STOMPer Raden felt it was unfair to be issued a summons while waiting for workers to board a lorry he had parked on company premises. Certis CISCO has since responded, saying the officer was merely executing her duties as the STOMPer's vehicle was illegally parked.
Wrote the Certis CISCO spokesperson in the response (Nov 25):
"We refer to the post by STOMPer Raden, 'Fair or not? Cisco officer issues summons to lorry driver waiting for workers to board' on 22 Nov.
"We have investigated the matter.
"Our officer had advised STOMPer Raden to move his illegally parked vehicle but he responded aggressively and started taking photos of her.
"Our officer explained to him that he had committed an offence and advised him to park in a proper place or return later when the workers were ready to be picked up.
"STOMPer Raden's vehicle, being parked at that location, had contravened parking regulations even though he claimed it may not have been obstructing any other motorists at that point in time.
"As a standard operating procedure, our officer is required to issue a NOPO once she comes across an illegally parked vehicle during her course of duty. She has to be fair and firm when executing her duties.
"As such, contrary to STOMPer Raden's claim, our officer was not unclear of her main duties.
"She had executed her duties according to standard operating procedures. Our officers are trained to uphold the values of professionalism and integrity during their course of duty.
"In doing so, our officers have to be firm, often in the face of aggressive behaviour, to ensure the safety of all road users and pedestrians whose lives may be endangered as a result of vehicles parked illegally on our roads.
"We wish to reassure the public that while we value all feedback and continuously seek to improve our service delivery; our officers have a duty to take action against drivers who flout the law."
- « First
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »
Traffic rules are set for the purpose to ensure smooth commuting. Not intended to make life difficult for people who already aren't doing so well.
So, I do see a point and a case in challenging the initial ruling.