Fixed Charge Notice.

garyskeepers

Ok, so long story short.

It turns out my dad was dropping my sister home from work, and pulls up outside Centra while she runs in for something. He stayed in the car with the engine running.

A few days later he gets a Fixed Charge Notice in the door for “Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic”

At first, he didnt know what it was for, but after some thinking he realised it must be for this.

My question is, are tickets allowed just to be sent out like this.? He was only there a couple of minutes and didnt have any contact with parking officers or Garda.

I have emailed back asking for photo or video evidence of the unlawful parking, but they replied saying on this occasion no evidence exists but he could take his chances going to court.

This got me thinking. If no evidence exists, and tickets dont come until several days later, wouldnt most people just pay them assuming that maybe they have broken the law, giving parking enforcement the opportuntiy to just send out as many as they can whether or not cars were actually parked illegally?

RobbieMD

garyskeepers wrote: »

My question is, are tickets allowed just to be sent out like this.?

This got me thinking. If no evidence exists, and tickets dont come until several days later, wouldnt most people just pay them assuming that maybe they have broken the law, giving parking enforcement the opportuntiy to just send out as many as they can whether or not cars were actually parked illegally?

I’m assuming it’s a Garda ticket, in which case they are all posted out. If the Garda doesn’t speak with the driver, they’re sent to the registered owner’s address. It’s not like local authority parking enforcement who stick a ticket under the wiperblade. The vast majority of parking tickets issued by the Gardai are to cars with no driver in them. It’s not a requirement for the Garda to speak with the driver.

If it was a garda ticket then the evidence will be the Garda’s direct evidence to the court of seeing that car parked at that location at whatever time and date. Similar to the evidence they would give about not wearing a seatbelt or holding a mobile phone.

I can’t see why they would issue tickets to cars not committing an offence.

Was your father parked in the manner indicated by the FCPN?

seamus

garyskeepers wrote: »

My question is, are tickets allowed just to be sent out like this.?

Yes. There is no obligation to speak to the driver of the vehicle.

Otherwise there would be a loophole where you could get away with illegal parking so long as nobody spoke to you.

The FCPN will have details on how to claim that someone else was driving or that there were other circumstances which made this not an offence.

In court, the assumption is generally that Gardai don't just randomly send out tickets. So unless you can demonstrate that your vehicle wasn't illegally parked at that time - or you have proof that the Garda made it up - the judge will take the Garda's word for it.

Claw Hammer

I hate people who pull in, in front of shops, blocking everyone "just for a few minutes". I am glad to see something is being done about it.

garyskeepers

RobbieMD wrote: »

I can’t see why they would issue tickets to cars not committing an offence.

Well, call me a synic

RobbieMD wrote: »

Was your father parked in the manner indicated by the FCPN?

[/QUOTE]

Well he wasnt parked in a designated parking space but wasnt “Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic”

But a question would be, if you are in the car, and the car is running, is it "parking" ??? I believe not.

Witcher

Not in a space...so he was obstructing traffic in that he wasn't meant to be parked there.

Sitting in car is still parked...otherwise you could sit in it on a double yellow line and say'Im not parked sure.'

Tell your oul lad to pay the ticket and stop trying to weasel out of it.

Die Hard 2019

garyskeepers wrote: »

Well, call me a synic

Well he wasnt parked in a designated parking space but wasnt “Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic”

But a question would be, if you are in the car, and the car is running, is it "parking" ??? I believe not.[/QUOTE]

A parked car is parked even with someone in it. Only works when you are properly parked in a pay park area. It is free till you leave the car ,

garyskeepers

Witcher wrote: »

Not in a space...so he was obstructing traffic in that he wasn't meant to be parked there.

Well if there WAS no traffic then one could not be seen to be "obstructing" the traffic ??

Witcher wrote: »

Sitting in car is still parked...otherwise you could sit in it on a double yellow line and say'Im not parked sure.'

by that standard everybody 'parks' at red lights? and could therefor be given a ticket for such. I know these are all symantics, but isnt the law about finding loopholes

Witcher wrote: »

Tell your oul lad to pay the ticket and stop trying to weasel out of it.

Well they wanted to pay it, it was me who said to hold on, as there is nothing more I like than loopholes

05eaftqbrs9jlh

garyskeepers wrote: »

Well if there WAS no traffic then one could not be seen to be "obstructing" the traffic ??

But unless your dad is omniscient, he can't know that a car won't arrive and be obstructed.

garyskeepers wrote: »

by that standard everybody 'parks' at red lights? and could therefor be given a ticket for such. I know these are all symantics, but isnt the law about finding loopholes

I mean, you're legally obliged to stop at the red light so those two situations aren't comparable.

In b4 "but the shop shouldn't have been put in a place with enough space outside it for a car to park up and obstruct traffic".

I'm no legal expert but I was always under the impression that if the engine is running, then the car is 'stopped' and not 'parked'. I'm open to correction, but as above, you're not parked when you're at a red light. You're not parked when you're waiting for an articulated truck to reverse into a factory, you're not parked when you're in the McDrive Thru, etc. etc.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm no legal expert but I was always under the impression that if the engine is running, then the car is 'stopped' and not 'parked'. I'm open to correction, but as above, you're not parked when you're at a red light. You're not parked when you're waiting for an articulated truck to reverse into a factory, you're not parked when you're in the McDrive Thru, etc. etc.

In those cases, you're impeded by an obstruction. The OP's father chose to stop and go about their business in a thoroughfare, thus he is the impediment to progress of the traffic that comes by.

McDonald's is a private business which relies on people "driving through". If you parked in the Drive Thru lane and went inside to order, you'd be just as much of a dildo as the original example, holding people up. Albeit you may not be breaking traffic laws, because in a business situation they decide what the rules are (10mph speeds in industrial estates for example). These are notoriously hard to enforce though (hence everyone driving 50 in industrial estates), because generally businesses don't have the weight of the law behind them. That's why you see "Property left at owner's discretion" on signs in car parks - "You're leaving your car here but we're not minding it for you".

And the truck reversing is just doing a maneuver, you have to wait for them to complete, that's completely normal traffic you've just stopped in. It would be different if he reversed, hopped out and ran into the shop to get a breakfast roll before letting you go.

jimmycrackcorm

Surely the ticket had details of when and where the offence took place?

Is the defence "my unattended car had it's engine running"?

GM228

garyskeepers wrote: »

I have emailed back asking for photo or video evidence of the unlawful parking, but they replied saying on this occasion no evidence exists but he could take his chances going to court.

This got me thinking. If no evidence exists, and tickets dont come until several days later, wouldnt most people just pay them assuming that maybe they have broken the law, giving parking enforcement the opportuntiy to just send out as many as they can whether or not cars were actually parked illegally?

No prosecution will be taken where no evidence exists as it is not possible to make out a prima facia case, more likely you were told there is no physical evidence such as photo or video, rather the evidence would be verbal from the person who issued the ticket, there does not need to be physical evidence.

garyskeepers wrote: »

But a question would be, if you are in the car, and the car is running, is it "parking" ??? I believe not.

Legally when you keep or leave a vehicle stationary it is parked, you do not have to actually leave the vehicle or turn off the engine.

garyskeepers wrote: »

Well if there WAS no traffic then one could not be seen to be "obstructing" the traffic ??

The offence is for parking in a manner that will interfere with traffic, not that is interfering with traffic.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm no legal expert but I was always under the impression that if the engine is running, then the car is 'stopped' and not 'parked'. I'm open to correction, but as above, you're not parked when you're at a red light. You're not parked when you're waiting for an articulated truck to reverse into a factory, you're not parked when you're in the McDrive Thru, etc. etc.

Legally you are parked anytime you keep or leave a vehicle stationary.

garyskeepers

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the defence "my unattended car had it's engine running"?

No,, he was in the car. He didnt leave the car.

GM228 wrote: »

there does not need to be physical evidence.

So someone's 'word' is counted as 'evidence' ?? so, "Is there evidence for this crime?" "Yes, yer man said he did it, therefore that is evidence" ??? Cant be so!

GM228 wrote: »

The offence is for parking in a manner that will interfere with traffic, not that is interfering with traffic.

No, actually the offence is for “Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic”

garyskeepers

garyskeepers wrote: »

No,, he was in the car. He didnt leave the car

Apologies. Misread. Strange one. Never heard of this type of scenario.

GM228

garyskeepers wrote: »

So someone's 'word' is counted as 'evidence' ?? so, "Is there evidence for this crime?" "Yes, yer man said he did it, therefore that is evidence" ??? Cant be so!

Yes it is so, prosecutions are taken all the time solely on verbal evidence especially with minor offences, there is no requirement to have photographic or other physical evidence, a Guard or traffic warden stating they observed a vehicle parked at such and such a place in such and such a manner is often enough.

garyskeepers wrote: »

No, actually the offence is for “Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic”

Sorry, I was concentrating on the first part of the offence, but the offence is actually parking "in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic".

In layman's terms that means if you park in such a way that will impede other traffic there is an offence created, where does it state that that other traffic must actually be present at the particular time, the risk/obstruction is still created for any traffic which may come along, if a tree, vehicle or other object obstructs a road, does it cease to be an obstruction just because no other traffic is coming?

kippy

Get your father to throw good money after bad and get some legal advise from a solicitor.
Get the solicitor to go to court with him and appeal it to the Supreme court.
I am sure it will be successful.....

splinter65

garyskeepers wrote: »

Well, call me a synic

Well he wasnt parked in a designated parking space but wasnt “Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic”

But a question would be, if you are in the car, and the car is running, is it "parking" ??? I believe not.[/quote]

Your father should go to court and tell the judge that in his opinion he wasn’t obstructing traffic when he parked randomly on the road in front of Centra instead of finding a parking space, and that furthermore in his opinion a car is only “parked” if the engine is turned off.
Let us know how he gets on.

garyskeepers

GM228 wrote: »

Yes it is so, prosecutions are taken all the time solely on verbal evidence especially with minor offences, there is no requirement to have photographic or other physical evidence, a Guard or traffic warden stating they observed a vehicle parked at such and such a place in such and such a manner is often enough.

Oh, ok, it kinda doesnt make total sense. ie. An officer with a horrible attitude or vendetta can screw somebody because of their word and or opinion. ie. If there WAS NO TRAFFIC how would one be OBSTRUCTING traffic ?

GM228 wrote: »

the offence is actually parking "in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic".

Its not though, the wording is taken directly from the charge sent in the post. They CANNOT say "oh well THATS what we meant. This is the law. "OBSTRUCTING" and "WILL OBSTRUCT" are two TOTALLY different things. Thats like "KILLED" or "WILL KILL"

GM228 wrote: »

where does it state that that other traffic must actually be present at the particular time, the risk/obstruction is still created for any traffic which may come along, if a tree, vehicle or other object obstructs a road, does it cease to be an obstruction just because no other traffic is coming?

The difference is, one is past tense, and has already happened. One is future tense and may never happen. The better question you could ask is. If a tree obstructs a road, and there are no cars, has it OBSTRUCTED traffic?

splinter65 wrote: »

Your father should go to court and tell the judge that in his opinion he wasn’t obstructing traffic when he parked randomly on the road in front of Centra instead of finding a parking space, and that furthermore in his opinion a car is only “parked” if the engine is turned off.
Let us know how he gets on.

The truth is still the truth. I dont believe a car is 'parked' if it is running with the driver behind the wheel.

splinter65

garyskeepers wrote: »

Oh, ok, it kinda doesnt make total sense. ie. An officer with a horrible attitude or vendetta can screw somebody because of their word and or opinion. ie. If there WAS NO TRAFFIC how would one be OBSTRUCTING traffic ?




Its not though, the wording is taken directly from the charge sent in the post. They CANNOT say "oh well THATS what we meant. This is the law. "OBSTRUCTING" and "WILL OBSTRUCT" are two TOTALLY different things. Thats like "KILLED" or "WILL KILL"




The difference is, one is past tense, and has already happened. One is future tense and may never happen. The better question you could ask is. If a tree obstructs a road, and there are no cars, has it OBSTRUCTED traffic?




The truth is still the truth. I dont believe a car is 'parked' if it is running with the driver behind the wheel.

Other far wiser heads than I have quoted the law to you on the matter of being “parked” but you choose to ignore this and insist that if you “believe” that he wasnt parked that that is the “truth” and your “truth” trumps the law.
As I said already. You should advise your dad to go to court and tell the judge how you feel about this and see if the judge agrees with you or the Garda.

Plumbthedepths

Any reason your father couldn't have parked in a parking bay?
He should however pay the ticket and ignore your advice .

Get Real

garyskeepers wrote: »

Oh, ok, it kinda doesnt make total sense. ie. An officer with a horrible attitude or vendetta can screw somebody because of their word and or opinion. ie. If there WAS NO TRAFFIC how would one be OBSTRUCTING traffic ?




Its not though, the wording is taken directly from the charge sent in the post. They CANNOT say "oh well THATS what we meant. This is the law. "OBSTRUCTING" and "WILL OBSTRUCT" are two TOTALLY different things. Thats like "KILLED" or "WILL KILL"




The difference is, one is past tense, and has already happened. One is future tense and may never happen. The better question you could ask is. If a tree obstructs a road, and there are no cars, has it OBSTRUCTED traffic?




The truth is still the truth. I dont believe a car is 'parked' if it is running with the driver behind the wheel.

You've gotten some advice/opinion on here regarding the car being parked. You seem to disagree with that. If your dad is of the same view as yourself, let a judge decide those points/interpretations of the law.

A boards forum won't change the circumstances of dealing with the ticket. Pay it, or have a judge decide.

GM228

garyskeepers wrote: »

Oh, ok, it kinda doesnt make total sense. ie. An officer with a horrible attitude or vendetta can screw somebody because of their word and or opinion. ie. If there WAS NO TRAFFIC how would one be OBSTRUCTING traffic ?

It makes perfect sense, there are plenty of offences which rely totally on verbal evidence because you simply can't get physical evidence. It's extremely common and all very normal the world over.

The parking can cause an obstruction to traffic, the offence does not require any traffic to be physically present at that specific time, just that an obstruction to traffic is present, traffic actually present or not does not change the fact you may have caused an obstruction to the normal flow of traffic.

Another thing to note is how can a driver be 100% certain that there was no other traffic unless they are vigilant at all times they were stopped as to their surroundings watching in each direction of traffic etc, they weren't vigilant to who ever issued the ticket?

garyskeepers wrote: »

Its not though, the wording is taken directly from the charge sent in the post. They CANNOT say "oh well THATS what we meant. This is the law. "OBSTRUCTING" and "WILL OBSTRUCT" are two TOTALLY different things. Thats like "KILLED" or "WILL KILL"

The offence is specifically in relation to parking "in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic", that is the offence as prescribed by law.

garyskeepers wrote: »

The difference is, one is past tense, and has already happened. One is future tense and may never happen. The better question you could ask is. If a tree obstructs a road, and there are no cars, has it OBSTRUCTED traffic?

Yes it has obstructed traffic because the normal flow of traffic is no longer available, it does not cease to become an obstruction to traffic in between the arrival of vehicles or other conveyances using the road, it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic.

If you want to scrutinise the present/past point, just remember the FCPN is sent after the event happened, so it is technically correct, obstructed is not a word used in the offence itself, a FCPN or summons does not have to be exact copy and paste wording of the offence concerned once it quotes the accurate "contrary to" provision, and even if you want to make out a technical defect argument they can easily be amended and usually will be useless unless the defect seriously prejudices the right to fair trial.

garyskeepers wrote: »

The truth is still the truth. I dont believe a car is 'parked' if it is running with the driver behind the wheel.

The truth is you are wrong, a vehicle is parked once you keep or leave a vehicle stationary, that is the position in law as defined, there is no requirement to switch off an engine or get out of the car.

Claw Hammer

garyskeepers wrote: »

Oh, ok, it kinda doesnt make total sense. ie. An officer with a horrible attitude or vendetta can screw somebody because of their word and or opinion. ie. If there WAS NO TRAFFIC how would one be OBSTRUCTING traffic ?




Its not though, the wording is taken directly from the charge sent in the post. They CANNOT say "oh well THATS what we meant. This is the law. "OBSTRUCTING" and "WILL OBSTRUCT" are two TOTALLY different things. Thats like "KILLED" or "WILL KILL"




The difference is, one is past tense, and has already happened. One is future tense and may never happen. The better question you could ask is. If a tree obstructs a road, and there are no cars, has it OBSTRUCTED traffic?




The truth is still the truth. I dont believe a car is 'parked' if it is running with the driver behind the wheel.

You obviously didn't lick it from the stones. Has your father form in this kind of thing?

garyskeepers

ok lads, no need to get personal with the insults. Doesnt make you clever

and thanks other for advice.

Potential-Monke

garyskeepers wrote: »

the offence is for “Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic”

Just to add to this, and hopefully clarify something. The closest I could find to the above wording is Section 36(2)(k) of the RTA 1997 which states:

Irish Statue Book wrote:

(2) A vehicle shall not be parked—
( k ) in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic;

Key word here is 'will'. Not is, nor might, but will. Even if there was no traffic at the time, if the possibility exists that it will obstruct, the offence is there. Keeping in mind a civilians idea and a Garda's idea of will are most likely very different.

That is if that is the correct piece of legislation. You can let us know by quoting the legal bit at the start of the FCPN with the offence details 'contrary to'. Either way, it seems your dad was breaking that specific law according to the Garda who witnessed him.

But it also seems strange to send it out without speaking to the driver if he was still in the car. Quite possible it could have been sent on review of CCTV on receipt of a complaint, but that wouldn't stand the 'no physical evidence' bit you were told. Only way to know for sure is to let it go to court me thinks (not sure if they have to give you the full evidence before then), but a big risk to take imo. Not advice, just my thoughts!

GM228

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Just to add to this, and hopefully clarify something. The closest I could find to the above wording is Section 36(2)(k) of the RTA 1997 which states:



Key word here is 'will'. Not is, nor might, but will. Even if there was no traffic at the time, if the possibility exists that it will obstruct, the offence is there. Keeping in mind a civilians idea and a Garda's idea of will are most likely very different.

That is if that is the correct piece of legislation. You can let us know by quoting the legal bit at the start of the FCPN with the offence details 'contrary to'. Either way, it seems your dad was breaking that specific law according to the Garda who witnessed him.

But it also seems strange to send it out without speaking to the driver if he was still in the car. Quite possible it could have been sent on review of CCTV on receipt of a complaint, but that wouldn't stand the 'no physical evidence' bit you were told. Only way to know for sure is to let it go to court me thinks (not sure if they have to give you the full evidence before then), but a big risk to take imo. Not advice, just my thoughts!

Yes it's correct, I have already pointed out the wording of the offence to the OP twice, and to note any offence under the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 is actually an offence contrary to S35 (5)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1994.

garyskeepers

GM228 wrote: »

Yes it's correct, I have already pointed out the wording of the offence to the OP twice, and to note any offence under the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997 is actually an offence contrary to S35 (5)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1994.

Yes and I have already quoted the wording directly from the letter received. And the word was OBSTRUCTED, NOT "will"

Either way, doesnt matter. Thanks anyway

garyskeepers

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Key word here is 'will'. Not is, nor might, but will.

This was the point I was getting at. The charge was for, and I quote “Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic”

Not 'will'

as I said, it doesnt matter anyway.

Peregrinus

garyskeepers wrote: »

This was the point I was getting at. The charge was for, and I quote “Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic”

Not 'will'

You can only be charged for something that is an offence under the law.

"“Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic” doesn't sound like the kind of language that normally appears in a fixed penalty notice, summons or charge - criminal offences are never set out in the past tense. So this looks like a simple misprint in this instance. As long as the intended offence is clear - i.e. if there is a statutory reference in the document - the misdescription of the offence can be rectified. This isn't a get-out-of-jail card.