Was York City Council ‘spy car’ parked at school entrance?

Matthew Clements sent in this picture, which he says shows a City of York Council camera-car parked near a school entrance

Matthew Clements sent in this picture, which he says shows a City of York Council camera-car parked near a school entrance

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

A RESIDENT has claimed that he saw York's controversial camera-car parked two feet from the kerb on double yellow lines near a school entrance.

Matthew Clements has written an open letter to City of York Council to raise concerns about the CCTV vehicle, which was launched to tackle irresponsible parking outside schools.

He said the vehicle's location opposite the yellow school zone zig-zags outside Lord Deramore’s in Heslington appeared to be a hazard in itself and also claimed the driver was on their mobile phone, and then drove away whilst still talking on the phone.

"In today’s world, where everyone is carrying a camera, councils, officials and the police all need to get it ‘right first time’ and not just ‘good enough’ - because it isn’t," he added, claiming that any fines issued that day should be written off, as they would be hypocritical.

Sally Burns, director of Communities and Neighbourhoods at the council, said: “We take all complaints seriously and will be investigating the reported incident with Equita, who are responsible for the employment and supervision of the driver and vehicle.”

Asked if the vehicle's drivers were sometimes allowed to park on double yellow lines, a council spokeswoman said: "Part of the investigation will be to determine what happened, if they were parked up at this point and If there's good reason for them to be parked here."

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:19am Thu 22 May 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘Sally Burns, director of Communities and Neighbourhoods at the council, said: “We take all complaints seriously and will be investigating the reported incident with Equita, who are responsible for the employment and supervision of the driver and vehicle.” ‘

Nice attempt but not a successful one at distancing York Council from the direct subcontractor to York Council.
They are working on the councils behalf as a subcontractor/agent of the council collecting ‘evidence’ of alleged parking infractions that the council will be attempting to fine drivers for, so it is your problem/responsibili
ty!

I am also pretty sure that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used! I.e. driver acting illegally!

If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!
‘Sally Burns, director of Communities and Neighbourhoods at the council, said: “We take all complaints seriously and will be investigating the reported incident with Equita, who are responsible for the employment and supervision of the driver and vehicle.” ‘ Nice attempt but not a successful one at distancing York Council from the direct subcontractor to York Council. They are working on the councils behalf as a subcontractor/agent of the council collecting ‘evidence’ of alleged parking infractions that the council will be attempting to fine drivers for, so it is your problem/responsibili ty! I am also pretty sure that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used! I.e. driver acting illegally! If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press! Kevin Turvey
  • Score: -28

11:28am Thu 22 May 14

the original Homer says...

It seems unlikely that the car/van was parked - far more likely that it was stopped and waiting, with the driver in the seat and the engine running. That wouldn't be illegal, provided the driver was prepared to move when necessary (and that they weren't on their mobile!).

Of course we can't tell from one picture alone, it may even have been moving when the picture was taken - we just don't know.

The last part of the council spokesman's response is nonsensical though - "Part of the investigation will be to determine what happened, if they were parked up at this point and If there's good reason for them to be parked here."

If the investigation did reveal that they were parked up, then it's illegal. There can be no good reason - it would still be illegal whatever the reason.
It seems unlikely that the car/van was parked - far more likely that it was stopped and waiting, with the driver in the seat and the engine running. That wouldn't be illegal, provided the driver was prepared to move when necessary (and that they weren't on their mobile!). Of course we can't tell from one picture alone, it may even have been moving when the picture was taken - we just don't know. The last part of the council spokesman's response is nonsensical though - "Part of the investigation will be to determine what happened, if they were parked up at this point and If there's good reason for them to be parked here." If the investigation did reveal that they were parked up, then it's illegal. There can be no good reason - it would still be illegal whatever the reason. the original Homer
  • Score: -51

11:32am Thu 22 May 14

MouseHouse says...

No it wasn't.
No it wasn't. MouseHouse
  • Score: 66

11:38am Thu 22 May 14

mitch2nd says...

Too right totally agree, parents picking up their kids think they can just park anywhere blocking roads and parking in dangerous locations, they are a law to themselves.

In my day I caught the bus to School or God forbid I walked

Good on the Council crack down on them, lots of lazy people in 4x4,s
Too right totally agree, parents picking up their kids think they can just park anywhere blocking roads and parking in dangerous locations, they are a law to themselves. In my day I caught the bus to School or God forbid I walked Good on the Council crack down on them, lots of lazy people in 4x4,s mitch2nd
  • Score: 90

11:43am Thu 22 May 14

daveyboy25 says...

Resident get a life
Resident get a life daveyboy25
  • Score: 74

11:47am Thu 22 May 14

the original Homer says...

I notice the photo caption has been changed - it originally has a bit "Debbie at the Council said it might have been moving".
I notice the photo caption has been changed - it originally has a bit "Debbie at the Council said it might have been moving". the original Homer
  • Score: -63

11:47am Thu 22 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

i agree with him... its pot kettle black.. how can we be fined for such instances that can not be proven but the van isn't?

I saw it driving dangerously crossing lanes to save time.... if it saw me do that i'd get a fine.

The whole idea of this is just wrong... it is not safety related anymore... its money related....

Although at least for once it was at a school and not flat car parks...
i agree with him... its pot kettle black.. how can we be fined for such instances that can not be proven but the van isn't? I saw it driving dangerously crossing lanes to save time.... if it saw me do that i'd get a fine. The whole idea of this is just wrong... it is not safety related anymore... its money related.... Although at least for once it was at a school and not flat car parks... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -52

11:52am Thu 22 May 14

JHardacre says...

mitch2nd wrote:
Too right totally agree, parents picking up their kids think they can just park anywhere blocking roads and parking in dangerous locations, they are a law to themselves.

In my day I caught the bus to School or God forbid I walked

Good on the Council crack down on them, lots of lazy people in 4x4,s
I hope mitch2nd didn't mean to imply that all 4x4 users were lazy nor that no lazy drivers drive any other type of vehicle.

BTW Mitch2nd, in your day there were probably buses. This wasn't the case when I had children to take to school.

I suspect your prejudices are beginning to cloud your judgement. Chill out and take a happy pill.

Finally, WTF has your piffle got to do with the article?
[quote][p][bold]mitch2nd[/bold] wrote: Too right totally agree, parents picking up their kids think they can just park anywhere blocking roads and parking in dangerous locations, they are a law to themselves. In my day I caught the bus to School or God forbid I walked Good on the Council crack down on them, lots of lazy people in 4x4,s[/p][/quote]I hope mitch2nd didn't mean to imply that all 4x4 users were lazy nor that no lazy drivers drive any other type of vehicle. BTW Mitch2nd, in your day there were probably buses. This wasn't the case when I had children to take to school. I suspect your prejudices are beginning to cloud your judgement. Chill out and take a happy pill. Finally, WTF has your piffle got to do with the article? JHardacre
  • Score: -46

12:10pm Thu 22 May 14

chunkyyorkie says...

As always with the Council its ‘do as I say not as I do’. I’ve yet to see a council vehicle adhering to the 20mph limits and they always stop in the green cycle areas at junctions that they spend money on creating. Suppose they like the overtime pay in their pockets for the work to implement the schemes, they just like to ignore them afterwards.
I’ve seen the camera van around a lot…but never in the vicinity of a school.
As always with the Council its ‘do as I say not as I do’. I’ve yet to see a council vehicle adhering to the 20mph limits and they always stop in the green cycle areas at junctions that they spend money on creating. Suppose they like the overtime pay in their pockets for the work to implement the schemes, they just like to ignore them afterwards. I’ve seen the camera van around a lot…but never in the vicinity of a school. chunkyyorkie
  • Score: -51

12:21pm Thu 22 May 14

Dave Ruddock says...

just a note, does anyone check who the drivers are and if any police records on the driver (s) concerned, as this vehicle seems to pop up and cause great concern, nor parked on Double Yellows and in the middle of the road, and also being used for so called illegal parking, seems this vehicle and whoever drivers it think there a GOD. even the emergency services and military follow rules >> Come on Sally Burns, at least use a council vehicle.
just a note, does anyone check who the drivers are and if any police records on the driver (s) concerned, as this vehicle seems to pop up and cause great concern, nor parked on Double Yellows and in the middle of the road, and also being used for so called illegal parking, seems this vehicle and whoever drivers it think there a GOD. even the emergency services and military follow rules >> Come on Sally Burns, at least use a council vehicle. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -55

12:26pm Thu 22 May 14

BL2 says...

the original Homer wrote:
It seems unlikely that the car/van was parked - far more likely that it was stopped and waiting, with the driver in the seat and the engine running. That wouldn't be illegal, provided the driver was prepared to move when necessary (and that they weren't on their mobile!).

Of course we can't tell from one picture alone, it may even have been moving when the picture was taken - we just don't know.

The last part of the council spokesman's response is nonsensical though - "Part of the investigation will be to determine what happened, if they were parked up at this point and If there's good reason for them to be parked here."

If the investigation did reveal that they were parked up, then it's illegal. There can be no good reason - it would still be illegal whatever the reason.
1. Waiting and parking (238)
238

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: It seems unlikely that the car/van was parked - far more likely that it was stopped and waiting, with the driver in the seat and the engine running. That wouldn't be illegal, provided the driver was prepared to move when necessary (and that they weren't on their mobile!). Of course we can't tell from one picture alone, it may even have been moving when the picture was taken - we just don't know. The last part of the council spokesman's response is nonsensical though - "Part of the investigation will be to determine what happened, if they were parked up at this point and If there's good reason for them to be parked here." If the investigation did reveal that they were parked up, then it's illegal. There can be no good reason - it would still be illegal whatever the reason.[/p][/quote]1. Waiting and parking (238) 238 You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 BL2
  • Score: -51

12:33pm Thu 22 May 14

bolero says...

We hate to think that we might be caught breaking the rules don't we? So try to shift the blame. By the way, is it an offence to drive if you only have two or sometimes only one finger on one of your hands? Twice recently I have noticed this when I have indicated with a toot or flash of headlights because a driver has failed to give way when they were obstructed by a vehicle on their side of the carriageway. When this occurs the rule of the road is to give way to oncoming traffic .A one or two finger gesture does not make this right. Unless of course it happens to be a deformity. It does seem to be more prevalent in the female species.
We hate to think that we might be caught breaking the rules don't we? So try to shift the blame. By the way, is it an offence to drive if you only have two or sometimes only one finger on one of your hands? Twice recently I have noticed this when I have indicated with a toot or flash of headlights because a driver has failed to give way when they were obstructed by a vehicle on their side of the carriageway. When this occurs the rule of the road is to give way to oncoming traffic .A one or two finger gesture does not make this right. Unless of course it happens to be a deformity. It does seem to be more prevalent in the female species. bolero
  • Score: 62

12:54pm Thu 22 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

bolero wrote:
We hate to think that we might be caught breaking the rules don't we? So try to shift the blame. By the way, is it an offence to drive if you only have two or sometimes only one finger on one of your hands? Twice recently I have noticed this when I have indicated with a toot or flash of headlights because a driver has failed to give way when they were obstructed by a vehicle on their side of the carriageway. When this occurs the rule of the road is to give way to oncoming traffic .A one or two finger gesture does not make this right. Unless of course it happens to be a deformity. It does seem to be more prevalent in the female species.
thank you for this i was not aware that the road law was predgudice against finger amputees..........
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: We hate to think that we might be caught breaking the rules don't we? So try to shift the blame. By the way, is it an offence to drive if you only have two or sometimes only one finger on one of your hands? Twice recently I have noticed this when I have indicated with a toot or flash of headlights because a driver has failed to give way when they were obstructed by a vehicle on their side of the carriageway. When this occurs the rule of the road is to give way to oncoming traffic .A one or two finger gesture does not make this right. Unless of course it happens to be a deformity. It does seem to be more prevalent in the female species.[/p][/quote]thank you for this i was not aware that the road law was predgudice against finger amputees.......... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -60

1:00pm Thu 22 May 14

bolero says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bolero wrote:
We hate to think that we might be caught breaking the rules don't we? So try to shift the blame. By the way, is it an offence to drive if you only have two or sometimes only one finger on one of your hands? Twice recently I have noticed this when I have indicated with a toot or flash of headlights because a driver has failed to give way when they were obstructed by a vehicle on their side of the carriageway. When this occurs the rule of the road is to give way to oncoming traffic .A one or two finger gesture does not make this right. Unless of course it happens to be a deformity. It does seem to be more prevalent in the female species.
thank you for this i was not aware that the road law was predgudice against finger amputees..........
I know this `predgudice` is terrible. Or was it a slip of the finger?
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: We hate to think that we might be caught breaking the rules don't we? So try to shift the blame. By the way, is it an offence to drive if you only have two or sometimes only one finger on one of your hands? Twice recently I have noticed this when I have indicated with a toot or flash of headlights because a driver has failed to give way when they were obstructed by a vehicle on their side of the carriageway. When this occurs the rule of the road is to give way to oncoming traffic .A one or two finger gesture does not make this right. Unless of course it happens to be a deformity. It does seem to be more prevalent in the female species.[/p][/quote]thank you for this i was not aware that the road law was predgudice against finger amputees..........[/p][/quote]I know this `predgudice` is terrible. Or was it a slip of the finger? bolero
  • Score: 60

1:05pm Thu 22 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

bolero wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
bolero wrote: We hate to think that we might be caught breaking the rules don't we? So try to shift the blame. By the way, is it an offence to drive if you only have two or sometimes only one finger on one of your hands? Twice recently I have noticed this when I have indicated with a toot or flash of headlights because a driver has failed to give way when they were obstructed by a vehicle on their side of the carriageway. When this occurs the rule of the road is to give way to oncoming traffic .A one or two finger gesture does not make this right. Unless of course it happens to be a deformity. It does seem to be more prevalent in the female species.
thank you for this i was not aware that the road law was predgudice against finger amputees..........
I know this `predgudice` is terrible. Or was it a slip of the finger?
I don’t know but either way your points are not really relevant to this story? As usual. This story is about why should the public be fined when the enforcer breaks the law? You're reply was people pass blame and guess what sometimes people don’t give way and stick a finger up at me... Which doesn’t bother me... if someone honked and flashed at me for such a minor thing i'd do the same. Do you know sometimes it’s safer to pass rather then brake. Sometimes if you are already about to pull out and a car appears you can’t just stop… and then a rant against females… very dignified…
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: We hate to think that we might be caught breaking the rules don't we? So try to shift the blame. By the way, is it an offence to drive if you only have two or sometimes only one finger on one of your hands? Twice recently I have noticed this when I have indicated with a toot or flash of headlights because a driver has failed to give way when they were obstructed by a vehicle on their side of the carriageway. When this occurs the rule of the road is to give way to oncoming traffic .A one or two finger gesture does not make this right. Unless of course it happens to be a deformity. It does seem to be more prevalent in the female species.[/p][/quote]thank you for this i was not aware that the road law was predgudice against finger amputees..........[/p][/quote]I know this `predgudice` is terrible. Or was it a slip of the finger?[/p][/quote]I don’t know but either way your points are not really relevant to this story? As usual. This story is about why should the public be fined when the enforcer breaks the law? You're reply was people pass blame and guess what sometimes people don’t give way and stick a finger up at me... Which doesn’t bother me... if someone honked and flashed at me for such a minor thing i'd do the same. Do you know sometimes it’s safer to pass rather then brake. Sometimes if you are already about to pull out and a car appears you can’t just stop… and then a rant against females… very dignified… Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -15

1:13pm Thu 22 May 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

Kevin Turvey wrote:
‘Sally Burns, director of Communities and Neighbourhoods at the council, said: “We take all complaints seriously and will be investigating the reported incident with Equita, who are responsible for the employment and supervision of the driver and vehicle.” ‘

Nice attempt but not a successful one at distancing York Council from the direct subcontractor to York Council.
They are working on the councils behalf as a subcontractor/agent of the council collecting ‘evidence’ of alleged parking infractions that the council will be attempting to fine drivers for, so it is your problem/responsibili

ty!

I am also pretty sure that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used! I.e. driver acting illegally!

If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!
"If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!"

They did!
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Turvey[/bold] wrote: ‘Sally Burns, director of Communities and Neighbourhoods at the council, said: “We take all complaints seriously and will be investigating the reported incident with Equita, who are responsible for the employment and supervision of the driver and vehicle.” ‘ Nice attempt but not a successful one at distancing York Council from the direct subcontractor to York Council. They are working on the councils behalf as a subcontractor/agent of the council collecting ‘evidence’ of alleged parking infractions that the council will be attempting to fine drivers for, so it is your problem/responsibili ty! I am also pretty sure that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used! I.e. driver acting illegally! If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press![/p][/quote]"If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!" They did! What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: -29

1:18pm Thu 22 May 14

andy fowler says...

The Alexander police state grows
The Alexander police state grows andy fowler
  • Score: -26

1:19pm Thu 22 May 14

the original Homer says...

BL2 wrote:
the original Homer wrote:
It seems unlikely that the car/van was parked - far more likely that it was stopped and waiting, with the driver in the seat and the engine running. That wouldn't be illegal, provided the driver was prepared to move when necessary (and that they weren't on their mobile!).

Of course we can't tell from one picture alone, it may even have been moving when the picture was taken - we just don't know.

The last part of the council spokesman's response is nonsensical though - "Part of the investigation will be to determine what happened, if they were parked up at this point and If there's good reason for them to be parked here."

If the investigation did reveal that they were parked up, then it's illegal. There can be no good reason - it would still be illegal whatever the reason.
1. Waiting and parking (238)
238

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8
BL2

Not sure if you were meaning to agree or contradict with my earlier post.

Your Highway Code extract endorses my point about parking there being illegal regardless of reason.

Your extract appears to contradict my point about waiting, but only because the Highway Code is wrong!.I know that's a bold statement, but I also know I'm right.

Looking at the picture, the driver of the camera car/van might have been waiting because of a hazard just out of shot. There could be a car coming towards it on the wrong side of the road, or a parked ambulance, or a pedestrian in the road. It could even have been waiting because the driver saw Mr Clements with his camera/mobile and thought he might walk across the road. All of these are "waiting" and none of them are illegal on double yellow lines.

It would be interesting to see what the Council say about it though, because they could easily create a get-out for many they've sent tickets to!
[quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: It seems unlikely that the car/van was parked - far more likely that it was stopped and waiting, with the driver in the seat and the engine running. That wouldn't be illegal, provided the driver was prepared to move when necessary (and that they weren't on their mobile!). Of course we can't tell from one picture alone, it may even have been moving when the picture was taken - we just don't know. The last part of the council spokesman's response is nonsensical though - "Part of the investigation will be to determine what happened, if they were parked up at this point and If there's good reason for them to be parked here." If the investigation did reveal that they were parked up, then it's illegal. There can be no good reason - it would still be illegal whatever the reason.[/p][/quote]1. Waiting and parking (238) 238 You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8[/p][/quote]BL2 Not sure if you were meaning to agree or contradict with my earlier post. Your Highway Code extract endorses my point about parking there being illegal regardless of reason. Your extract appears to contradict my point about waiting, but only because the Highway Code is wrong!.I know that's a bold statement, but I also know I'm right. Looking at the picture, the driver of the camera car/van might have been waiting because of a hazard just out of shot. There could be a car coming towards it on the wrong side of the road, or a parked ambulance, or a pedestrian in the road. It could even have been waiting because the driver saw Mr Clements with his camera/mobile and thought he might walk across the road. All of these are "waiting" and none of them are illegal on double yellow lines. It would be interesting to see what the Council say about it though, because they could easily create a get-out for many they've sent tickets to! the original Homer
  • Score: -59

1:31pm Thu 22 May 14

purelobo says...

the original Homer wrote:
I notice the photo caption has been changed - it originally has a bit "Debbie at the Council said it might have been moving".
why pass comment when you obviously don t know what you re talking about.the other poster said what they saw so why just contradict them.i saw this van patrolling a circuit in the fishergate barbican road area the other day and the woman driver was on the phone then.go on ,tell me she wasn t.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: I notice the photo caption has been changed - it originally has a bit "Debbie at the Council said it might have been moving".[/p][/quote]why pass comment when you obviously don t know what you re talking about.the other poster said what they saw so why just contradict them.i saw this van patrolling a circuit in the fishergate barbican road area the other day and the woman driver was on the phone then.go on ,tell me she wasn t. purelobo
  • Score: -47

1:36pm Thu 22 May 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

Why is a council service like this being provided by a 3rd party contractor? Surely this just makes it cost MORE!
Why is a council service like this being provided by a 3rd party contractor? Surely this just makes it cost MORE! What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: -43

1:47pm Thu 22 May 14

york_chap says...

"Part of the investigation will be to determine what happened, if they were parked up at this point and If there's good reason for them to be parked here."

So the council has clearly stated that as long as you have "a good reason" you can park where you want. I'll bear that in mind if I ever get a fine from their little van.

People probably have better things to do with their time; but it'd be interesting to see a few candid videos of this van and its driver when they're out and about on the mean streets of York. Given the number of people who claim to have seen it parked illegally and the driver using a phone etc, I reckon a few video clips would be possible within a week or two.
"Part of the investigation will be to determine what happened, if they were parked up at this point and If there's good reason for them to be parked here." So the council has clearly stated that as long as you have "a good reason" you can park where you want. I'll bear that in mind if I ever get a fine from their little van. People probably have better things to do with their time; but it'd be interesting to see a few candid videos of this van and its driver when they're out and about on the mean streets of York. Given the number of people who claim to have seen it parked illegally and the driver using a phone etc, I reckon a few video clips would be possible within a week or two. york_chap
  • Score: -39

2:02pm Thu 22 May 14

the original Homer says...

purelobo wrote:
the original Homer wrote:
I notice the photo caption has been changed - it originally has a bit "Debbie at the Council said it might have been moving".
why pass comment when you obviously don t know what you re talking about.the other poster said what they saw so why just contradict them.i saw this van patrolling a circuit in the fishergate barbican road area the other day and the woman driver was on the phone then.go on ,tell me she wasn t.
I didn't contradict anyone.

I merely pointed out that the Press had originally given us the name of the "council spokesman" because they'd put it in the caption under the picture.

The Press then edited the caption, and removed that bit.

If you re-read the piece you quoted, you'll see that's all I said.

Incidentally, where is the post where "the other poster said what they saw"?
[quote][p][bold]purelobo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: I notice the photo caption has been changed - it originally has a bit "Debbie at the Council said it might have been moving".[/p][/quote]why pass comment when you obviously don t know what you re talking about.the other poster said what they saw so why just contradict them.i saw this van patrolling a circuit in the fishergate barbican road area the other day and the woman driver was on the phone then.go on ,tell me she wasn t.[/p][/quote]I didn't contradict anyone. I merely pointed out that the Press had originally given us the name of the "council spokesman" because they'd put it in the caption under the picture. The Press then edited the caption, and removed that bit. If you re-read the piece you quoted, you'll see that's all I said. Incidentally, where is the post where "the other poster said what they saw"? the original Homer
  • Score: -52

2:46pm Thu 22 May 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘What-a-joke-they-
are says...
Kevin Turvey wrote:
‘Sally Burns, director of Communities and Neighbourhoods at the council, said: “We take all complaints seriously and will be investigating the reported incident with Equita, who are responsible for the employment and supervision of the driver and vehicle.” ‘

Nice attempt but not a successful one at distancing York Council from the direct subcontractor to York Council.
They are working on the councils behalf as a subcontractor/agent of the council collecting ‘evidence’ of alleged parking infractions that the council will be attempting to fine drivers for, so it is your problem/responsibili
ty!

I am also pretty sure that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used! I.e. driver acting illegally!

If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!
"If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!"

They did!’




Fair do’s.

So next question is has anybody reported it yet as a crime to the police and got a crime number from the police control (North Yorks police non-emergency control phone number - 101) ?

As after all it is in the public interest.

Or are we expecting to put trust into the assumption that the council will report on their own contractors/agents that a crime has been committed, obviously observing full disclosure and full transparency as trusted servants of the populace?

Reality check….. No
‘What-a-joke-they- are says... Kevin Turvey wrote: ‘Sally Burns, director of Communities and Neighbourhoods at the council, said: “We take all complaints seriously and will be investigating the reported incident with Equita, who are responsible for the employment and supervision of the driver and vehicle.” ‘ Nice attempt but not a successful one at distancing York Council from the direct subcontractor to York Council. They are working on the councils behalf as a subcontractor/agent of the council collecting ‘evidence’ of alleged parking infractions that the council will be attempting to fine drivers for, so it is your problem/responsibili ty! I am also pretty sure that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used! I.e. driver acting illegally! If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press! "If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!" They did!’ Fair do’s. So next question is has anybody reported it yet as a crime to the police and got a crime number from the police control (North Yorks police non-emergency control phone number - 101) ? As after all it is in the public interest. Or are we expecting to put trust into the assumption that the council will report on their own contractors/agents that a crime has been committed, obviously observing full disclosure and full transparency as trusted servants of the populace? Reality check….. No Kevin Turvey
  • Score: -40

3:50pm Thu 22 May 14

bolero says...

Thank you Archiebold the !st. Sounds like it might have been you then.
Thank you Archiebold the !st. Sounds like it might have been you then. bolero
  • Score: 14

7:00pm Thu 22 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Is a York resident prepared to ask for an FOI of the fines issued to date with times and locations?

I have seen enough ion the papers of these camera-cars. Speedwatch is much friendlier.

What about reckless pavement encroachment that make life difficult for bliond/disabled; tailgating. Is the camera-car equipped for the prosecution of these instances?
Is a York resident prepared to ask for an FOI of the fines issued to date with times and locations? I have seen enough ion the papers of these camera-cars. Speedwatch is much friendlier. What about reckless pavement encroachment that make life difficult for bliond/disabled; tailgating. Is the camera-car equipped for the prosecution of these instances? Cheeky face
  • Score: 7

7:06pm Thu 22 May 14

A Resident of York says...

"If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!"

There are two photo's of the van in 2 different positions - both showing the driver on the phone and the van having been moved at the same time.

The purpose of the complaint was to highlight two things:

1. If you are going to run a safety car - run it safely
2. It's very easy to have a photo taken of a driver 'making a mistake' - some people get punished others don't. One set of rules please!

I wouldn't particularly wish a parking ticket, speeding ticket or criminal conviction on anyone except unless they truly deserve it for repeat offences or blatant disregard for the safety of others, however official bodies churn them out in order to raise money by 'punishing the pocket' without real thought for safety improvements or education of drivers.

CYC: your photo's are used raise funds, these photo's can raise awareness of double standards and just how easy it is to be caught in the act by a camera

Regards

Little Brother (is watching you too!)
"If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!" There are two photo's of the van in 2 different positions - both showing the driver on the phone and the van having been moved at the same time. The purpose of the complaint was to highlight two things: 1. If you are going to run a safety car - run it safely 2. It's very easy to have a photo taken of a driver 'making a mistake' - some people get punished others don't. One set of rules please! I wouldn't particularly wish a parking ticket, speeding ticket or criminal conviction on anyone except unless they truly deserve it for repeat offences or blatant disregard for the safety of others, however official bodies churn them out in order to raise money by 'punishing the pocket' without real thought for safety improvements or education of drivers. CYC: your photo's are used raise funds, these photo's can raise awareness of double standards and just how easy it is to be caught in the act by a camera Regards Little Brother (is watching you too!) A Resident of York
  • Score: -36

7:30pm Thu 22 May 14

mike.......durkin says...

there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........
there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........ mike.......durkin
  • Score: -53

8:31pm Thu 22 May 14

Silver says...

Easy way to make sure you don't get fined, is stand in it's way make them have to get out of the car and then you've got the grounds for an appeal that a normal traffic warden could have done the job
Easy way to make sure you don't get fined, is stand in it's way make them have to get out of the car and then you've got the grounds for an appeal that a normal traffic warden could have done the job Silver
  • Score: -60

8:44pm Thu 22 May 14

I'msohappy.com says...

mike.......durkin wrote:
there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........
Looks like the car is in motion to me.
[quote][p][bold]mike.......durkin[/bold] wrote: there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........[/p][/quote]Looks like the car is in motion to me. I'msohappy.com
  • Score: -29

9:00pm Thu 22 May 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

I'msohappy.com wrote:
mike.......durkin wrote:
there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........
Looks like the car is in motion to me.
How did you work that out ?

Even if it wasn't parked, using a phone whilst driving is an endorsable offence
[quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mike.......durkin[/bold] wrote: there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........[/p][/quote]Looks like the car is in motion to me.[/p][/quote]How did you work that out ? Even if it wasn't parked, using a phone whilst driving is an endorsable offence What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: -19

11:08pm Thu 22 May 14

I'msohappy.com says...

What-a-joke-they-are wrote:
I'msohappy.com wrote:
mike.......durkin wrote:
there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........
Looks like the car is in motion to me.
How did you work that out ?

Even if it wasn't parked, using a phone whilst driving is an endorsable offence
Duh....cos it's not next to the kerb n there is absolutely no way of seeing if the driver is on the phone.....
[quote][p][bold]What-a-joke-they-are[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mike.......durkin[/bold] wrote: there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........[/p][/quote]Looks like the car is in motion to me.[/p][/quote]How did you work that out ? Even if it wasn't parked, using a phone whilst driving is an endorsable offence[/p][/quote]Duh....cos it's not next to the kerb n there is absolutely no way of seeing if the driver is on the phone..... I'msohappy.com
  • Score: -1

6:35am Fri 23 May 14

pedalling paul says...

I think I'll treat myself to one of those head cameras, and contribute to the extensive footage on YouTube.......
And I wish that wretched cookie ad would not keep popping up and hiding most of my ipod screen!
I think I'll treat myself to one of those head cameras, and contribute to the extensive footage on YouTube....... And I wish that wretched cookie ad would not keep popping up and hiding most of my ipod screen! pedalling paul
  • Score: 191

8:50am Fri 23 May 14

the original Homer says...

A Resident of York wrote:
"If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!"

There are two photo's of the van in 2 different positions - both showing the driver on the phone and the van having been moved at the same time.

The purpose of the complaint was to highlight two things:

1. If you are going to run a safety car - run it safely
2. It's very easy to have a photo taken of a driver 'making a mistake' - some people get punished others don't. One set of rules please!

I wouldn't particularly wish a parking ticket, speeding ticket or criminal conviction on anyone except unless they truly deserve it for repeat offences or blatant disregard for the safety of others, however official bodies churn them out in order to raise money by 'punishing the pocket' without real thought for safety improvements or education of drivers.

CYC: your photo's are used raise funds, these photo's can raise awareness of double standards and just how easy it is to be caught in the act by a camera

Regards

Little Brother (is watching you too!)
From yours and other reports, it would seem that the driver(s) of this car/van could bee making a habit of using their mobile whilst driving. If that is the case then they deserve to be reported.

I think the evidence as you described it should be good enough to prove that the offence was committed.

Going back to the subject of where it's being parked though, I think it is quite difficult to get proof that a parking offence was committed. For me, you'd need to prove that the car was parked, which would mean showing the handbrake on and the ignition off, or showing the driver's seat empty. If you can't get those shots, then you cant prove parking.

The easier one to prove is stopping where no stopping is allowed (zig-zags, red lines, clearways...). For that you need 2 shots (to show no movement) and they need to include proof that there was a clear route the car could take.

Waiting / Parking on double yellow lines is very difficult to prove with pictures alone, which is why the camera car/van isn't even being used to issue tickets for those..

I suspect the camera car/van drivers will be well trained on parking/stopping/wai
ting law, so they should know better than to get caught out. However, they can also get the mentality that they are in some way exempt from the law, i.e. double standards.

Your final point about Little Brother sums it up very well.
[quote][p][bold]A Resident of York[/bold] wrote: "If only the person taking the photo could have got actual photographic evidence of the driver of the van on the phone at the same time as in charge of the vehicle, it could then have gone to the police and then the Press!" There are two photo's of the van in 2 different positions - both showing the driver on the phone and the van having been moved at the same time. The purpose of the complaint was to highlight two things: 1. If you are going to run a safety car - run it safely 2. It's very easy to have a photo taken of a driver 'making a mistake' - some people get punished others don't. One set of rules please! I wouldn't particularly wish a parking ticket, speeding ticket or criminal conviction on anyone except unless they truly deserve it for repeat offences or blatant disregard for the safety of others, however official bodies churn them out in order to raise money by 'punishing the pocket' without real thought for safety improvements or education of drivers. CYC: your photo's are used raise funds, these photo's can raise awareness of double standards and just how easy it is to be caught in the act by a camera Regards Little Brother (is watching you too!)[/p][/quote]From yours and other reports, it would seem that the driver(s) of this car/van could bee making a habit of using their mobile whilst driving. If that is the case then they deserve to be reported. I think the evidence as you described it should be good enough to prove that the offence was committed. Going back to the subject of where it's being parked though, I think it is quite difficult to get proof that a parking offence was committed. For me, you'd need to prove that the car was parked, which would mean showing the handbrake on and the ignition off, or showing the driver's seat empty. If you can't get those shots, then you cant prove parking. The easier one to prove is stopping where no stopping is allowed (zig-zags, red lines, clearways...). For that you need 2 shots (to show no movement) and they need to include proof that there was a clear route the car could take. Waiting / Parking on double yellow lines is very difficult to prove with pictures alone, which is why the camera car/van isn't even being used to issue tickets for those.. I suspect the camera car/van drivers will be well trained on parking/stopping/wai ting law, so they should know better than to get caught out. However, they can also get the mentality that they are in some way exempt from the law, i.e. double standards. Your final point about Little Brother sums it up very well. the original Homer
  • Score: 2

10:36am Fri 23 May 14

EJMatfin says...

mitch2nd wrote:
Too right totally agree, parents picking up their kids think they can just park anywhere blocking roads and parking in dangerous locations, they are a law to themselves.

In my day I caught the bus to School or God forbid I walked

Good on the Council crack down on them, lots of lazy people in 4x4,s
Unfortunately in this day and age you cannot let your 5 year old be the only one walking to school alone. Many parents have to go to work immediately after dropping off children - it is not laziness but a need to get the children tp school and then off to work which means that many parents generally try to park near the school. That is no excuse however for dangerous parking, on double yellow lines, zig-zags or blocking people's drives.
[quote][p][bold]mitch2nd[/bold] wrote: Too right totally agree, parents picking up their kids think they can just park anywhere blocking roads and parking in dangerous locations, they are a law to themselves. In my day I caught the bus to School or God forbid I walked Good on the Council crack down on them, lots of lazy people in 4x4,s[/p][/quote]Unfortunately in this day and age you cannot let your 5 year old be the only one walking to school alone. Many parents have to go to work immediately after dropping off children - it is not laziness but a need to get the children tp school and then off to work which means that many parents generally try to park near the school. That is no excuse however for dangerous parking, on double yellow lines, zig-zags or blocking people's drives. EJMatfin
  • Score: 4

11:01am Fri 23 May 14

What-a-joke-they-are says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I think I'll treat myself to one of those head cameras, and contribute to the extensive footage on YouTube.......
And I wish that wretched cookie ad would not keep popping up and hiding most of my ipod screen!
I don't often agree with a word you say but on this one I fully agree (helmet cam)
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I think I'll treat myself to one of those head cameras, and contribute to the extensive footage on YouTube....... And I wish that wretched cookie ad would not keep popping up and hiding most of my ipod screen![/p][/quote]I don't often agree with a word you say but on this one I fully agree (helmet cam) What-a-joke-they-are
  • Score: -5

11:40am Fri 23 May 14

the original Homer says...

EJMatfin wrote:
mitch2nd wrote:
Too right totally agree, parents picking up their kids think they can just park anywhere blocking roads and parking in dangerous locations, they are a law to themselves.

In my day I caught the bus to School or God forbid I walked

Good on the Council crack down on them, lots of lazy people in 4x4,s
Unfortunately in this day and age you cannot let your 5 year old be the only one walking to school alone. Many parents have to go to work immediately after dropping off children - it is not laziness but a need to get the children tp school and then off to work which means that many parents generally try to park near the school. That is no excuse however for dangerous parking, on double yellow lines, zig-zags or blocking people's drives.
The logistics of having to get kids to school and then go straight to work is I'm sure quite common, and is a valid reason why many parents have to use their car rather than walk / cycle.

The bit that always comes up though is this need to park when they get to the School.

The root cause of the problem, as I understand it, is that the Schools won't let the kids through the gate until a set time. That means all the cars have to be parked, so that all the parents can stand with their kids, to wait for them to be allowed in. Then all the cars go, all at the same time.

Camera cars and parking restrictions are simply patches rather than cures. If parents could simply drop their kids off, watch them to the gate and then drive away there'd be much less congestion. Apart from each car being around for much less time, there would also be a natural spread of times, so they wouldn't all be there at once.

It wouldn't need any regulating, as it would sort itself out. Some parents would want to get to work and would leave straight away, others would want to still walk their kids to the gate, so they would park.

The key is getting the Schools to open the gates. I'm sure they have reasons (probably cost based) but it might be a cost worth paying.

If you step back and look, what is really happening is that School policies are creating an us-and-them conflict between parents and residents.
[quote][p][bold]EJMatfin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mitch2nd[/bold] wrote: Too right totally agree, parents picking up their kids think they can just park anywhere blocking roads and parking in dangerous locations, they are a law to themselves. In my day I caught the bus to School or God forbid I walked Good on the Council crack down on them, lots of lazy people in 4x4,s[/p][/quote]Unfortunately in this day and age you cannot let your 5 year old be the only one walking to school alone. Many parents have to go to work immediately after dropping off children - it is not laziness but a need to get the children tp school and then off to work which means that many parents generally try to park near the school. That is no excuse however for dangerous parking, on double yellow lines, zig-zags or blocking people's drives.[/p][/quote]The logistics of having to get kids to school and then go straight to work is I'm sure quite common, and is a valid reason why many parents have to use their car rather than walk / cycle. The bit that always comes up though is this need to park when they get to the School. The root cause of the problem, as I understand it, is that the Schools won't let the kids through the gate until a set time. That means all the cars have to be parked, so that all the parents can stand with their kids, to wait for them to be allowed in. Then all the cars go, all at the same time. Camera cars and parking restrictions are simply patches rather than cures. If parents could simply drop their kids off, watch them to the gate and then drive away there'd be much less congestion. Apart from each car being around for much less time, there would also be a natural spread of times, so they wouldn't all be there at once. It wouldn't need any regulating, as it would sort itself out. Some parents would want to get to work and would leave straight away, others would want to still walk their kids to the gate, so they would park. The key is getting the Schools to open the gates. I'm sure they have reasons (probably cost based) but it might be a cost worth paying. If you step back and look, what is really happening is that School policies are creating an us-and-them conflict between parents and residents. the original Homer
  • Score: 2

3:42pm Fri 23 May 14

YorkienotforGirls! says...

Interesting who this "Equita" company actually is! Bailiffs!!
Interesting who this "Equita" company actually is! Bailiffs!! YorkienotforGirls!
  • Score: 6

3:46pm Fri 23 May 14

YorkienotforGirls! says...

If you don't pay the original fine you'll get the same people who gave you it knocking on your door for a lot more!

http://www.equita.co
.uk/Services/CivilPa
rkingEnforcement.asp
x

WIN WIN!!
If you don't pay the original fine you'll get the same people who gave you it knocking on your door for a lot more! http://www.equita.co .uk/Services/CivilPa rkingEnforcement.asp x WIN WIN!! YorkienotforGirls!
  • Score: 4

3:47pm Fri 23 May 14

YorkienotforGirls! says...

Tried to put a link to the site above......
Tried to put a link to the site above...... YorkienotforGirls!
  • Score: -1

11:28pm Fri 23 May 14

redchick says...

mike.......durkin wrote:
there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........
Eh??
[quote][p][bold]mike.......durkin[/bold] wrote: there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........[/p][/quote]Eh?? redchick
  • Score: 2

9:33am Sat 24 May 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I think I'll treat myself to one of those head cameras, and contribute to the extensive footage on YouTube.......
And I wish that wretched cookie ad would not keep popping up and hiding most of my ipod screen!
I have 2 fitted in my car (front and rear), great for recording traffic light sequences. I might also start contributing to the extensive footage available on YouTube, applying my selective bias.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I think I'll treat myself to one of those head cameras, and contribute to the extensive footage on YouTube....... And I wish that wretched cookie ad would not keep popping up and hiding most of my ipod screen![/p][/quote]I have 2 fitted in my car (front and rear), great for recording traffic light sequences. I might also start contributing to the extensive footage available on YouTube, applying my selective bias. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -60

4:09pm Sat 24 May 14

norm says...

mike.......durkin wrote:
there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........
Go to the bottom of the class, mike....durkin, for bad spelling and grammar!
[quote][p][bold]mike.......durkin[/bold] wrote: there are not menney spaceses to park up and to menney cars pickin kids up sowot can thay do let kids wolk home on there own then get run over..there got to be a way why cant thay open the play grawnd so that off the road?........[/p][/quote]Go to the bottom of the class, mike....durkin, for bad spelling and grammar! norm
  • Score: 3

7:22pm Sat 24 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Original Homer, Good comments. Once gates are opened does that not put the children's care under the school head? Maybe a volunteer rosta of parents/teachers could allow opening up a little earlier, thereby spreading congestion.?. Legal implications?
Original Homer, Good comments. Once gates are opened does that not put the children's care under the school head? Maybe a volunteer rosta of parents/teachers could allow opening up a little earlier, thereby spreading congestion.?. Legal implications? Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree