Another Northern Rail "Penalty Parking Notice" Options

[NotEve]

Hi Everyone, someone i know of received as the title suggests, a "Penalty Parking Notice" from Northern Rail. This was for "not parked in a MARKED BAY (3)".

To remove any ambiguity, I have (hopefully) attached an obfuscated photograph of said ticket. From what I can tell, there is no third party operator involved. Just Northern Rail and the Bye-laws.

I know there have been several topics around this here and elsewhere, and I've read several of them but I am still unsure how to proceed. Here is the story.

Today the driver parked in their usual train station car park. Although they arrived at their usual time, it was unusually full. They had no choice but to park at the end of a row of bays. They know where they parked not to be an obstruction as they have parked in the row of spaces perpendicular to where they parked today (and indeed, drivers park here every day for as long as theyhave used the car park) and they know it does not obstruct any cars entering or exiting the park. They drive around the cars parked where they parked today on a daily basis without issue.

They have an annual season ticket holder which entitles them to park at no extra cost. Other car park users must use the ticket machine. They are not aware of anywhere else to park safely in the surrounding area outside the Station grounds. There was nothing they could have done and they had to get to work.

Is it worth appealing? Is there any way they can reasonably argue this ticket? Or is it just one of those things they'll have to pay? It's not like they do not admit that the parked outside a Marked bay, but they did not believe that this was something they couldn't do as other users park exactly where they did and in another 5 similar "spaces" at the end of each row of bays every day. They feel that given they didn't cause an obstruction and had no choice to park where they did and that their parking is already paid for in the £1,300 annual season ticket they purchase, that they can't find a way to justify paying them another £50 for the lack of facilities being available to them.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 19:51

[Advertisement]

[NotEve]

Some idle observations on this one...

• Can the sign actually apply to any of the parking areas given that it's not actually in any of them (appears to be in the public road)?
• The sign is too high up to be read by a motorist driving a car
• The size of the lettering does not seem to comply with the regulations in the BPA code of practice
• The sign doesn't make clear whether the car park is being managed by Byelaws or by civil contract (it must be one or the other)
• It says the maximum penalty is £1000 but fails to explain that this could only be imposed by a Magistrate's court after a successful criminal prosecution for a breach of the Byelaws - isn't that a misrepresentation of the facts, because they are deliberately confusing their home-grown "penalty parking charge" with the real penalty that only a Mags Court could impose?
• Isn't there a requirement somewhere that the sign must state who is managing the car park (on behalf of whom) - that seems to be completely missing?

Hi Gary, thanks for your response.

I happen to agree with your observations. I think there is a lot at fault with the signage itself. The signs are intact so high that infant even see them from my car without really not looking where I'm driving. Even when I'm stood on my feet they're way above my head and hard to read.

I think there's lots to appeal on the grounds of, but I'm concerned that I've missed my window having found the letter after the 14 days had passed due to it being with a load of marketing crap through my door.

[nosferatu1001]

You hadn't told us who sent the letter
What exactly does it state? No paraphrasing.

[NotEve]

You hadn't told us who sent the letter
What exactly does it state? No paraphrasing.

Sorry if I have not been clear. As mentioned, the letter is from Northern, the rail company who initially issued the notice and threatened to get the keeper's details from the DVLA. This is the first correspondence from them to the keeper. Found after the 14 days mentioned in the letter have elapsed.


This post has been edited by NotEve: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 06:59

[nosferatu1001]

"hadn't", as in , until that post you hadnt said it was northern. Your first update in ages gave us no information!

Well youve noticed the deadline was bullshit, yes?

I would send them a challenge stating:
1) Wh their legal basis for the demand is
2) Who is liable, driver or keeper?
3) How they have incurred cost of £150, or is this a pre estimate of their costs?

[NotEve]

"hadn't", as in , until that post you hadnt said it was northern. Your first update in ages gave us no information!

Well youve noticed the deadline was bullshit, yes?

I would send them a challenge stating:
1) Wh their legal basis for the demand is
2) Who is liable, driver or keeper?
3) How they have incurred cost of £150, or is this a pre estimate of their costs?

Thanks I'll do that. What do you mean about the deadline being bullshit? I mean the whole thing is bullshit anyway. Trying to extort for not taking to court. Is that what you mean? As in it's entirely arbitrary?

I dont wish to argue about this. I realise that I didn't mention in my first post yesterday who the letter was from. I thought that that was implied but when it became apparent it wasn't, i responded yesterday with more information. I've mentioned it twice since my first post yesterday.

This post has been edited by NotEve: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:57

[nosferatu1001]

Because they havent then issued a court summons, in mag court, against you!
I literally mean the deadline wasnt a deadline. AS in, a real one.

I know you had, I was explaining our confusion initially.

[NotEve]

Because they havent then issued a court summons, in mag court, against you!
I literally mean the deadline wasnt a deadline. AS in, a real one.

I know you had, I was explaining our confusion initially.

Understood (on all counts). Thanks for your continued support.

[dramaqueen]

If you've got a season ticket you need to be careful about the signage defence. The instruction not to park outside a marked bay might have been transmitted at the time of purchase. Was it bought through APCOA? Worth double-checking just in case.


This would NOT mean you should cave in. Your strongest defence would still be that there's no proof who was driving.

[NotEve]

If you've got a season ticket you need to be careful about the signage defence. The instruction not to park outside a marked bay might have been transmitted at the time of purchase. Was it bought through APCOA? Worth double-checking just in case.


This would NOT mean you should cave in. Your strongest defence would still be that there's no proof who was driving.

It's a West Yorkshire Metro "M Card" annual train pass purchased through the workplace that entitled to "free" parking at the station. There was no documentation about this supplied with the card. Only what the sign at the ticket machine itself says about being entitles to park there.

I'm not sure of this makes any difference?

[nosferatu1001]

It helps, howeve rremember they dont know the driver, cannot chase the keeper as it is not relevant land, and arent even atetmpting to chase the keeper - probably - anyway, using POFA.

[NotEve]

It helps, howeve rremember they dont know the driver, cannot chase the keeper as it is not relevant land, and arent even atetmpting to chase the keeper - probably - anyway, using POFA.

Tried to send you a PM but your inbox is full. Without going into detail in open forum, I'm surprised they can't identify the driver

[Redivi]

Members that post very frequently on the Forum receive a lot of requests for private help

Apart from the workload, many of them simply choose only to contribute in open forum
Keeping in-boxes full is the usual tactic to prevent the requests and avoids causing offence by refusing to help

[NotEve]

Members that post very frequently on the Forum receive a lot of requests for private help

Apart from the workload, many of them simply choose only to contribute in open forum
Keeping in-boxes full is the usual tactic to prevent the requests and avoids causing offence by refusing to help

Makes sense. Was just some information that I thought pertinent bit didn't want to post in open forum as it could be used against the driver.

[The Rookie]

Its only relevant if Northern can prove the identity of the driver to the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt', perhaps you can answer your own question now?

[NotEve]

Its only relevant if Northern can prove the identity of the driver to the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt', perhaps you can answer your own question now?

Thanks. I would consider it circumstancial

[The Rookie]

Then not beyond reasonable doubt, given Northern its unlikely they will dig far enough to establish it anyway.

[NotEve]

I would send them a challenge stating:
1) Wh their legal basis for the demand is
2) Who is liable, driver or keeper?
3) How they have incurred cost of £150, or is this a pre estimate of their costs?

Would something as simple as this be sufficient or do you think I should bulk it up?

Dear Sir / Madam,



In regards to your letter dated x, I have some queries.



You mentioned a Parking Notice, reference: issued to my vehicle on y.

What was the Parking notice issued for and what is the legal reason that the driver was requested to pay Northern? I have inferred from your letter that the driver is liable for the fee demanded and not the keeper. Is this accurate? Who is liable to pay your demand? The letter also mentions fees of legal action amounting to £150 and an administration fee of £30. Please could you supply a breakdown of these charges and how they were incurred?

[NotEve]

I have yet to send the above draft letter, though I've printed it out ready to send.

I've just received the below letter, so far with no response from myself..



Am I correct in thinking if challenge is unsuccessful and I do not identify the driver, the keeper can be taken to court? Providing that they complied with all the procedural steps required? Or is it that because the land is not relevant to POFA, that doesn't apply at all?

Edit, sorry this has already been covered. I'm a bit ditsy today. I just don't understand who they are threatening with legal action. Is it purposely ambiguous? Surely if they can't take action against the keeper, I could just continue to not respond.

So any issues with my letter please?

This post has been edited by NotEve: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 15:44

[Jlc]

Surely if they can't take action against the keeper, I could just continue to not respond.

They can issue a prosecution against who they like. Whether the Judge will let it stick (i.e. found guilty) is another conversation.

It is only the driver liable but we have seen some quite adverse decisions.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 15:56

[Gary Bloke]

They can take anyone they like to court but only the driver could be found guilty of breaching a byelaw. If they cannot prove who the driver was then there can be no conviction.

This is railway land so section 4 of the POFA does not apply. This means that there can never be any keeper liability.

Byelaws state that the owner of a vehicle parked in breach on 14.1, 14.2 or 14.3 could be liable. But that means that they first have to find the driver guilty. So in practice what could the owner be guilty of? Nothing.