Parking Fine

DonalB1

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone here has any legal knowledge of motoring offences. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

ads20101

DonalB1 wrote: »

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone here has any legal knowledge of motoring offences. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I recently received a fine through the post for parking on a double yellow line. The ticket refers to an offence that took place outside my apartment a few months ago.

The thing is at no point have I parked on th double yellows outside my apartment block and no one else has the use of my car to do so either.

I emailed the county council and asked could there have been an error in which they replied no. So I then asked why wasn't I issued a ticket on my car and they said the car drove off before the warden could issue it, so I then asked for photographic evidence and they said they don't have any. I told them that it 100% wasn't me who was parked there but they said my 'appeal' was denied.

I refused to pay the fine as the incident never occurred and now I have received a letter with a court date.

Anyone here know the best way to appeal this?

Thanks

They can't provide proof eh!!

I'd challenge this in court.

Ask a solicitor for advice too

DonalB1

ads20101 wrote: »

They can't provide proof eh!!

I'd challenge this in court.

Ask a solicitor for advice too

I'm not sure would it be worth paying a solicitor considering the fine is only worth €60.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

DonalB1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The word of the warden will be accepted. The registered owner is liable.

Really? Even though the car wasn't parked there and there's no evidence to suggest it ever was?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hullaballoo

Firstly, there is an Independent Appeals Officer who can review a refusal at the first instance by the Council. Google will tell you how to get on to him.

Secondly, this is a criminal matter (albeit a minor one) so there is an burden of proof on the State to show the crime took place. There are probably all manner of statutory this that and the other that try and make double-parking strict liability that can be prosecuted on the say-so of a hi-viz-clad megalomaniac but there are competing rights and if you're up for a fight, a solicitor is the way to go.

As you rightly say, though, you'll be out of pocket going that way so you'd only do it if you are up for the fight and have the money to put it up.

DonalB1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Yes. Absolutely. The warden will swear that he saw your vehicle in contravention and that it drove off before he had finished writing the notice.

You will need to prove that your vehicle was not there. Unless you can do so, you will be convicted.

Well I have my girlfriend to back up the truth that I wasn't parked there. But I don't know will that make a difference.

Del2005

DonalB1 wrote: »

Well I have my girlfriend who is also a garda to back up the truth that I wasn't parked there. But I don't know will that make a difference.

Check your phone timeline. If with Google it is in maps, go to menu and then timeline, no idea where it is on Apple but they have similar. If you can provide proof that you were at a different location when the alleged offence occurred it would be doubt on the parking enforcement persons word.

Ultimate Seduction

Go to court. I could almost guarantee it will be struck out by judge.

Is it worth paying a solicitor a few hundred to avoid a 60 fine is the question

DonalB1

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Go to court. I could almost guarantee it will be struck out by judge.

Is it worth paying a solicitor a few hundred to avoid a 60 fine is the question

It's definitely not worth that. But also seems like the whole system is f*cked if you have to pay a fine for an offence you didn't even commit.

It takes 20 seconds to take a photo of an illegally parked car. Surely if my car was in fact illegally parked he would have been able to get photographic evidence. I was under the impression that was required.

DonalB1

Also, the letter I received wasn't a registered letter. Does it need to be a registered letter if it's coming from the council? Can I say I never received the letter with the court date or what would the punishment be for ignoring it?

honda boi

That's bulls**t
So if I was a warden and didn't like my neighbour I could just say he was parked illegally somewhere and ain't s**t he can do about it?

Gerrup Outta Dat!

ads20101 wrote: »

They can't provide proof eh!!

I'd challenge this in court.

Ask a solicitor for advice too

Will the council be liable to reimburse your solicitor fees too? They should if it’s their **** up.

How much (roughly) would it cost to hire a solicitor to represent you in court. I’m just curious. Are we talking 4 figures?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Donal55

DonalB1 wrote: »

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone here has any legal knowledge of motoring offences. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I recently received a fine through the post for parking on a double yellow line. The ticket refers to an offence that took place outside my apartment a few months ago.

The thing is at no point have I parked on th double yellows outside my apartment block and no one else has the use of my car to do so either.

I emailed the county council and asked could there have been an error in which they replied no. So I then asked why wasn't I issued a ticket on my car and they said the car drove off before the warden could issue it, so I then asked for photographic evidence and they said they don't have any. I told them that it 100% wasn't me who was parked there but they said my 'appeal' was denied.

I refused to pay the fine as the incident never occurred and now I have received a letter with a court date.

Anyone here know the best way to appeal this?

Thanks

A lot ot traffic related threads this evening!

Ask the coco roads section for a copy of the ticket the warden was writing before you allegedly drove off.
In my experience this sort of thing didn't happen that often and if it did I would make some quick contemporanious notes on the ticket , ie, day, date, time, reg of vehicle, colour and make and no of occupants

Id be highly surprised if there is no written record of this at all. After all the books are triplicate.

jimmycrackcorm

DonalB1 wrote:

Well I have my girlfriend who is also a garda to back up the truth that I wasn't parked there. But I don't know will that make a difference.

Bring her to court in her uniform as your witness.

skirteen

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote:

How much (roughly) would it cost to hire a solicitor to represent you in court. I’m just curious. Are we talking 4 figures?

Ballpark €120 - €150. I hired a solicitor last year when I (successfully) appealed a motoring offence.

ads20101

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Yes. Absolutely. The warden will swear that he saw your vehicle in contravention and that it drove off before he had finished writing the notice.

You will need to prove that your vehicle was not there. Unless you can do so, you will be convicted.

I respectfully disagree

The person charged doesn't need to prove anything

The onus is on the parking attendant to prove that he wasn't there.

And no ... I do not expect that just his word will be good enough

Innocent until proven guilty

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

CeilingFly

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know where you get this rubbish from.

Many people chance their arms and stray from the truth and any half decent judge will see that a mile away.

If the op is truthful and states their case you can be sure tye warden will stutter and case thrown out.

A colleague had a case today - his word against garda. He was 100% truthful, case struck out.

Steve

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, that's bull, only when the evidence is not contested.

The burden of proof is paramount and so is the presumption of innocence.

That's how scroates with 99 previous get away with everything. :mad:

Sue Pa Key Pa

As an aside, I saw a programme on UK TV where a warden over there takes a photo of the windscreen when he attaches a ticket. That would save a lot of disputes

DonalB1

I thought photo evidence was required, never mind a ticket. I mean not having either is a bit of a joke.

Does anyone know what the situation is with the letter for court? It wasn't registered and I have since moved out of the apartment that I was living in and have sold the car.

Would save a lot of hassle if I could just ignore this and not respond to it.

ED E

How do you define parking Donal?

Victor

DonalB1 wrote: »

The thing is at no point have I parked on th double yellows outside my apartment block

Were you ever 'stopped' there?

no one else has the use of my car to do so either.

Friends and family sometimes 'borrow' cars. As registered owner, you are responsible to the court for identifying the driver and could be convicted if you don't.

I refused to pay the fine as the incident never occurred and now I have received a letter with a court date.

This isn't just a 'letter', it is likely a summons.

DonalB1 wrote: »

I'm not sure would it be worth paying a solicitor considering the fine is only worth €60.

Realise that this will be a conviction. If this is an issue for you, make sure you don't get a conviction - either by proving your case or potentially settling it beforehand.

DonalB1 wrote: »

Well I have my girlfriend who is also a garda to back up the truth that I wasn't parked there. But I don't know will that make a difference.

At that specific date and time?

DonalB1 wrote: »

It's definitely not worth that.

Note that convictions, even for minor matters, can have implications and that court fines will be higher than an on-the-spot fine (typically termed 'fixed charge notices').

DonalB1 wrote: »

Also, the letter I received wasn't a registered letter. Does it need to be a registered letter if it's coming from the council? Can I say I never received the letter with the court date or what would the punishment be for ignoring it?

You have already phoned the council looking for the details, they know you got it. How does serving time for contempt / perjury sound?

ads20101 wrote: »

They can't provide proof eh!!

Their proof (evidence) is the word and no doubt written record of the warden.

honda boi wrote: »

That's bulls**t
So if I was a warden and didn't like my neighbour I could just say he was parked illegally somewhere and ain't s**t he can do about it?

Potentially, but does the warden want to keep their job if there is a risk of being found out? Wardens are probably assigned to areas away from where they live. As mentioned, the official's word is likely to be accepted over yours, not least that they probably have a written record of it.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Bring her to court in her uniform as your witness.

There may be professional issues with that.

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

How much (roughly) would it cost to hire a solicitor to represent you in court. I’m just curious. Are we talking 4 figures?

Likely low three figures if you use a local solicitor who would be showing up that day for other matters. More if they need to travel / this is their only case on that day.

ads20101 wrote: »

The person charged doesn't need to prove anything

The onus is on the parking attendant to prove that he wasn't there.

Warden, not attendant. Legal difference.

Steve wrote: »

Sorry, that's bull, only when the evidence is not contested.

The burden of proof is paramount and so is the presumption of innocence.

Evidence from a professional witness is more likely to be accepted over that from other witnesses.

District Court tends not to have the time nor inclination to deal with sea lawyers.

DonalB1

I would define parking as being stopped on a double yellow!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

mugsymugsy

Show your messages and phone logs as evidence and bring your Garda girlfriend to give evidence.

Best of luck op

DonalB1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

A summons can be sent by ordinary post.

Yes but I no longer live there

Victor

DonalB1 wrote: »

Yes but I no longer live there, could I not ignore the letter and play dumb to it. Surely if I haven't singed for it or it hasn't been handed to me I can't be punished.

Remember the bit where you have already spoken to the council?

Have you updated the addresses where the vehicle is registered / for your driving licence?

DonalB1

Victor wrote: »

Remember the bit where you have already spoken to the council?

Have you updated the addresses where the vehicle is registered / for your driving licence?

Yes I replied to the council about the fine but not about the court date. So I could say I never knew about the court date.

I've sold the car so it's no longer in my name and I'm also no longer at that adress, both completely unrelated to this issue btw :-)

I really don't know what to do here.

Victor

DonalB1 wrote: »

I've sold the car so it's no longer in my name and I'm also no longer at that adress, both completely unrelated to this issue btw :-)

It means any issue with address would be your problem, no the council's.

DonalB1

Victor wrote: »

It means any issue with address would be your problem, no the council's.

Completely agree. But if I'm not longer at that address and no longer own that car how can they know which 'John Smith' owned the car. There are other people in my area of the same name.

What I mean is if I don't appear in court, they will most likely double the fine and send a letter by registered post. I no longer live there so that letter won't be signed for and same goes for if guard tries to deliver it.

This seems a lot easier than trying to fight the County Council or hiring a solicitor.

Peregrinus

Your question really boils down to a variation on an extremely common question; "if I ignore this, will it go away?"

Possibly, is the answer. But it's a very uncertain strategy. Legally it's completely ineffective; ignoring court proceedings is not a basis for saying that you are not bound by the outcome. In practice they might get tired chasing you to comply. On the other hand, they might not.

FanadMan

Surely evidence from the Garda girlfriend will out-trump anything a lowly traffic warden would ever claim?

DonalB1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your question really boils down to a variation on an extremely common question; "if I ignore this, will it go away?"

Possibly, is the answer. But it's a very uncertain strategy. Legally it's completely ineffective; ignoring court proceedings is not a basis for saying that you are not bound by the outcome. In practice they might get tired chasing you to comply. On the other hand, they might not.

In what way is it legally ineffective? When the matter is up in court the warden and judge are both unaware as to what 'John Smith' this involves.

Maybe there's something I'm overlooking here but I can't see how this can be linked to me down the line. The car and the addres are no longer associated with me.

shaunr68

Victor wrote: »

There may be professional issues with that.

Above re. the Garda girlfriend turning up in uniform as a witness.

Minor point but I'm sure that if she was not allowed to testify in an official capacity, which I expect would be true if she had a personal involvement in the dispute, she would of course be entitled to do so as a private individual, and even if dressed in civvy clothes, giving her occupation would add an air of credibility.

To the OP: I know in the big scheme of things it might not seem worth it for a small fine but in a blatantly unjust scenario such as you described, if you can in any way afford it, please consider it a civic duty to have your day in court.

DonalB1

shaunr68 wrote: »

Above re. the Garda girlfriend turning up in uniform as a witness.

Minor point but I'm sure that if she was not allowed to testify in an official capacity, which I expect would be true if she had a personal involvement in the dispute, she would of course be entitled to do so as a private individual, and even if dressed in civvy clothes, giving her occupation would add an air of credibility.

To the OP: I know in the big scheme of things it might not seem worth it for a small fine but in a blatantly unjust scenario such as you described, if you can in any way afford it, please consider it a civic duty to have your day in court.

I am very apprehensive about not going to court as I don't want to bring trouble on myself and I also understand that the courts system is what keeps the system orderly.

It's not an action I really want to take. But it feels like it's either go and pay the fine or don't go and avoid it. In not going I'm wondering where down the line to they link it with me as I no longer live at that addess and no longer own the car?

DesperateDan

Why would OP need a solicitor? Forgive my ignorance but I would show up to court with 60 quid in cash and tell the judge this is either going in the poor box to prove I'm not trying to escape any fine and this warden is a liar, or you are putting me in prison. How would that go down?

Donal55

FanadMan wrote: »

Surely evidence from the Garda girlfriend will out-trump anything a lowly traffic warden would ever claim?

Gardai aren't exactly flavour of the month right now and the flaws in their testomony,facts and behavior have been well illustrated most recently.

If I was still a lowly traffic warden I certainly wouldn't want to be benchmarked against a garda.

DonalB1

Is there anything to be said for just ignoring it?

I'm not sure how they can pursue me if I no longer live at that adress and no long own the car.


Am I overlooking something?

Donal55

DonalB1 wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for just ignoring it?

I'm not sure how they can pursue me if I no longer live at that adress and no long own the car.


Am I overlooking something?

Far far better to either show up and admit guilt or contest it. Nothing judges hate worse than a no show, gives the traffic warden an open goal also and for the council to seek max penalties and / or costs.

DonalB1

Donal55 wrote: »

Far far better to either show up and admit guilt or contest it. Nothing judges hate worse than a no show, gives the traffic warden an open goal also and for the council to seek max penalties and / or costs.

Yea I understand that but how can they impose those fines or costs if they don't know who I am or where I live?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Bring her to court in her uniform as your witness.

Such a move may be frowned upon by a judge when not giving evidence in an official capacity, not in uniform however would be OK.

ads20101 wrote: »

I respectfully disagree

The person charged doesn't need to prove anything

The onus is on the parking attendant to prove that he wasn't there.

I assume you mean was there, they give oral evidence the car was there, that is usually all that is required.

Indeed the defendant does not need to prove anything. However what the defendant really needs to do is offer a defence in such a case, they don't strictly have to, but if the parking warden states their car was there then they have to if they want any chance of a dismissal, the evidence then needs to be rebutted, the wardens oral evidence that it was there is usually considered as a good rebuttel.

ads20101 wrote: »

And no ... I do not expect that just his word will be good enough

Innocent until proven guilty

Unfortunately as Fred has stated their word will be accepted as evidence and prima facie evidence at that - this happens regularly - unless you offer a defence which they can't rebut. Simply stating "I wasn't there" is a defence which is easily rebutted by the warden stating you were - his/her word will generally be accepted as good evidence.

CeilingFly wrote: »

Fred Swanson wrote: »

You need to watch a few district courts. Happens everyday of the week. Warden gives evidence, Registered owner is convicted.

I don't know where you get this rubbish from.

Many people chance their arms and stray from the truth and any half decent judge will see that a mile away.

If the op is truthful and states their case you can be sure tye warden will stutter and case thrown out.

A colleague had a case today - his word against garda. He was 100% truthful,  case struck out.

I'm sorry but Fred is correct, cases are often thrown out even when a judge knows the defendant to be telling porkies and the prosecutor being truthful, this isn't because of telling truths or not, but usually due to standards not being met, evidential matters, loopholes etc. Lies are told everyday in courts and often have no bearing on the outcome one way or the other.

Steve wrote: »

Fred Swanson wrote: »

You need to watch a few district courts. Happens everyday of the week. Warden gives evidence, Registered owner is convicted.

Sorry, that's bull, only when the evidence is not contested.

The burden of proof is paramount and so is the presumption of innocence.

Evidence is often contested and prosecutions still happen.

You do realise that spoken evidence of such is enough to satisfy the burdens, the prosecutor can rely solely on oral evidence and gain a successful prosecution.

Many judges whilst weighing up evidence will probably ask themselves two questions (amongst others):-

1. What has the warden got to gain by telling lies? A. Nothing.

2. What has the accused got to gain by telling lies? A. The answer is pretty obvious.

FanadMan wrote: »

Surely evidence from the Garda girlfriend will out-trump anything a lowly traffic warden would ever claim?

Evidence of a Garda will generally trump other evidence if the Garda is the prosecuting member giving evidence in an official capacity, as a witness for the defence that is not the case.

Members of the force often give evidence in a non-official capacity and it is often not accepted.

DonalB1

GM228 wrote: »

Such a move may be frowned upon by a judge when not giving evidence in an official capacity, not in uniform however would be OK.





I assume you mean was there, they give oral evidence the car was there, that is usually all that is required.

Indeed the defendant does not need to prove anything. However what the defendant really needs to do is offer a defence in such a case, they don't strictly have to, but if the parking warden states their car was there then they have to if they want any chance of a dismissal, the evidence then needs to be rebutted, the wardens oral evidence that it was there is usually considered as a good rebuttel.





Unfortunately as Fred has stated their word will be accepted as evidence and prima facie evidence at that - this happens regularly - unless you offer a defence which they can't rebut. Simply stating "I wasn't there" is a defence which is easily rebutted by the warden stating you were - his/her word will generally be accepted as good evidence.





I'm sorry but Fred is correct, cases are often thrown out even when a judge knows the defendant to be telling porkies and the prosecutor being truthful, this isn't because of telling truths or not, but usually due to standards not being met, evidential matters, loopholes etc. Lies are told everyday in courts and often have no bearing on the outcome one way or the other.





Evidence is often contested and prosecutions still happen.

You do realise that spoken evidence of such is enough to satisfy the burdens, the prosecutor can rely solely on oral evidence and gain a successful prosecution.

Many judges whilst weighing up evidence will probably ask themselves two questions (amongst others):-

1. What has the warden got to gain by telling lies? A. Nothing.

2. What has the accused got to gain by telling lies? A. The answer is pretty obvious.





Evidence of a Garda will generally trump other evidence if the Garda is the prosecuting member giving evidence in an official capacity, as a witness for the defence that is not the case.

Members of the force often give evidence in a non-official capacity and it is often not accepted.

She doesn't want to give evidence in an official capacity as it would look like we are trying to bully the situation. She would merely be a witness.

The warden I would assume is on commission or at the very least given a target for tickets issued so that would be his incentive to lie.

It'll be our word against his, but given the fact he was unable to issue a ticket or photograph the offence should mean in a proper fair democracy that it be struck out.

But I don't really have faith in that happening. Hence why ignoring it could be the best method. I don't see how the guards could summons me or issue a warrant as they've no evidence that I'm the 'John smith' that lived at that address or owned that car. There's nothing linking me to either other than name, a name that other people also have

Donal55

DonalB1 wrote: »

She doesn't want to give evidence in an official capacity as it would look like we are trying to bully the situation. She would merely be a witness.

The warden I would assume is on commission or at the very least given a target for tickets issued so that would be his incentive to lie.

It'll be our word against his, but given the fact he was unable to issue a ticket or photograph the offence should mean in a proper fair democracy that it be struck out.

But I don't really have faith in that happening. Hence why ignoring it could be the best method. I don't see how the guards could summons me or issue a warrant as they've no evidence that I'm the 'John smith' that lived at that address or owned that car. There's nothing linking me to either other than name, a name that other people also have

Coco employees wont be on commission.

GM228

DonalB1 wrote: »

The warden I would assume is on commission or at the very least given a target for tickets issued so that would be his incentive to lie.

Both assumptions are incorrect.

DonalB1 wrote: »

It'll be our word against his, but given the fact he was unable to issue a ticket or photograph the offence should mean in a proper fair democracy that it be struck out.

There is no requirement to issue you a ticket on the spot or to take a photograph, sending the FCPN via post is the correct procedure and not grounds for dismissal - giving you a ticket personally or affixing one to a vehicle is an option, not mandatory.

DonalB1 wrote: »

I don't see how the guards could summons me or issue a warrant as they've no evidence that I'm the 'John smith' that lived at that address or owned that car. There's nothing linking me to either other than name, a name that other people also have

So are you saying there is absolutely nothing linking you to your current address and the old address - utility bills, correspondence, witnesses even, you would be surprised how where someone once lived and who they claim to be (or not) is corroberated and what links exist between the two.

As someone with a Garda girlfriend I'm actually surprised how unenlightened you seem to be with regards proofs, summones, failure to attend etc - year one material for any Garda in Templemore.

Victor

DonalB1 wrote: »

I don't see how the guards could summons me or issue a warrant as they've no evidence that I'm the 'John smith' that lived at that address or owned that car. There's nothing linking me to either other than name, a name that other people also have

Eh, your driver licence file? Register of electors? Lease? Bills? An Post records Hauling you and your girlfriend before the court to give evidence? Whatever about you, would your girlfriend perjure herself and claim you didn't live there? For a parking ticket?

MonkieSocks

Just asking a question:


Does anyone know, what the correct process a Traffic Warden has to follow when they see a Vehicle parked on Double Lines?