can get no expenses. surely we shouldn't be out of pocket as we showed our proof well before court

Grateful for any advice.

coylemj

johnnyb6 wrote: »

Hi six months my wife got a parking fine. On the day of the fine my wife was out of country and I was working miles away, which means the traffic warden was totally wrong.

A parking fine relates to a car, not a person. How does your wife being out of the country and you being miles away prove that the traffic warden was wrong?

johnnyb6 wrote: »

My wife had to take day off work and she had to have solicitor which all cost us money.

No she didn't. Bringing a solicitor to court for a parking summons is completely OTT given that the normal fine is far less than what a solicitor charges for a court appearance.

johnnyb6 wrote: »

A letter from traffic warden few days before court warned us that if they won , we would have to pay there costs. however we were told we can get no expenses. surely we shouldn't be out of pocket as we showed our proof well before court

Traffic wardens do not write letters to defendants, their role in parking court cases is to turn up and give evidence, no more.

I appreciate that you wanted to prove your innocence but you could have done that without a solicitor and your wife didn't need to attend either.

In the worst case you would be fined about €100. Your wife taking a day off work and hiring a solicitor for a parking summons was totally nuts.

seb65

coylemj wrote: »

A parking fine relates to a car, not a person. How does your wife being out of the country and you being miles away prove that the traffic warden was wrong?



No she didn't. Bringing a solicitor to court for a parking summons is completely OTT given that the normal fine is far less than what a solicitor charges for a court appearance.



Traffic wardens do not write letters to defendants, their role in parking court cases is to turn up and give evidence, no more.

I appreciate that you wanted to prove your innocence but you could have done that without a solicitor and your wife didn't need to attend either.

In the worst case you would be fined about €100. Your wife taking a day off work and hiring a solicitor for a parking summons was totally nuts.

Right and what if parking wardens just started giving out baseless fines whenever they wanted in the hope that people would not bother challenging them? It's similar to Irish Rail giving fines for students who have a student ticket and a student ID, but not the correct ID. The act that allows them to give fines states that in order to receive a fine a person must have intended to travel without paying the correct fare. There would be no way to prove intention beyond a reasonable doubt when a student had a student ticket, but they scare people into paying the fine with threats of a criminal conviction if you bother to challenge it. And there was no way for a student to later show the proper ID and get the fine waived either - they simply wouldn't accept it. This year I notice they state they will accept any valid student ID.

Why should people pay fines for violations they have not committed? Sometimes it is the principle.

That the OP could not get (reasonable) costs is totally unreasonable. It would teach the sycophants among those in charge of public administration to use their common sense.

Procrastastudy

seb65 wrote: »

Right and what if parking wardens just started giving out baseless fines whenever they wanted in the hope that people would not bother challenging them? It's similar to Irish Rail giving fines for students who have a student ticket and a student ID, but not the correct ID. The act that allows them to give fines states that in order to receive a fine a person must have intended to travel without paying the correct fare. There would be no way to prove intention beyond a reasonable doubt when a student had a student ticket, but they scare people into paying the fine with threats of a criminal conviction if you bother to challenge it. And there was no way for a student to later show the proper ID and get the fine waived either - they simply wouldn't accept it. This year I notice they state they will accept any valid student ID.

Why should people pay fines for violations they have not committed? Sometimes it is the principle.

That the OP could not get (reasonable) costs is totally unreasonable. It would teach the sycophants among those in charge of public administration to use their common sense.

I agree with you on principle but did rocking up to the DC to say "Car was in the garage 100 miles away and I can prove it here is the proof" really require the services of a solicitor? As for taking the day off work - these things happen.

Predalien

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I agree with you on principle but did rocking up to the DC to say "Car was in the garage 100 miles away and I can prove" it really require the services of a solicitor? As for taking the day off work - these things happen.

The authorities can be quite intimidating in the run up to these things, often threatening costs of a few thousand euro so I wouldn't blame people who are contesting a case to get a solicitor, if only for peace of mind. Most people have never been inside a court room so it's a whole new experience and can be stressful even where they know they have a strong defence. I think the point the OP made is valid, it's very unbalanced that the prosecution can claim what are often significant costs but the same is not possible for the defence even where it becomes blatantly obvious a prosecution should never have been sought.

Milk & Honey

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I agree with you on principle but did rocking up to the DC to say "Car was in the garage 100 miles away and I can prove" it really require the services of a solicitor? As for taking the day off work - these things happen.

Saying a thing like that indicates you would need the services of a solicitor. You actually have to prove the car was 100 miles away, not just say it was 100 miles away and you can prove it.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Procrastastudy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Saying a thing like that indicates you would need the services of a solicitor. You actually have to prove the car was 100 miles away, not just say it was 100 miles away and you can prove it.

I would have thought if the person was in the DC over a parking fine the Judge would be willing to give them a chance in putting forward evidence they have, such as proof they were out of the country. That said I've obviously no experience of the procedure just seems to me, manifestly unfair to have to hire a solicitor for something so minor.

I can see why someone would given intimidation by the parking fine people though.

Milk & Honey

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I would have thought if the person was in the DC over a parking fine the Judge would be willing to give them a chance in putting forward evidence they have, such as proof they were out of the country. That said I've obviously no experience of the procedure just seems to me, manifestly unfair to have to hire a solicitor for something so minor.

I can see why someone would given intimidation by the parking fine people though.

That is not what you said. A person will be allowed lead evidence, but the evidence has to be admissible and has to be presented. Saying that you can (which is what you originally said) prove something is not the same as proving it.
Many people make a mess of it and annoy judges by saying thing like "if you ask my boss, he will tell you I was at work at the time".
The cost of getting a solicitor is disproportionate to the fine so rational people take their chances.

Procrastastudy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That is not what you said. A person will be allowed lead evidence, but the evidence has to be admissible and has to be presented. Saying that you can (which is what you originally said) prove something is not the same as proving it.
Many people make a mess of it and annoy judges by saying thing like "if you ask my boss, he will tell you I was at work at the time".
The cost of getting a solicitor is disproportionate to the fine so rational people take their chances.

I apoligise for my lack of clarity and poor wording but I would have thought it was patently obvious that evidence would have to be exactly that - rather than a simple statement to the effect. I would have thought clock in records, a receipt from a hotel or perhaps even a plane ticket would have been sufficient and admissible, and the sort of thing a Joe Soap would think to bring.

I realise these don't prove the car was being used by another party but I would have though if, no other person was insured to drive the car, it would be enough. Again I assume the person of average intelligence would bring all the documents pertaining to the car with them.

I think we're agreeing that hiring a solicitor is disproportionate, although the point about being threatened with costs is well taken. What I'm unsure about is whether you think someone should just say it was them instead of fighting it. To me it seems unfair to say the least to be able to threaten the other side with costs and bully them into paying a fine, without the opportunity to have there 15 minutes in court.

Milk & Honey

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I apoligise for my lack of clarity and poor wording but I would have thought it was patently obvious that evidence would have to be exactly that - rather than a simple statement to the effect. I would have thought clock in records, a receipt from a hotel or perhaps even a plane ticket would have been sufficient and admissible, and the sort of thing a Joe Soap would think to bring.

.

Do you know anything about the hearsay rule? Do you know that hearsay is inadmissible, with exceptions? The documents Joe Soap would bring are hearsay and Joe Soap could well find himself convicted.

Procrastastudy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Do you know anything about the hearsay rule? Do you know that hearsay is inadmissible, with exceptions? The documents Joe Soap would bring are hearsay and Joe Soap could well find himself convicted.

No, as already stated, I have no knowledge of the matter my point (originally stated as a question) was that it would appear very unfair. It does appear it's exactly that - completely slanted towards the person making the accusation. I would have thought one of those exceptions would be documents produced in the course of business, such as receipts, work records etc.

All this said isn't this almost getting someone to prove their innocence. There is 'evidence' (in inverted commas as a lay interpretation of evidence) put forward that the car was in X spot - probably a written record which could easily have a wrong digit - and the person accused has to hire a solicitor because common sense 'evidence' isn't allowed? I'll restate my point that it seems very unfair.

EDIT: Either way - Thanks for taking the time to try and clarify the situation.