No refunds but if you've not paid your fine your ok

Disgusting.

 

If you've got legal protection insurance you could sue them. They'd soon change their tune.

Clear evidence that fines aren't punishment. They are just tax collection from people who don't even live in the area.

 

Just shows with how much contempt the elected officials can treat the electorate.

 

Have I missed something here ? Yes, the council should be doing things in a legal way. And yes, if they have done something wrong they should refund the fines - no problem there. BUT how does the calibration of a camera change the fact that someone was parked illegally ? We're not talking abouyt speed cameras here...

 

Parking "fines" are civil, not criminal matters.

Taking criminal cases first, if you are accused of some offence and you plead guilty to it, it doesn't matter what the evidence against you was. The evidence is relevant only if you deny the offence (i.e. plead not guilty). If there turns out later to be some flaw in the evidence which would have been used against you, but you have already pleaded guilty, it makes no difference. (there are some exceptions to this in serious cases).

Turning to civil penalties, which nowadays includes those for parking, the position is fairly similar. Some authority alleges that you owe them a penalty payment which they are entitled to levy because you have allegedly breached some condition (in this case, concerning parking). You admit that you breached the condition, you accept that you owe the payment, and you pay it. It later turns out that the evidence which the authority would have used if you had disputed the allegation is flawed. This makes no difference, and there is no basis for a refund.

Now consider a different case. You dispute the alleged parking infringement and appeal to the Parking Adjudicator; the authority provides evidence against you and you lose the case; you are obliged to pay up. It later turns out the evidence which the authority actually used against you in front of the Adjudicator was flawed, which you had no way of knowing at the time. In this case, you are entitled to be refunded the payment you have made plus costs and the authority would no doubt concede this.

 

yep the offences were complete............itll be some back room admin cock up.....

 

I wouldn't go quite that far. Disputing is likely to take up your time and money, so paying up may be more practical. For a £60 penalty, you have to decide how much of your time and effort you are willing to put into disputing £60. Especially if you know that you are in fact guilty. Personally I quite enjoy conducting cases so I am prepared to sue etc - but even I take a pretty critical look at my chances of success before proceeding. Wishful thinking can be expensive!

 

I understand all the legal positions, and I believe that the council have to act within the law to prosecute anyone, and that if they haven't acted entirely lawfully then they are wrong - in this case they should repay the fines. Their camera is required, by law, to be on an approved list and be calibrated which theirs wasn't. My question is though - how does a camera that records parking offence have to be calibrated? It's not like it's measuring speed or distance. If a vehicle is parked illegally and is photographed as such then what, within the camera, needs to be calibrated ? I'm just curious...

 

It's not a question of calibration. There are thousands of types of cameras in existence - some types are approved to be used for providing evidence for these purposes, some are not approved. So if the evidence from one of these non-approved cameras was put in evidence to a court, and was challenged on the basis that the camera was non-approved, the court would discount the photographic evidence. Of course there might be other evidence, e.g. from an eye witness, or there might not.

This council have not prosecuted anyone - the parking penalties are civil, not criminal.

 

Pete - thanks for clarifying the point. Having gone back and re-read the article it says "certified" not "calibrated" - my fault for not reading it carefully the first time...

 

I have had an experience of something similar to this myself. A couple of years ago I was issued with a parking fine at a car-park run by ACPO in Falmouth, despite the fact that a valid parking ticket was clearly displayed on the windscreen of the car. When I sent the form back refusing to pay and with a photocopy of the ticket attached, the company sent me a copy of the photograph with instructions saying "please indicated where the parking ticket is in this picture". I sent it back with a big red pen circle around the white square that was clearly visible in the windscreen. They then sent a reply saying "having reviewed the evidence we are prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion" ! It was like they were doing me a favour by letting me off, not actually aknowledging that they had got it wrong... Going back even further, before all this photographice evidence thing started - we once got a penalty notice in a car-park in Plymouth, again despite having a valid ticket attached to the windscreen. This was in the days when you could actually phone up to complain or challenge the penalty, so I did. The woman on the phone was very understanding and accepted that as the person who had issued the penalty notice had put "perpil" as the colour of the car they probably weren't that bright ! Needles to say that one went in the bin too... Moral of the story ? Alway challenge the penalty if you think it's wrong.

 

I think it's safe to assume that my case the camera was certified - it was the half-wit using it that needed to be certified

 

let your conscience be your guide.............most parked there, got a ticket, and paid in the knowledge they had messed up.........certified camera or not...guilt is a wonderful thing!

 

Here's a question. If you are falsely accused of something you didn't do, is that similar to being accused of something you did do but where the evidence to prove it is insufficient? Or is it completely different?

 

is that the difference between innocent and case not proven.....

 

You tend to own up to the things you did, contest the ones you didn't. Well, that's my modus operandi anyway.