As we seem to have a lot of armchair lawyers around.
The claim:
A CEO issued a ticket on my car in the process damaging the windscreen wiper.
The defense:
Placing a ticket under the wiper is common practice (Makes reference to police officers doing this). No damage was done.
The point of contention:
From the official CEO manual - "Hand the envelope to the motorist, if applicable or, more usually affix it to the drivers front windscreen in car parks, or kerbside window on the street. Ensure that it is firmly affixed"
+
For avoidance of doubt, affix refers to the self-adhering waterproof packets that the tickets are placed in.
+
CEO manual has no instruction or guidelines for interacting with a cars wiper arms.
The circumstances:
Street side ticket, not placed on drivers side window as required, nor was the sticky part of the packet used and placed on front windscreen. Was placed under windscreen wiper.
So GD... who would win this? The claimant or the defense?
The claim:
A CEO issued a ticket on my car in the process damaging the windscreen wiper.
The defense:
Placing a ticket under the wiper is common practice (Makes reference to police officers doing this). No damage was done.
The point of contention:
From the official CEO manual - "Hand the envelope to the motorist, if applicable or, more usually affix it to the drivers front windscreen in car parks, or kerbside window on the street. Ensure that it is firmly affixed"
+
For avoidance of doubt, affix refers to the self-adhering waterproof packets that the tickets are placed in.
+
CEO manual has no instruction or guidelines for interacting with a cars wiper arms.
The circumstances:
Street side ticket, not placed on drivers side window as required, nor was the sticky part of the packet used and placed on front windscreen. Was placed under windscreen wiper.
So GD... who would win this? The claimant or the defense?
. 
.![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
