Would you still send the £105 bill to the council - seeing as you've effectively done the work?
I would have done that had the driver just offered to pay the reduced fine & tow/release fee there and then. Like you, I wouldn't be unreasonable.
He may have been perfectly reasonable, however I imagine the bloke wasn't particularly pleasant to deal with, probably immediately started spouting off about his rights and it went from there. The driver of the low loader would also have to contact his boss who would also probably have to contact the council etc and if one wants to dig their heels in cos the bloke is an arse they will.
Most people would not jump in their car when it was on a low loader, unless they were attention seeking somewhat and knew the bloke couldn't therefore tow them, guess he knew his rights on that one
Once the lift has started, it cant be reversed, as obviously costs have already been incurred, the truck drivers wages & costs. Now if you get there before they start, you should be allowed to drive away.
Tough (for the council).
Towing is about being "proportionate and necessary" in relation to the position of the vehicle, rules broken and time left, not much money the council last lost. In any case, councils can only tow vehicles because they have broken DPE rules, NOT because they've incurred costs.
Anyway, the costs are incurred from the moment the truck was called and are the same regardless of whether or not the truck returns to the pound with a car on it or not.
If a council chooses to operate a towing truck, it must do so at its own cost. Many councils, even the likes of Brighton, have ditched their tow trucks to save money for that very reason.
Once the lift has started, it cant be reversed, as obviously costs have already been incurred, the truck drivers wages & costs. Now if you get there before they start, you should be allowed to drive away.
What you mean it's technically and physically impossible ? - crikey !!!
Would you still send the £105 bill to the council - seeing as you've effectively done the work?
I would have done that had the driver just offered to pay the reduced fine & tow/release fee there and then. Like you, I wouldn't be unreasonable.
Would depend on their guidance - assuming there is any to cover that precise scenario. But if the guy emerged and wanted his car back, I'd have let him have it. Irrespective of whether I got paid or not.
Seems a bit anal to go through with the tow away when the driver has made an appearance and before the tow truck has driven off. It would appear they eventually released the vehicle anyway. Would have saved a lot of time and hassle if they'd acted reasonably in the first place.
One thing I haven't seen is a timeline of events. The chap said that he was willing to pay but when was this? If it was while the ticket was being written or just after it was stuck on the car, fair enough, but if it was after the low loader arrived, surely that was way too late.
Would depend on their guidance - assuming there is any to cover that precise scenario. But if the guy emerged and wanted his car back, I'd have let him have it. Irrespective of whether I got paid or not.
Seems a bit anal to go through with the tow away when the driver has made an appearance and before the tow truck has driven off. It would appear they eventually released the vehicle anyway. Would have saved a lot of time and hassle if they'd acted reasonably in the first place.
.....................or if he hadn't parked there!!
Towing is about being "proportionate and necessary" in relation to the position of the vehicle, rules broken and time left, not much money the council last lost. In any case, councils can only tow vehicles because they have broken DPE rules, NOT because they've incurred costs.
That'd be the way I'd look at it.
A vehicle should be towed away because it's either taking up a space that it shouldn't be or it's blocking access.
If the driver's in the vehicle and prepared to remove it themselves then clearly neither of those things are at issue.
By all means, fine the person for the offence they've been guilty of but the only reason these c**ts want to impound vehicles is to hold people to ransom and so they can chalk-up even bigger charges for storage and administration etc.
I wonder if the people who're advocating the whole "rulez iz rulez" thing feel the same way about, say, sanctioning people on benefits or suspending pupils from schools etc?
I feel a bit sorry for anyone caught out like this, but more so when big costs are involved as a penalty. Should be more like a £50 fine in the post IMO. But, we live rip off Britain so it's going to be a lot more if the car is impounded.
There are many people that struggle to maintain and keep a car running, more since the recession. My neighbour has an old Citroen and one of its electric windows has stuck in the closed position, she can't afford to have it fixed. She is even struggling to find the £110 or whatever it is this year for the road tax. She says she will be forced to pay it monthly but it costs more in total if you do it that way.
In effect, these people are bein priced off the road. It could be argued what they should be doing is (where possible), selling or scraping the car and then taking the bus.
I feel a bit sorry for anyone caught out like this, but more so when big costs are involved as a penalty. Should be more like a £50 fine in the post IMO. But, we live rip off Britain so it's going to be a lot more if the car is impounded.
There are many people that struggle to maintain and keep a car running, more since the recession. My neighbour has an old Citroen and one of its electric windows has stuck in the closed position, she can't afford to have it fixed. She is even struggling to find the £110 or whatever it is this year for the road tax. She says she will be forced to pay it monthly but it costs more in total if you do it that way.
In effect, these people are bein priced off the road. It could be argued what they should be doing is (where possible), selling or scraping the car and then taking the bus.
It could also be argued that if they don't park where they shouldn't, then they won't incur the extra costs.
In effect, these people are bein priced off the road. It could be argued what they should be doing is (where possible), selling or scraping the car and then taking the bus.
That's fine if you live in a country where the government actually recognises this is happening and makes some effort to allow people to live in a society where they can rely on public transport or do stuff like use bicycles or walk to work.
Trouble is, in the UK, we have a situation where, on average (IIRC), people have a 40 mile commute to work, the government is still encouraging out-of-town commercial developments and we're allowing city-centres to fall into disuse and our public transport system is shite but then, at the same time, we're saying "Well, if you can't afford to run a car, use public transport, walk or ride a bicycle like they do in other countries".
I wonder if the people who're advocating the whole "rulez iz rulez" thing feel the same way about, say, sanctioning people on benefits or suspending pupils from schools etc?
People will tend to defend the party they most affiliate themselves with, and in this case it's the disabled that have apparently been hard done by in this story. Go figure...
That's fine if you live in a country where the government actually recognises this is happening and makes some effort to allow people to live in a society where they can rely on public transport or do stuff like use bicycles or walk to work.
Trouble is, in the UK, we have a situation where, on average (IIRC), people have a 40 mile commute to work, the government is still encouraging out-of-town commercial developments and we're allowing city-centres to fall into disuse and our public transport system is shite but then, at the same time, we're saying "Well, if you can't afford to run a car, use public transport, walk or ride a bicycle like they do in other countries".
I agree....around here many the outlying villages have a very limited bus service (1 return to the next town every 3rd day-pointless) or no service at all. And early next year another bunch of villages maybe losing their already limited service due to cutbacks. Basically, people in those locations, if they don't have a car, they won't be able to go beyond the village.
People will tend to defend the party they most affiliate themselves with, and in this case it's the disabled that have apparently been hard done by in this story. Go figure...
I feel a bit sorry for anyone caught out like this, but more so when big costs are involved as a penalty. Should be more like a £50 fine in the post IMO. But, we live rip off Britain so it's going to be a lot more if the car is impounded.
There are many people that struggle to maintain and keep a car running, more since the recession. My neighbour has an old Citroen and one of its electric windows has stuck in the closed position, she can't afford to have it fixed. She is even struggling to find the £110 or whatever it is this year for the road tax. She says she will be forced to pay it monthly but it costs more in total if you do it that way.
In effect, these people are bein priced off the road. It could be argued what they should be doing is (where possible), selling or scraping the car and then taking the bus.
It actually cost less to tax monthly than it did to do it 6mthly. I'm over the moon we can now do this.
To be fair though anyone worried about parking tickets would not park where they might get one.
I wonder if the people who're advocating the whole "rulez iz rulez" thing feel the same way about, say, sanctioning people on benefits or suspending pupils from schools etc?
I've not gone down the 'Befehl ist Befehl' route but to be honest I lost sympathy when I heard him banging on about human rights and quoting all sorts of nonsense. I'm probably going to make a good guess that if he went about things a bit better and not got people's backs up then he would have been let on his merry way.
Towing is about being "proportionate and necessary" in relation to the position of the vehicle, rules broken and time left, not much money the council last lost. In any case, councils can only tow vehicles because they have broken DPE rules, NOT because they've incurred costs.
Anyway, the costs are incurred from the moment the truck was called and are the same regardless of whether or not the truck returns to the pound with a car on it or not.
If a council chooses to operate a towing truck, it must do so at its own cost. Many councils, even the likes of Brighton, have ditched their tow trucks to save money for that very reason.
Dont shoot the messenger, im just explaining the rules, if you dont like them , thats fine,
If people park in the wrong place, they should just pay up and park in the correct places, not whinge and complain.
For those who support him, how would you feel if a disabled member of your family couldn't park today because of this whinging by-law breaker?
It cuts both ways. I've seen many with Blue Badges parking in disabled bays and they are obviously not disabled. What is the criteria to obtain a badge anyway ?.
I regularly see a woman walking her dog at least 3/4mile from her home and I know she has a Blue Badge.
I know of someone using a deceased relative's badge, he says he will continue to use it until it expires and he can't renew it.
It cuts both ways. I've seen many with Blue Badges parking in disabled bays and they are obviously not disabled. What is the criteria to obtain a badge anyway ?.
I regularly see a woman walking her dog at least 3/4mile from her home and I know she has a Blue Badge.
I know of someone using a deceased relative's badge, he says he will continue to use it until it expires and he can't renew it.
And some people who have family members who have a disabled badge use it for them selves when their disabled family member is not with them.
This is illegal too, but it happens a lot.
Comments
He may have been perfectly reasonable, however I imagine the bloke wasn't particularly pleasant to deal with, probably immediately started spouting off about his rights and it went from there. The driver of the low loader would also have to contact his boss who would also probably have to contact the council etc and if one wants to dig their heels in cos the bloke is an arse they will.
Most people would not jump in their car when it was on a low loader, unless they were attention seeking somewhat and knew the bloke couldn't therefore tow them, guess he knew his rights on that one
Tough (for the council).
Towing is about being "proportionate and necessary" in relation to the position of the vehicle, rules broken and time left, not much money the council last lost. In any case, councils can only tow vehicles because they have broken DPE rules, NOT because they've incurred costs.
Anyway, the costs are incurred from the moment the truck was called and are the same regardless of whether or not the truck returns to the pound with a car on it or not.
If a council chooses to operate a towing truck, it must do so at its own cost. Many councils, even the likes of Brighton, have ditched their tow trucks to save money for that very reason.
What you mean it's technically and physically impossible ? - crikey !!!
Who'd have thunk it ? ^_^
Would depend on their guidance - assuming there is any to cover that precise scenario. But if the guy emerged and wanted his car back, I'd have let him have it. Irrespective of whether I got paid or not.
Seems a bit anal to go through with the tow away when the driver has made an appearance and before the tow truck has driven off. It would appear they eventually released the vehicle anyway. Would have saved a lot of time and hassle if they'd acted reasonably in the first place.
.....................or if he hadn't parked there!!
That'd be the way I'd look at it.
A vehicle should be towed away because it's either taking up a space that it shouldn't be or it's blocking access.
If the driver's in the vehicle and prepared to remove it themselves then clearly neither of those things are at issue.
By all means, fine the person for the offence they've been guilty of but the only reason these c**ts want to impound vehicles is to hold people to ransom and so they can chalk-up even bigger charges for storage and administration etc.
You don't due councils you take the issue up with the local government ombudsman, it cost nothing. If he has a case they may well compensate him.
I wonder if the silly sod will think twice about doing it again or if he's just looking for another fight?
I feel a bit sorry for anyone caught out like this, but more so when big costs are involved as a penalty. Should be more like a £50 fine in the post IMO. But, we live rip off Britain so it's going to be a lot more if the car is impounded.
There are many people that struggle to maintain and keep a car running, more since the recession. My neighbour has an old Citroen and one of its electric windows has stuck in the closed position, she can't afford to have it fixed. She is even struggling to find the £110 or whatever it is this year for the road tax. She says she will be forced to pay it monthly but it costs more in total if you do it that way.
In effect, these people are bein priced off the road. It could be argued what they should be doing is (where possible), selling or scraping the car and then taking the bus.
It could also be argued that if they don't park where they shouldn't, then they won't incur the extra costs.
That's fine if you live in a country where the government actually recognises this is happening and makes some effort to allow people to live in a society where they can rely on public transport or do stuff like use bicycles or walk to work.
Trouble is, in the UK, we have a situation where, on average (IIRC), people have a 40 mile commute to work, the government is still encouraging out-of-town commercial developments and we're allowing city-centres to fall into disuse and our public transport system is shite but then, at the same time, we're saying "Well, if you can't afford to run a car, use public transport, walk or ride a bicycle like they do in other countries".
People will tend to defend the party they most affiliate themselves with, and in this case it's the disabled that have apparently been hard done by in this story. Go figure...
I agree....around here many the outlying villages have a very limited bus service (1 return to the next town every 3rd day-pointless) or no service at all. And early next year another bunch of villages maybe losing their already limited service due to cutbacks. Basically, people in those locations, if they don't have a car, they won't be able to go beyond the village.
THIS seems appropriate.
It actually cost less to tax monthly than it did to do it 6mthly. I'm over the moon we can now do this.
To be fair though anyone worried about parking tickets would not park where they might get one.
(By direct debit),
6months 1 off payment = £57.75
12months 1 off payment = £110
Monthly (total spread over 12 monthly payments) = £115.5
...so the 12monthly 1 off payment is the cheapest option.
I've not gone down the 'Befehl ist Befehl' route but to be honest I lost sympathy when I heard him banging on about human rights and quoting all sorts of nonsense. I'm probably going to make a good guess that if he went about things a bit better and not got people's backs up then he would have been let on his merry way.
Yep as I said its cheaper to do it monthly now than it was to do it 6mthly before.
Dont shoot the messenger, im just explaining the rules, if you dont like them , thats fine,
It cuts both ways. I've seen many with Blue Badges parking in disabled bays and they are obviously not disabled. What is the criteria to obtain a badge anyway ?.
I regularly see a woman walking her dog at least 3/4mile from her home and I know she has a Blue Badge.
I know of someone using a deceased relative's badge, he says he will continue to use it until it expires and he can't renew it.
Lots of disabilities are not obvious.
This is illegal too, but it happens a lot.