Parking Summons

TheInquisitor

SgtBob wrote: »

Stealth had the case dismissed.

Apparently the garda in question, who issued the summons, came into court and couldn't give any definite answers to any of the questions.

So when the issue on the Parking sign in the summons came up, he was stumped; so case dismissed.

Did you actually go in and watch the case? Fair play to Stealth to seeing it through and winning! Most people would have just paid the fine.

Congrats Stealth to a job well done!

SgtBob

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Did you actually go in and watch the case? Fair play to Stealth to seeing it through and winning! Most people would have just paid the fine.

Congrats Stealth to a job well done!

No, I was supposed to go in with him, but due to a family emergency, I couldn't. But I was speaking with him afterward.

BigEejit

congrats Stealth, good to see this kind of thing beaten

Blitzkrieger

I'm delighted that the OP got off but I still reckon he shouldn't have parked there, mitigating circumstances or not. Wrecks my head when people park in the bike places just because they're lazy.....

carsQhere

The reason most bikers - myself included - tend not to use these spaces is that there is usually nothing to chain the bike to. Bikes are easily lifted into a van if not chained to something solid. OP got off on a point of law though, so fair enough even though he shouldn't have parked there. If I was in my car, I wouldn't have parked there out of respect for those who might want to park their bike in the allocated spaces, lack of security notwithstanding.

djimi

Cant help feeling like this is a victory for those who think that they can park wherever the hell they want to with no regard for anyone else...

Eoin

It's not really though. If it was clearly posted, then the operators of this car park would be within rights to clamp him and deal with it like every other private car park management company.

This was a court summons for a parking issue on private property. Allowing it to stand would be a far worse precedent to set IMO.

Anan1

eoin wrote: »

It's not really though. If it was clearly posted, then the operators of this car park would be within rights to clamp him and deal with it like every other private car park management company.

This was a court summons for a parking issue on private property. Allowing it to stand would be a far worse precedent to set IMO.

He should have been clamped rather than summonsed, no doubt about it. Given the situation, it was right that the case be dismissed. That doesn't (IMO) change the fact that his selfish parking shouldn't have gone unpunished, though.

djimi

Im not saying that there is any legal grounds to prosecute in this instance, and I agree that there is no way a prosecution could have happened or been enforced, but that doesnt change the fact that the OP thinks he can park wherever he feels like it and now probably feels even more justified in this thinking because he has just beaten the law. Its more of a common decency issue than a legal one.

Eoin

Anan1 wrote: »

He should have been clamped rather than summonsed, no doubt about it. Given the situation, it was right that the case be dismissed. That doesn't (IMO) change the fact that his selfish parking shouldn't have gone unpunished, though.

No, but the fact is that he could have been clamped, so this being thrown out isn't a carte blanche for selfish parking. The mechanisms were there to punish him, but some over zealous policing was used instead.

Anan1

eoin wrote: »

No, but the fact is that he could have been clamped, so this being thrown out isn't a carte blanche for selfish parking. The mechanisms were there to punish him, but some over zealous policing was used instead.

True, he went unpunished because of official incompetence. Still a pity, though - he should have been clamped.

milltown

At least tell us it cost him a few bob in solicitor's fees!
Some justice is better than none at all.

sesna

There are two sides to the Garda - (1) those who catch robbers, drug dealers, CAB, etc - brilliant.

But there is another (2) the revenue collectors who lurch in the hedgerows just to catch a few motorists slightly over speed limit on the only decent road for miles maybe, or in this case hanging around an out of town car park which already has its own parking penalties in place. Little wonder the public are antagonised.

Fair play to the OP for taking on sloppy work by the guard in question and winning his case.

daveharnett

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

I'm delighted that the OP got off...

I'm kind of disgusted actually.

Eoin

If we can get past the hand-wringing about how inconsiderate the OP was, I think it would be a pretty slippery slope if this is the sort of thing that could result in a day in court.

Stealthirl

maybe some of the trolls on here should re read the thread :rolleyes:
i broke no law in parking where i did as there is no legal signage anywhere near the area !
further more the summions was for parking in a restricted area where sigh RM028 [i think thats the 1] is in place. that sign as above was no where near the area
the car park is deamed public as you can be prosecuted for DUI there.

i was found inocent as i broke no law.

i wounder if i followed some of the troll on here around if they could say the same ?

daveharnett

Stealthirl wrote: »

i broke no law in parking where i did as there is no legal signage anywhere near the area !

That's the troublesome part for me.
You knowingly, willfully parked the car where you shouldn't have. Now you are 'innocent' of the blindingly obvious because the huge sign you were parked right in front of wasn't the right shape.

I'm not claiming moral equivalence, or anything like it, but this does spring to mind.

Stealthirl

daveharnett wrote: »

That's the troublesome part for me.
You knowingly, willfully parked the car where you shouldn't have. Now you are 'innocent' of the blindingly obvious because the huge sign you were parked right in front of wasn't the right shape.

I'm not claiming moral equivalence, or anything like it, but this does spring to mind.

had nowt to do with the shape,its not a legal sign as all it is is yellow with a bike on it.there is nowt to say i cant park there ! hence why i was not clamped by euro carparks

there was no loop hole use as agen i broke no law !

Mr. Presentable

You broke no law, but you knowingly parked in a place you knew was not designated for you. Something not being illegal doesn't make it right.

As for not being punished, I'd imagine retaining a solicitor and going to court was punishment. Certainly more in cost and time than being clamped would have been.

Wossack

legally theres no such thing as a bike only parking space

and as a biker, while the thoughts in the right place, theres a number of reasons why I wouldnt park there (personally)

Stealthirl

nipplenuts wrote: »

As for not being punished, I'd imagine retaining a solicitor and going to court was punishment. Certainly more in cost and time than being clamped would have been.

nope not realy

Stealthirl

Wossack wrote: »

legally theres no such thing as a bike only parking space

and as I biker, while the thoughts in the right place, theres a number of reasons why I wouldnt park there (personally)

the should have just left it for cars and provided some type of rails near the main door for bikes.99/100 bikes i see over there are parked right at the door anyway.

Our man in Havana

Morals have no place in a court of law.

Eoin

Haddockman wrote: »

Morals have no place in a court of law.

Whatever about that, the court of law had no place in this situation.

dynamick

SgtBob wrote: »

Apparently the garda in question, who issued the summons, came into court and couldn't give any definite answers to any of the questions.

So when the issue on the Parking sign in the summons came up, he was stumped; so case dismissed.

In fairness, a pretty complex case. Very unfair of the judge to go asking the garda difficult questions.

Stealthirl

i would not class
is the carpark controlled by euro car parks
was sign RUS 018 presant
difficult questions

Anan1

Stealthirl wrote: »

i would not class
is the carpark controlled by euro car parks
was sign RUS 018 presant
difficult questions

I think dynamik was being sarcastic.;)

Stealthirl

ah right
"Egocentrism causes us to think we know a writer's tone 90% of the time, although we only are correct about 56% of the time. This leads us to misinterpretation of the writer's intended meaning, causing flame wars as well as serious litigation."

mb1725

Wonder have they changed to the legal signage? I'd love to park there in a Reliant Robin, "It's a bike Guard, honest!" :D