Parking fine

I'm confused. You have overstayed in quotes but it seems you were there at 11 and still at 2.30, which is well over three hours. It simply looks like you were caught.

You're in to conspiracy theories there. Appeal it if you think you were legally parked. Though some have conditions like the car has to be moved between sessions. It's often three hours max, not as many consecutive sessions of three hours as you like.

Is it that you are only allowed one 3 hour period per day (i'm still not entirely clear).

The amount of cars in the car park or the ins and outs of apps are irrelevant if you were fined correctly.

You really have a lot of time on your hands.

There is a 3 hours time limit. You breached that limit. You got a ticket. The warden has absolute proof you breached that limit. You even accept you breached that limit.

Yet you are whining on a forum and want to to use foi to show PRECISELY what you are already accepting and then spend hours of time trying to defend a clear breach of the regulations which you accept you knew about.

Seriously????

having that information doesn't help your case.

I think most posters are telling you to pay the fine and jog on.

Whining that you got caught and someone else didn't is rather petty and trying to find a "legal" angle to worm out of paying is just stupidity

I think even an enquiry about how many cars were photographed would be an enquiry about law enforcement measures, and would probably be knocked back.

Your point about the app accepting payments to extend/renew sessions is a good one. If it's not permitted to do this, then the Council shouldn't be accepting money from people who want to do it (and then fining them for doing it!). It's not good enough to say that this is a feature of the app; the council doesn't have to offer payment by app in the first place but, if they do, they have a responsibility to find (and if necessary commission) an app that is actually fit for purpose.

If I was in your position and if I didn't value my time, I'd consider not paying the fine and going to court, where I would point out that the Council accepted payment to extend the parking session, creating a reasonable belief on your part that this was permitted, and that it would be oppressive of them to prosecute you for an act in which they themselves were complicit.

I was referring more to your general comment "but there is a middle ground for those who work locally and need somewhere to park" than to the specifics of this situation. People who work need all kinds of things and services, they need laptops and desks and chairs and office space. What is it about parking though that creates the expectation that someone else needs to provide this to you?

If your business needs parking, your business needs to make arrangements for parking, maybe even needs to pay someone to provide space for parking. It's not the Council's job to be running your business for you.

People who are not using the app presumably pay at a machine and get a ticket. The time of issue is recorded on the ticket so there would be no need to photograph their cars as evidence of how long they stayed - they stayed from the time the ticket was issued to the time the warden gave them a penalty notice. So even if its true that they don't photograph the macine-paying cars, that wouldn't mean they were targetting the app-paying cars for penalties; it woiuld just mean they didn't need photographs of the machine-paying cars to provide evidence of how long they have been there.

3 hours max stay.You should have left for 30-60 then returned.Same can happen when parking in the same street for too long in some towns/cities

Have you taken a photo of the obstructed sign? I would do that as a matter of urgency, this will support your case.

What time did you park the car as a matter of interest?

I agree with a lot of this, I think the OP was targeted. I agree that he should appeal it on the basis that the photo's can't show whether or not they moved for an hour and came back to the same spot and parked the same way - the only definitive proof that the OP overstayed is from the app, when they paid for another 3 hours parking after being parked there for 3 hours and if this wasn't on the T&C's of the app when the OP signed up, then that could be an issue.

Also, that the warden took the photo at 11am, a lucky strike? Or they knew what they were doing?

Sad state of affairs when you can't ask for a small bit of advice without being attacked by passive aggressive users.

Ah in fairness now they have chosen to provide the space, the only question to my mind is whether the rules are fairly applied and whether by use of the app whether it should simply refuse renewals. In DCC, this is not possible as they use colour coded zones which are not contiguous as opposed to DOR which uses two digit codes which could preclude follow on hours.

The wardens will generally record reg numbers on their phones, so faffing around with a new ticket gets you precisely nowhere. This isn't their first rodeo.

would that be a council device or personal phone. If personal should they be using it for work

Oh I know that. The point was that it's not only app users who stay in the same space without moving.

I'd well believe it. Any councillor will jump on any hard luck story and promise to raise it at the next meeting if they think it might result in a vote at the next election.

OP, I think you're probably out of luck here. All indications are that you broke the three-hour rule, however unjustified or unfair that three-hour rule might appear.

Having said that, I roll my eyes when I see that good ole Andy is on his usual anti-motorist and anti-car hobby horse. "What makes you think somebody else should provide storage space for your personal property?", he asks. I dunno, Andy. But tell me - does this mean you're also opposed to Council houses being rented out to tenants, if Councils shouldn't have to provide storage space for people's property, and even for the people themselves????