DRIVERS who double park or block dropped kerbs can be hit with an instant £70 fine under new powers given to councils.
Parking bosses now no longer have to put up warning notices to be able to issue the penalty notices.
Blocking the road by double parking, and blocking a dropped kerb intended to help wheelchair users and people with prams cross, are both offences in the Highway Code.
But until now councils have only been able to issue fines if there are either yellow lines or a warning notice.
The new powers could also be used to fine people who block a dropped kerb to a house or a drive, but in these cases the homeowner would need to ask the council to take action.
The change in the rules was welcomed by Coun Derek Antrobus, head of planning at Salford council.
He warned: "Parking attendants will be looking to enforce all these extended powers."
Those who flout the rules will get a £70 fine, reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days.
Tweet
New parking powers for councils
July 21, 2009
Showing comments 1 to 22 and replies | View All
Duke Zovazard (21/07/2009 at 10:30)
There was a bloke on the radio last week and he used to be head of parking at a council in the south. He said that they enforce the laws to make money and aren't really interested in keeping the highways and byways clear and aren't interested in taking a balanced view to a situation.
He said that the majority of people pay up and won't challenge any ticket because of what he called councils upping the anti and threatening court action. He said that if everybody parked properly then there would be a shortfall in council revenue so tax would go up.
I had a real ding dong with a council a while back. They would only show me photographic evedence if I went to court and kept doubling the fine until it reached nearly £700. I went to court and the council ost. This bloke on the radio said that when the fine escaltes most people panic and pay so I wonder how much has been wrongly (and illegally) raised by councils?
steak, Manchester (21/07/2009 at 11:13)
john davis, Broughton, Salford (21/07/2009 at 12:24)
andy waytomakeacomment, Greater Manchester (21/07/2009 at 12:41)
Presumably the vehicle parked next to the curb would be parked legally, while the vehicle parked adjacent to it - thereby causing an obstruction in the traffic lane - would be considered double parked.
Perhaps I'm being an idealist (!) but maybe it would be preferable to start by imposing existing legislation rather than just generating work for the legal profession coming up with new regulations.
dessie, manchester (21/07/2009 at 12:53)
bye bye labour council next year thanks for NOTHING!!!!!!
Rammylad (21/07/2009 at 13:02)
nyb, ex manc (21/07/2009 at 13:10)
Technobabble, Manchester (21/07/2009 at 13:29)
Pushkin (21/07/2009 at 13:41)
It's a cop-out to privatise-out the service. If there's that much money in it, it should easily be self-funding and then managed by GMP. Traffic Wardens then can be used to direct traffic and all the other duties the were set up for.
How about parking with 15 metres of a junction too? Driving with fog lamps when there's no fog or falling snow, driving with sidelights only... there're loads of well-flouted rules in the highway code.
Rob Wilson (21/07/2009 at 14:01)
Barthomley (21/07/2009 at 14:19)
I was parked in a pay and display bay but got a ticket because I had overstayed. The ticket ran out at 1708 and I had a ticket at 1703. The warden obviously misread 3 and 8 and I had the fine doubled, court summons you name it whilst the appeal was ongoing. My wife was upset and said 'just pay it to get them off our backs', so we did.
Like many people we know we just to bother with Manchester anymore. There are bus lanes everywhere, road widths reduced, roads closed due to new flats going up etc. They have made it more difficult for us to get in. 'Use the train or bus' I hear you say. This would mean walking with all of our shopping for one mile at our end (nowhere to park at the station) and having to sit amongst litter and thugs so instead we shop and eat out in Chester now. The overall feeling is Manchester doesn't want or need us so we got the message and went where our money is welcome.
Technobabble, Manchester (21/07/2009 at 14:32)
The same damn thing happened to my parents when they got a fine, even though they had a valid P&D ticket. They had to jump through all the hoops that the council put in their way in order to get to the stage of involving an independant arbitrator....who immediately stated that they were right, there was no case to answer and that the council should never have taken it that far. Fortunately my parents can be rather stubborn (in a nice way), and being retired have plenty of time on their hands to apply in fighting their corner.
Rammylad (21/07/2009 at 15:26)
As for parking tickets from private companies, well, just do what the advice on the tinternet says, ignore them completely, ignore their letters (which usually arrive 6 months after an alleged offence), ignore their threats of bailiffs, do not phone them and certainly do not go on the web and pay them. We had one courtesy of using the Health Centre in Rammy and then going to the chemist. We had no ticket on the car, but then got a letter 6 months later telling us what we had done and they wanted £70 which would then go up to £140. We have consistently ignored them and they have gone away. They do not have a leg to stand on and to date have never taken anyone to court. The MEN should run an awareness campaign about these pretendy parking people and expose the companies, who use them. They are vile people and I suspect many elderly people have paid up through fear.
Rammylad (21/07/2009 at 15:33)
I now actually look forward to getting electrical equipment which fails just outside of the warrenty period but within a reasonable time for the expected life of the product. i.e. AEG bang on about how good their kit is so 20 years seemed reasonable to me, not 4 years.
Jay B, oldham (21/07/2009 at 16:54)
Technobabble, Manchester (21/07/2009 at 17:28)
I am concerned however, about your advice to simply ignore all fines. While it might well be true that so-called "fines" for parking on private land are actually in law nothing more than invoices, i don't think it will work with regard to fines for parking on the public highway. The companies managing the parking enforcement may well be private (with their inherent drive for profit), but because they are employed via the local council, i do think that they have the full force of the law behind them; that was my particular bugbear, it is the worst of both worlds.
BTW, did you know that private companies are exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act, which is yet another reason they should be disallowed from law enforcement.
andy waytomakeacomment, Greater Manchester (21/07/2009 at 18:03)
Perhaps you should get a column as the MEN's consumer affairs champion ;-)
I agree: to get results, you've got to hit them where it hurts - in the pocket.
Cookie Monster (21/07/2009 at 18:16)
Maybe Hazel Blears, bless her, could get a new job as chief enforcer.
Rammylad (21/07/2009 at 18:46)
DoorMouse, Manchester (21/07/2009 at 23:12)
Rammylad (22/07/2009 at 13:35)
andy waytomakeacomment, Greater Manchester (22/07/2009 at 19:07)
Thanks for providing a considerably better explanation of double parking than I did :-D
There are some amazing examples outside the takeaways in the Eccles and Patricroft area. I would like to cite them but I'm pretty sure the MEN's editorial policy would prevent my comments from being published !
Another potential problem for road users and pedestrians (although not so much for takeaway owners) is the pending review of planning regulations and associated parking requirements.