Reply: yes, I agree.

iii) Personally, I would think the MP had displayed bad judgement not for any moral reason, but for the bad cost/benefit analysis. If they can’t get that right, what hope do they have when figuring out where our money should be spent.

Reply: yes

The rule of non-transferability probably comes from the Council. As a local Councillor, I’ve discussed it with colleagues and believe it could be changed. I don’t mind if people transfer their tickets, whoever they are.

Our Lib Dem Council even spent money on machines to force people to print their number plates onto the ticket !

As for MPs to change the rules, change this one please….

I understand under current Government rules, the car parks accounts all have to set up to balance, in that fees should be planned such that the income from fee, fines etc, would equal the rent that could be drawn from the land if it were not a car park.

So a well performing Council cannot legally give its citizens free parking even if it wanted and could afford it, on car parks it owns. There are Councils that give free parking, but usually because the land has been bequeathed to them for that purpose only.

If true, another example of petty centralisation that should be dumped.

Moral maze 3 - if you had been in a car park outside of your constituency what would you have done if you had an hour left on your ticket? Would you have given it to the chap?

Reply: NO - FOR THE SAME REASONS AS I OUTLINED IN THE BLOG. I WOULD RATHER GET COUNCILLORS TO CHANGE THE RULES - OR MAKE THE CAR PARKS FREE MORE OFTEN AS WE HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR THEM.

Someone, somewhere has constructed an algorithm that means you never quite have the right combination of coins for the time you wish to pay for. The result is that you have to overpay, buying two hours when one is all you need, or overpay by 10 or 20p while the machine does not give change.

You might disagree with it but you’re a part of the system, with some measure of authority over it, and as such you really have to obey the rules of the system. You are more responsible for it, or perhaps more accurately will be seen more responsible for it, than the average citizen will be, and so breaking the rules would show you up in a worse light.

So how come councils can get away with forbidding the transfer of UNUSED car park time from one person to another ?

You of course did the right thing, as we have seen when DC behaved like every other cyclist in the country, the false swine at the Mirror got all hypocritical.

They would have done the same with you, of course.

Alan Douglas

It is usually an offence to ‘transfer’ these tickets anyway. Thus, gracious acceptance is condoning illegality - not a good example for an MP to set. (And yes, I do expect MPs to set standards.) As these people are in the business of legislation they have an obligation to politely refuse, even though others are tasked with the application of laws.

The legal question might be: which of the two parties to the transaction is breaking the (by)law? The donor or the recipient? Certainly our local bylaws indicate that it is an offence to display such a ticket, but they say nothing about passing a ticket to another individual. So, is the donor an innocent party?

Therefore, as a matter of principle, I will always give away my unused parking minutes just as I always give away my travelcard we I have completed my journey.

I would like to think that in your position I would have done the same and, if I was exposed, stand firm for the principle. However, I accept that those who make the law cannot be seen to break it, although I suspect the 80% of your constituents who drive cars (and pay exhorbitant charges to park on land they already own and maintain though their local taxes) who be cheering you every inch of the way.

Curiously, I regard small acts like this amongst the few and diminishing acts of community kindness that many people have for each other these days. A small samaritan act in a society where there are seemingly petty rules for every little thing.

Reply: I DIDN’T KNOW I COULD CLAIM THOSE AND DO NOT HAVE THEM!

Perhaps as my business rates have just gone up by 20% if it happened today my reaction might be different.

a. I would have accepted it
b. You mean there’s no “MP on Call” sticker you can deploy on such occasions? I’ll bet not all those “doctor/plumber/bureaucrat on call” stickers are not real anyway!
c. If you had an “MP on Call” sticker the problem wouldn’t arise, but I wonder what state your car would be in when you returned to it!

However I agree in principle that there is absolutely nothing wrong with passing tickets on , the Council is in no way cheated it has got its money for the time bought, the fact that different drivers have made use of the car parking space is irrelevant.

I also agree that car park charges levied by Councils are a major reason for fewer and fewer people going into town centres but now rather go to out of town shopping centres.

A classic example is Worcester where increasing parking rules, car park charges , and bus lanes means that it is far easier and more sensible to shop outside the City centre. We have lived here for 20 years and used to go into the centre 2 or 3 times a month , it must now be over a year since we last went in and and for the first time ever we didnt go in at Christmas.

That was exactly the solution I had in mind, but it will not have passed your notice that the government has progressively restricted the jury system.

JR: ¨If OUR DEMOCRACY FUINCTIONS PROPERLY THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE MPS TO CHANGE THE LAW¨

Democracy is not functioning properly! MPs are whipped on pretty much any and all votes. The government controls the legislative timetable not parliament. And worst of all, much if not most of all new legislation is brought in to law through statutory instrument from Brussels, and as a result is never … NEVER .. properly scrutinized by parliamentary representitives.

reply;NO, I COULD NOT CONDONE THAT ACITON. I WANT THE COUNCIL TO STOP LEVYING THE HIGH CHARGES - AFTER ALL TAXPAYERS HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR THE CAR PARK.

One; unless you overran on the ticket, the council would still receive its due. One ticket, for one car, for one hour or whatever. If the said ticket is not transferred then the ticket holder has been ripped off. If he could get a refund it would be a different story. Otherwise the council is being paid for something it has not provided, and nothing sends out a worse message.

This may indeed be against the rules of the car park, i wouldn’t know. But if you follow the logic of the payment structure, and bear in mind that there is no free market in parking provision, by submitting to this regime then you are giving an incentive to the council; don’t make it more expensive to park per hour, just increase the minimum length of time drivers need to pay for. Think how much payphones must make from people paying for a minute as the shortest time they can, then only speaking for a matter of seconds. They never offer change, either.

Two; by offering you his ticket, your constituent was in effect offering to pay for your parking for you. There is nothing morally or legally against this per se. He was not saying to you ‘have this ticket, it means that your car will be parked for free’.