Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Details to follow.

Sheffield drivers fined £80000 for car removal

Recommended Posts

A counter example - on my road I got a notice through the door and the signs went up 2 weeks in advance. They were then were adjusted forward by two days with a week to go. The work started on the newly advertised day (well late pm actually) and yet they STILL had to fetch two separate white van drivers further down the road out to shift their vehicles. One was parked right in front of a sign (and was working on the house he was in front of) and yet somehow didn't hear the bloody loud grinding machine approaching right outside his door, whilst the other, presumably on nights or early start, had to move his van in his jammies :) Every single other person on the road I could see 'got the message'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I've done so on many occasions and never had a problem. I live in the best part of the city where we don't experience thieving scrotes - apart from SCC of course.

 

S

 

---------- Post added 12-07-2016 at 23:16 ----------

 

 

 

 

 

Living in the 'best part of the city' I assume your credit rating is good so you should have tried:-

https://www.buzzfeed.com/sahilrizwan/oolalalala-oh-no?utm_term=.pbmq8J2Jbl#.alBlZDKDpW

 

could have saved you some agro but we would have missed out on this interesting discussion :hihi:

 

However, I don't know if this is available in Sheffield or if you a have a Ferrari :D:hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me make it clear for you, the signs are up for a month prior.

 

Without providing detail that would reveal where I live, I can assure you this is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living in the 'best part of the city' I assume your credit rating is good so you should have tried:-

https://www.buzzfeed.com/sahilrizwan/oolalalala-oh-no?utm_term=.pbmq8J2Jbl#.alBlZDKDpW

 

could have saved you some agro but we would have missed out on this interesting discussion :hihi:

 

However, I don't know if this is available in Sheffield or if you a have a Ferrari :D:hihi:

 

I don't have a Ferrari. I said I lived in the best part of the city, not the wealthiest part of the city. I actually live in one of the more deprived postcodes; the people are great and it's the best :)

Edited by Solitaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Reading the legislation tells me that SCC most definitely DOES need an alternative form of publication, such as leaflets to affected households or signs on the roads. It's quite clear. IF SCC choose not to 'practically apply' that requirement then they are in breach of the legislation. However, that's all somewhat academic. They DID leaflet the households but the leaflets were inaccurate regarding the works being undertaken. That is my point

 

S

 

All of which is redundant anyway, even if you were correct they have no obligation to inform you of work happening on a street that isn't yours....if your street was listed then they have met your (incorrect) interpretation of the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of which is redundant anyway, even if you were correct they have no obligation to inform you of work happening on a street that isn't yours....if your street was listed then they have met your (incorrect) interpretation of the rules.

 

Maybe but .........see reply to follow.

 

---------- Post added 14-07-2016 at 23:52 ----------

 

I'm not your mate.

 

The legality of TRO's in this and other cities has been tested at adjudications and in court on more occasions than either of us can count.

 

The established practice here and everywhere else is that all you need to do is place the legal notice.

 

You can put up street notices if you like, but it's optional, as is letter dropping affected properties.

 

Its been done like that for as many years as I can remember and I am not aware there has ever been a successful challenge to that method of advertising a TRO ever, anywhere.

 

A fundamental mistake you are making is assuming that the letter they sent you was in association with the making of the TRO. It was not. The TRO is made separately, by the Council's in-house client team. Amey will have letter dropped you as a courtesy to advise when they will be working in the area. That is not consulting you on or advising you of a TRO. It's just letting you know they will be working around the area. The TRO has already been made and they do not write you a letter to tell you about it.

 

The street notices they do put up in connection with Amey works (large yellow correx signs) are to advise people not to park in the area between certain dates.

 

These are not the notices that are put up to advertise a TRO (small laminated paper). Some TRO's do get advertised on street. The temporary ones for Amey's zones do not.

 

Your argument regarding the "misleading" information supplied by Amey may carry some weight with with the appeals bodies on the grounds of "fairness". It may not. Do let us know how you get on.

 

No planner1, you're not my mate. It was just tongue in cheek. Sorry.

 

Anyway, my initial challenge was rejected by SCC, as I expected. I got some poorly written letter from an Admin & Processing Assistant (more training in basic skills required for her methinks). But here's the interesting thing .....

 

The letter seems to suggest that the timing of (a) my parking and (b) the signs going up on the road in question, is pertinent. It states: 'Signs were in place informing motorists that waiting and loading were not permitted at any time. These signs were put up on 24/06/16, 4 days before works started. We have checked if your vehicle was parked at this location before the signs were put up but I am satisfied that the signs were there when you parked'.

 

My car was put there on the afternoon of 18 June 2016; that is a fact. I have a witness to that effect. In fact, he was driving and he parked it; I was the passenger. I am quite prepared to swear on oath, if need be, that that is the case. So SCC has effectively accused me, one of the people it purports to serve, of lying. That is quite scandalous.

 

My appeal will go to the Adjudicator following legal advice.

 

In the meantime, I have replied to SCC's appalling letter, copying in my three councillors and SCC's Chief Executive. I have asked them to provide their evidence that I put the car on the street in question after 24 June 2016. I'm quite keen to see what they can come up with. I have also demanded an apology for the false accusation. I really don't think that it was a smart move on their part to accuse me of lying; not a smart move at all.

 

Anyway, thanks for all the interest in the case—both those supporting me and the rest. I'll keep you updated.

 

S

Edited by Solitaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not read all this Thread - However I did feel sorry for a few in our area . the work started on a few roads in same area so cars moved parked a few roads away so work could be done , unknown to them the taking the top off the roads seem to be a quick thing a day or 2 on a lot of roads in one go , so by the time they got to the cars that had parked a few roads away - no-one knew whos cars these was so parking tickets first then they got took away .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not your mate.

 

The legality of TRO's in this and other cities has been tested at adjudications and in court on more occasions than either of us can count.

 

The established practice here and everywhere else is that all you need to do is place the legal notice.

 

You can put up street notices if you like, but it's optional, as is letter dropping affected properties.

 

Its been done like that for as many years as I can remember and I am not aware there has ever been a successful challenge to that method of advertising a TRO ever, anywhere.

 

A fundamental mistake you are making is assuming that the letter they sent you was in association with the making of the TRO. It was not. The TRO is made separately, by the Council's in-house client team. Amey will have letter dropped you as a courtesy to advise when they will be working in the area. That is not consulting you on or advising you of a TRO. It's just letting you know they will be working around the area. The TRO has already been made and they do not write you a letter to tell you about it.

 

The street notices they do put up in connection with Amey works (large yellow correx signs) are to advise people not to park in the area between certain dates.

 

These are not the notices that are put up to advertise a TRO (small laminated paper). Some TRO's do get advertised on street. The temporary ones for Amey's zones do not.

 

Your argument regarding the "misleading" information supplied by Amey may carry some weight with with the appeals bodies on the grounds of "fairness". It may not. Do let us know how you get on.

 

Sorry, double post.

Edited by Solitaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe but .........see reply to follow.

 

---------- Post added 14-07-2016 at 23:52 ----------

 

 

No planner1, you're not my mate. It was just tongue in cheek. Sorry.

 

Anyway, my initial challenge was rejected by SCC, as I expected. I got some poorly written letter from an Admin & Processing Assistant (more training in basic skills required for her methinks). But here's the interesting thing .....

 

The letter seems to suggest that the timing of (a) my parking and (b) the signs going up on the road in question, is pertinent. It states: 'Signs were in place informing motorists that waiting and loading were not permitted at any time. These signs were put up on 24/06/16, 4 days before works started. We have checked if your vehicle was parked at this location before the signs were put up but I am satisfied that the signs were there when you parked'.

 

My car was put there on the afternoon of 18 June 2016; that is a fact. I have a witness to that effect. In fact, he was driving and he parked it; I was the passenger. I am quite prepared to swear on oath, if need be, that that is the case. So SCC has effectively accused me, one of the people it purports to serve, of lying. That is quite scandalous.

 

My appeal will go to the Adjudicator following legal advice.

 

In the meantime, I have replied to SCC's appalling letter, copying in my three councillors and SCC's Chief Executive. I have asked them to provide their evidence that I put the car on the street in question after 24 June 2016. I'm quite keen to see what they can come up with. I have also demanded an apology for the false accusation. I really don't think that it was a smart move on their part to accuse me of lying; not a smart move at all.

 

Anyway, thanks for all the interest in the case—both those supporting me and the rest. I'll keep you updated.

 

S

When Amey put up the signs, they take a video of the whole street and supply it to Parking Services so that they can see which cars were there at that time, in case of any appeals.

 

In dealing with your challenge, they will have run through the video and clearly have not seen your car on it.

 

You'll get a letter back saying neither the Chief Exec nor your Councillors can legally get involved in parking appeals. Only the appeals team can deal with it and it will go through the regulated process.

 

I rather doubt they have actually called you a liar, rather just pointed out that the video evidence does not support your contention regarding when you parked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Amey put up the signs, they take a video of the whole street and supply it to Parking Services so that they can see which cars were there at that time, in case of any appeals.

 

In dealing with your challenge, they will have run through the video and clearly have not seen your car on it.

 

You'll get a letter back saying neither the Chief Exec nor your Councillors can legally get involved in parking appeals. Only the appeals team can deal with it and it will go through the regulated process.

 

I rather doubt they have actually called you a liar, rather just pointed out that the video evidence does not support your contention regarding when you parked.

 

I can assure you, Planner1, that if they took a video of the whole street on 24 June 2016 then my car will appear on it. Absolutely, definitely, 100%. No doubt. Whatsoever. It was left there on 18 June 2016. I have a witness.

 

They have insinuated that I'm a liar and they will be held to account for that.

 

I will win this. Make absolutely NO mistake about that.

 

To be continued ..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our situation the no parking was for street lighting, three lights, each needing a space of about two car lengths. The notice was for the whole road (and neighbouring roads) 7am to 7pm.

The residents ignored the signs (no workmen turned up until 8:30 which the 7:00 to 8:30 am was a pure windup as before most leave to go to work), to there credit the Amey guys went knocking on doors to tell residents to move there cars off the road as the parking enforcement were coming and any car on the road any where, even though not in their way would be ticketed and towed away.

 

Some of the cars parked were by residents of adjoining roads and residents who had gone out and left their cars on the road so never got the warning.

 

As i moved my car the workmen parked one of their vans in the same spot -that was just rubbing salt in.

 

As the warden ticketed one car on the end of the road miles from any work taking place i pointed out it wasn't in their way but she just basically said its the rules. I said in that case the workmen's vans weren't legally exempt and rules being rules she must ticket them, she didn't but left with a perturbed look on her face.

 

The workmen left at 14:30 not to return but signs still up so as residents returned home from work with no where to park started ignoring the signs again. How difficult would it have been for the signs to have been removed when work finished, residents had nowhere else to park so had to ignore the parking restriction.

 

Whilst ever people are being forced to ignore the parking restriction and getting away with it how does the council expect people to take them seriously any other time when action is taken and much anger generated.

 

Its the biggest wind up from this grossly incompetent council, (we have had many over the last 10 years here), you feel like you are being treated as an irrelevant piece of crap, if the organiser of this works had to answer to the public that pays his wage then we would sack them.

 

I feel little hope of improvement in this cities administration as it continues to get worst. Absolutely no consideration for the people it is supposed to be serving.

 

The justification i read from planner1's post regarding the legal technicality the council have to carry out their action regardless of providing an appropriate service to the public just shows how we are thought of, they probably feel the city would be much better if they could get rid of all the residents, we just get in their way.

 

To save the "cost" of ticket wardens and recovery trucks taking vehicles to the other side of sheffield and subsequent administration that planner1 is saying is so expensive to justify the fine, in this case the one vehicle in their way could have been moved 10 foot out of the way taking about 10 minutes of the trucks time, it would have saved much animosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In our situation the no parking was for street lighting, three lights, each needing a space of about two car lengths. The notice was for the whole road (and neighbouring roads) 7am to 7pm.

The residents ignored the signs (no workmen turned up until 8:30 which the 7:00 to 8:30 am was a pure windup as before most leave to go to work), to there credit the Amey guys went knocking on doors to tell residents to move there cars off the road as the parking enforcement were coming and any car on the road any where, even though not in their way would be ticketed and towed away.

 

Some of the cars parked were by residents of adjoining roads and residents who had gone out and left their cars on the road so never got the warning.

 

As i moved my car the workmen parked one of their vans in the same spot -that was just rubbing salt in.

 

As the warden ticketed one car on the end of the road miles from any work taking place i pointed out it wasn't in their way but she just basically said its the rules. I said in that case the workmen's vans weren't legally exempt and rules being rules she must ticket them, she didn't but left with a perturbed look on her face.

 

The workmen left at 14:30 not to return but signs still up so as residents returned home from work with no where to park started ignoring the signs again. How difficult would it have been for the signs to have been removed when work finished, residents had nowhere else to park so had to ignore the parking restriction.

 

Whilst ever people are being forced to ignore the parking restriction and getting away with it how does the council expect people to take them seriously any other time when action is taken and much anger generated.

 

Its the biggest wind up from this grossly incompetent council, (we have had many over the last 10 years here), you feel like you are being treated as an irrelevant piece of crap, if the organiser of this works had to answer to the public that pays his wage then we would sack them.

 

I feel little hope of improvement in this cities administration as it continues to get worst. Absolutely no consideration for the people it is supposed to be serving.

 

The justification i read from planner1's post regarding the legal technicality the council have to carry out their action regardless of providing an appropriate service to the public just shows how we are thought of, they probably feel the city would be much better if they could get rid of all the residents, we just get in their way.

 

To save the "cost" of ticket wardens and recovery trucks taking vehicles to the other side of sheffield and subsequent administration that planner1 is saying is so expensive to justify the fine, in this case the one vehicle in their way could have been moved 10 foot out of the way taking about 10 minutes of the trucks time, it would have saved much animosity.

 

Completely agree with you AR. I feel like an 'irrelevant piece of crap' most of the time and do not require SCC's help in that department. That's why I'm fighting my cause regarding the towing of my car. The standard of their services is appalling and I'm in no mood to be accused of lying by a junior admin assistant.

 

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.