I see no reason why moderators should not make a polite approach for an update, so long as it is just the once and not oppressive which, of course, I’m sure it won’t be.

People who pose their problems on forums such as this often forget to provide an update at the conclusion of their matter. Not their fault – many people are busy and those providing answers are not looking for praise or thanks. But it would help, especially in more unusual cases such as this, to learn the outcome. More importantly and as mentioned, it adds to the collective knowledge base of the forum to enable help to be given to others.

It is noticeable that there is hardly any response to the moderators question re contacting for follow ups." I'm not sure what you think this proves, beyond the obvious interpretation, which is that most members are not concerned about

The moderators invited members to give an opinion which I was pleased to give. I am unconcerned what the moderators decide to do.

As regards this theme it is only a parking fine that has attracted some 60 odd pieces of advice some good other not depending. I suspect that there are millions of parking fines so what is so special about this one.

If you're saying some members of the BR know each other in other contexts (different forums etc.) - yes, though I know of only a very few in that category. What other communication there may be between them I have no idea. Nor do I think it matters in the slightest, and I can't see why it's "not necessarily a good thing for other members."

It is readily admitted that the moderators are in contact by email with some members and some members by email to each other. The forum is open, the background is not and I am NOT inferring anything.

I suspect that there are millions of parking fines so what is so special about this one.

But this isn't a straightforward parking fine. They are usually the responsibility of the RK and no driver identification is necessary. This is brought under a council bylaw and the wording of the offence appears to involve "driving." In London councils have a bylaw (Greater London Powers Act 1972) which contains a section similar to s172 of the RTA requiring the RK to provide the driver's details. I can't see (though haven't trawled too much) that Liverpool has anything similar and even if they have they do not appear to have used it. I'm interested to see how (or if) it concludes so a "nudge" from a mod might prove useful.

Edited by Middleman on 13/04/2021 at 08:51

Wow what an interesting and unexpected discussion from my question! Seems I opened a can of worms!

My view on this is that the original post on here, and the large discussion, has been very helpful. It seems to be an unusual issue, with most parking problems and consumer advice given around penalty fines in car parks. And I agree with Middleman - its from the updates of what has happened in real situations that we can learn

So just to say thank you to all who have contributed on this thread, and to Mark for the original post.

The above is a quote from FP on this thread and I think is pertinent to the question of email outside the forum. The now moderators who have been in position for only a few weeks were NOT moderators then and are now in a different position. They could be perceived as not being completely independent.

I don't understand why you're impugning the independence of ORB and Xileno. They've made a decision, in what looks to me like a one off reaction to particular facts, to email a member who had his one off inquiry answered.

For the record I had odd personal note from Avant, usually in response to reporting offensive posts. I know a few others here from other forums such as C4 P, the Old F*rt's Pub and Cyclechat. I've never to my knowledge met anybody personally or, except on a couple of occasions, used other mediums to talk off forum. The exception was a Mod in another forum who also worked in advice and asked me about my CAB 'journey'.

While it's quite common for new inquiries to resurrect a long closed thread this one was quite recent.

Let's see If Mark Donkin responds. If he tells the Mods to take a running jump that's his right. If he says, in whatever terms, he has nothing to add then presumably the Mods will relay that.

From a personal point of view there is far too much mud slinging and even today and there is not much happening on the forum.

I'm probably one of the more combative people here when it comes to politics etc (though I try to avoid the personal, I'm not aware of any more mud slinging than has always been the case.

Forums are, generally, a lot quieter these days. Even Cyclechat is not the hotbed it was ten years ago. That, I think is a consequence of debates moving to Twitter and other Social Media.

PS: Please could you make your posts easier to follow by using the quote facility or, at least italicising quoted text so we can sort wheat from chaff.

When you start a reply, immediately above the panel where you're typing there is a clickable link: Quote previous message. If you click this, the message you're replying to will appear, with vertical lines, in your reply.

I find this cumbersome and usually use quotation marks and cut and paste the important bits of the message I'm replying to.

Just below the reply panel there are some more clickable things to modify the appearance of your post: B, I etc. I suggest you experiment with these.

Hope this helps.

Good news, seems you got away with that one. It's the 'not knowing' that's the worst part.

Thanks for coming back to update us.

That isn't the issue at all.

Local Authorities are perfectly capable of enacting legislation to prevent illegal and inconsiderate parking. What's happened here is that a bylaw which seems to be aimed at preventing people driving motor vehicles on the grassed areas of the park (which would require proof of who was driving at the time) seems to have been cited to penalise a parking offence. It's quite true that whoever parked the vehicle on the grass must have driven over it and so would be guilty of an offence under that bylaw. But the LA must find out who that driver was and from the description of events, they didn't.

Hi Caitlin hope you get this… What come of the NIP you received? As I kindly got one off Liverpool city council today at ottispool?

The consensus is that if you get a ticket referring to offences against park bye-laws left on your car in the style of a PCN for yellow lines or failure to pay you can probably ignore it.

As Middleman sets out above the Council have to take action against the driver. If they're not identified at the time then, unlike speeding, there's no power to force a Keeper to name the driver. Neither, unlike parking infringements, is the Keeper automatically in the frame.

If it's issued under Road Traffic legislation, probably the Traffic Management Act, then wholly different principles apply. If that's the case come back for further advice....