Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ Another Northern Rail "Penalty Parking Notice"

Posted by: NotEve Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 19:30
Post #1377022

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

Posted by: emergencychimp Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 19:45
Post #1377026

Edit your post. Do not identify the driver. 'The driver parked' e.t.c.

Posted by: mdann52 Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:00
Post #1377030

This is Northern, and they can (and I believe do) prosecute. As long as others cannot spot obvious flaws, the £50 (essentially a "bribe" to prevent further action) may well be the easiest way to get out of this - As this is Northern dealing with it directly, under the Railway Bylaws this can well go to Magistrates court, and would lead to a criminal record.

If there are wider issues with the parking, it may well be worth an appeal as a first time offence and as a regular user of the car park - I'm not sure how likely they are to reoffer the discount under these circumstances however
I would still hold off a few days (as presuming you are well within the timescales) for others to comment, however this isn't likely to be covered by the usual defences here.

Posted by: Gary Bloke Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:14
Post #1377037

Edit your picture to remove the VRN at the bottom.

Posted by: NotEve Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:38
Post #1377052

QUOTE (mdann52 @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:00) *
This is Northern, and they can (and I believe do) prosecute. As long as others cannot spot obvious flaws, the £50 (essentially a "bribe" to prevent further action) may well be the easiest way to get out of this - As this is Northern dealing with it directly, under the Railway Bylaws this can well go to Magistrates court, and would lead to a criminal record.

If there are wider issues with the parking, it may well be worth an appeal as a first time offence and as a regular user of the car park - I'm not sure how likely they are to reoffer the discount under these circumstances however
I would still hold off a few days (as presuming you are well within the timescales) for others to comment, however this isn't likely to be covered by the usual defences here.



Thanks for the response. It was today this happened and it is a first offence for the driver. They're not in a rush but wont let this matter escalate.

Also thanks for the tips of editing. This has hopefully been satisfied.

Posted by: NotEve Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 06:37
Post #1377110

I've checked the signs today on behalf of the driver. There are 2 of these but nothing else. There are no mentions of bylaws, marked bays, authorised or unauthorised areas nor penalties outside of not having a ticket.

If the driver believed they could park where they parked and there were no signs to the contrary, surely this is grounds for appeal? Appealing of course identifies the driver. Is that problem given that if they were to pay, they'd have been identified during that process anyway?

 

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 07:25
Post #1377117

If they don't ask you to park in a marked bay then there can exist no requirement to park in one.

The byelaws do not say you have to park in a parked bay, they do say you you to comply with the instructions of the operator, as the operator hasn't (doesn't appear to) have put up signs instructing you to park in a marked bay then its not a byelaw offence.

I would be awaiting the notice sent to the keeper and then appealing on that sole point, no contravention of byelaws.

Byelaws number 14
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 08:33
Post #1377130

Is that really all that's displayed ?

See Byelaw 24(4)

Posted by: NotEve Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 09:46
Post #1377153

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 08:25) *
If they don't ask you to park in a marked bay then there can exist no requirement to park in one.

The byelaws do not say you have to park in a parked bay, they do say you you to comply with the instructions of the operator, as the operator hasn't (doesn't appear to) have put up signs instructing you to park in a marked bay then its not a byelaw offence.

I would be awaiting the notice sent to the keeper and then appealing on that sole point, no contravention of byelaws.

Byelaws number 14
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf


Thanks. So it's better not to appeal until they pursue it further?

QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 09:33) *
Is that really all that's displayed ?

See Byelaw 24(4)



Yes. There is a second identical sign that has a small sign underneath advising of a second car park location and a "have you paid and displayed" sign. I didn't upload the second sign due to my size quota.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 10:10
Post #1377167

You appeal AFTER they send the NtK, assuming they send one.

Dont use the forum space, as the sticky on the front page tells you. Its too limited. For further docuemtns use TINYPICS or similar.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 10:16
Post #1377173

QUOTE (NotEve @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 10:46) *
Thanks. So it's better not to appeal until they pursue it further?

Yup, they have 6 months to bring a case for a byelaw offence, so waiting a postal notice to the registered keeper wastes at least a month of that.

Plus they can only take action against the driver, appeal now and they can infer you were the driver.

If its a lease/hire/rental car where you may incur admin charges we instead advice appealing as late as possible within the time frame as the aim is to keep playing communication tennis to get past 6 months.

My first line would probably be to ask which Byelaw was breached a sparking outside a marked bay isn't a byelaw offence, later on you can ask where the byelaw sign is and also how outside a bay becomes a byelaw offence, they will have the opportunity to dig a large hole for themselves.

Posted by: NotEve Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 16:21
Post #1377321

Super, thanks everyone; You've been a great help. I'll pass this info along, once doing a final check of the signage just to be entirely sure.

Posted by: NotEve Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 18:14
Post #1377359

Ok under further scrutiny, I can confirm that there are indeed more signs, but to be honest, I still think there are a few issues here.

Please see the below layout of the carpark. Blue is the disabled area, green is the carpark in question and red is parking for the college. The yellow represents the unmarked bays that cars park in daily. These do not cause an obstruction.

The orange stars represent the position of the first sign I posted yesterday and an identical one near the ticket machine.



The darker blue star represents the sign pictured below. Its not in the carpark. It is above head height when stood upright on the ground.




The light blue star represents this sign which I assume is the same as the previous sign. Hard to say really.



The one that you can read, if you can find it and stand on your tip toes, suggests we must park in marked bays or authorised areas. Does that mean there are unauthorised areas? How are they identified?

Posted by: anon45 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 19:27
Post #1377388

It's vitally important not to identify, or even hint at the identity of the driver in any appeal, so choose words with care in any representations to Northern.

As the OP will doubtless have seen from the other threads he/she has read, Northern Rail do prosecute if their ransom demand is not paid, notwithstanding that the £50 self-described "Penalty" (the ransom demanded not to prosecute) is almost certainly unenforceable either at civil law, or under the supposed 'owner liable to penalty' provision in byelaw 14(4)(i).

In theory at least, it should be for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the OP was driving. Magistrates Association guidance, itself based on case law, suggests that simply being the RK is insufficient on its own to prove the RK was driving; indeed, if simply being the RK was sufficient, in the absence of an alternative driver nomination by the RK, to prove that the defendant committed the offence, then there would have been little need for Parliament to have enacted section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (which, in relation to an allegation that a driver of a vehicle committed a motoring offence, requires the RK of the vehicle to name the driver).

In this specific case, there may also be a defence that the parking was not 'contrary to instructions', although I tend to suspect that a typical magistrate would reject it.

However, there has been at least one case on this forum where an OP (rsooty), having refused to pay the ransom demanded not to prosecute, was convicted in these circumstances despite a NG plea, and despite Northern producing absolutely no evidence at all that the defendant personally committed the offence. If the magistrates have already twisted the burden of proof to hold that the RK must have been driving, then they are likely also to twist their interpretation of the signage in order to hold that the offence was complete (albeit that byelaw offences do not create 'criminal records').

Ultimately, the OP has to decide how much risk he or she is prepared to take and how much effort he or she is prepared to put in to fight a prosecution, given that it is unlikely that Northern will cancel their ransom demand. It is arguable that Northern Rail's actions in threatening to prosecute RKs (despite having no evidence at all that the RK committed the alleged offence) and then demanding ransoms not to prosecute is an aggressive commercial practice, and, if so, they would be the ones committing the criminal offence, but this is of little practical use unless someone, preferably someone with extensive legal training and deep pockets, brings a civil claim or private prosecution against Northern (this course of action is not recommended for the layman). If the OP is not prepared to 'have his/ her day in court' and even to consider appealing to Crown Court if necessary, then he/she should probably seriously consider paying the ransom demanded.

Most TOCs and PPCs do not actually prosecute if their ransom demands/ fake byelaw 14 penalties are not paid, and in those cases the normal advice is to stall for time in various challenges in order to get past the 6 month time limit to bring a prosecution of this nature. However, with Northern, who do prosecute some, and perhaps most, RKs who refuse to pay their ransoms, I am not convinced that this is likely to do anything other than cause Northern to inflate their ransom demand to £100, and then, in a subsequent prosecution, to use the correspondence to try to draw the inference that the RK was driving.

This is a fightback forum, and personally, I would love to see an OP defeat Northern in court, but, on the other hand, it is easy for me to be 'militant' when it is not me who would have to face the time, stress and hassle of facing a prosecution, nor me who would have to pay the (perhaps) £600+ fine and related costs if convicted. The OP should be mindful of this when considering this, and indeed when considering other advice from other posters.

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 08:23
Post #1377477

Thanks for the replies everyone.

The driver has absorbed all the information here and has decided the following:

They feel it was not sufficiently clear that parking in the location parked was against any bylaws.

That they do not wish the time and stress of going to court to right this and win on a technicality that the driver's identity can not be proven. Particularly given there has been a lot of time and stress at work recently.

That said, they don't want to pay up without at least appealing.

Please could anyone help formulate an appeal response given the information provided? I could probably write the bulk of it on behalf of the driver though I'd struggle with the advice of not identifying the driver, particularly since the ticket itself seems to suggest this is salient information to include in the appeal.

Please could someone give some tips around the semantics?

Posted by: ostell Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 08:42
Post #1377480

As saif previously you wait until the Notice to Keeper arrives. You query this towards the end of the time for appeals, asking questions. You continue this ping pong for 6 months until they cannot bring the case to the magistrates.

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 09:13
Post #1377493

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 09:42) *
As saif previously you wait until the Notice to Keeper arrives. You query this towards the end of the time for appeals, asking questions. You continue this ping pong for 6 months until they cannot bring the case to the magistrates.


Thanks. I understand this. But the registered keeper is unsure how that response would be worded in such a way as does not identify he driver.

Posted by: ostell Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:10
Post #1377516

But you wait until you get the Notice to Keeper and then you have a valid reason to contact them as the keeper, or you say the driver has handed you the PCN

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:19
Post #1377522

QUOTE (NotEve @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:13) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 09:42) *
As saif previously you wait until the Notice to Keeper arrives. You query this towards the end of the time for appeals, asking questions. You continue this ping pong for 6 months until they cannot bring the case to the magistrates.


Thanks. I understand this. But the registered keeper is unsure how that response would be worded in such a way as does not identify he driver.

ITs really not difficult to do. Just dont name the driver. IF, and we DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THIS, the driver and keeper are the same, then still dont name the driver, and dont use any personal pronouns such as "i parked"

If in doubt, post it here first

I really dont get why this is so tricky...

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:28
Post #1377527

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 11:19) *
I really dont get why this is so tricky...


Essentially, you're all subject matter experts talking to someone who has literally no experience of the subject other than what is posted here. Forgive me for asking advice.on semantics, but please remember, not everyone has the same experiences you have.

This is a daunting matter which carries with it risk. It would be prudent to cover all bases.

Posted by: ostell Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:35
Post #1377533

You have been told not to infer who the driver was. Look at post #15. The keeper has absorbed......

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:54
Post #1377542

Not dientifying the driver is, hwoever, NOT something you need to be an expert in. You just dont ID the driver!

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 12:39
Post #1377579

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 11:35) *
You have been told not to infer who the driver was. Look at post #15. The keeper has absorbed......


You would be inferring. I could only insinuate.

The information here has been shown to the driver. It is the responsibility of the driver and the keeper to formulate a plan on what they wish to do. It's the driver who had first hand experience of the parking situation so it is the driver who has to evaluate whether their understanding of the situation warrants challenge and then agree that with the keeper..

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 11:54) *
Not dientifying the driver is, hwoever, NOT something you need to be an expert in. You just dont ID the driver!



Disagree. But that's fine. If you're not happy to help in this regard, hopefully someone else will. I'd rather not continue going back and forth on this.

Thank you for your help until this point.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 12:42
Post #1377582

You cant "disagree", not meanigfully anyway, because is is utterly trivial to not identify the driver in a document you as keeper draft. People manage it here every day.

I also told you how to be sure - by posting a draft here first.

You are making this way more difficult sounding than it actually is.

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 12:48
Post #1377586

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 13:42) *
You cant "disagree", not meanigfully anyway, because is is utterly trivial to not identify the driver in a document you as keeper draft. People manage it here every day.

I also told you how to be sure - by posting a draft here first.

You are making this way more difficult sounding than it actually is.


I'm sorry but this is daunting to me. I've never dealt with the law. I've never dealt with a parking ticket. I've never written in obfuscation. I don't want to lie. ...and this is a risk. There is nothing trivial about going to court

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 12:53
Post #1377590

SMall claims court is relatively trivial. Max of about £200 at play, as you will have seen from reading around. Its also a small office, with the judge just havinga bigger desk than the other two parties. Again, trivial to find out about by reading through completed cases here.

There is no lying or obfuscation involved. Just dont reveal who drove the car. Its done by complete newbies like yourself every single day here, so it CAN BE DONE - stop making this harder than it needs to be on yourself. youre building this up way to high.

Posted by: kommando Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 12:55
Post #1377592

There is no need to lie, just do not identify the driver, there is no legal requirement to do so, post your intended reply here so others can check.

Its not unusual for posters to take 3 edits to remove the drivers identity from a post, one recent poster gave up never to be seen again.

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 13:15
Post #1377598

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 13:53) *
SMall claims court is relatively trivial. Max of about £200 at play, as you will have seen from reading around. Its also a small office, with the judge just havinga bigger desk than the other two parties. Again, trivial to find out about by reading through completed cases here.

There is no lying or obfuscation involved. Just dont reveal who drove the car. Its done by complete newbies like yourself every single day here, so it CAN BE DONE - stop making this harder than it needs to be on yourself. youre building this up way to high.


Understood. Thank you.

Forgive my misunderstanding, but where does small claimed come into it? It's magistrates court I'm concerned about. Or are they the same thing?

QUOTE (kommando @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 13:55) *
There is no need to lie, just do not identify the driver, there is no legal requirement to do so, post your intended reply here so others can check.

Its not unusual for posters to take 3 edits to remove the drivers identity from a post, one recent poster gave up never to be seen again.


OK understood. Thanks.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 13:23
Post #1377600

APologies. Magistrates is also nothing too crazy. EIther one judge or a lay bench of three mags.

Posted by: ostell Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 14:18
Post #1377621

QUOTE (NotEve @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 13:39) *
The information here has been shown to the driver. It is the responsibility of the driver and the keeper to formulate a plan on what they wish to do. It's the driver who had first hand experience of the parking situation so it is the driver who has to evaluate whether their understanding of the situation warrants challenge and then agree that with the keeper..

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 11:54) *
Not dientifying the driver is, hwoever, NOT something you need to be an expert in. You just dont ID the driver!



Disagree. But that's fine. If you're not happy to help in this regard, hopefully someone else will. I'd rather not continue going back and forth on this.

Thank you for your help until this point.


Are you having trouble understanding the suggestions? We have asked you to forget the driver, you alone will be handling this as the keeper

There's no need to continue back and forth, just follow the suggestions etc that are given by those who know. You will be snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory if you continue like this.

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 14:27
Post #1377622

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 15:18) *
Are you having trouble understanding the suggestions?



Yes.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 14:29
Post #1377625

Then you need to do more reading on station carparks. What have you done so far?

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 14:31
Post #1377626

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 15:29) *
Then you need to do more reading on station carparks. What have you done so far?


Spent about 2.5 hours reading threads here and on another forums that link back to here. Looked up various articles, threads and requests for information on the enforcement of byelaws, read through some legal suggestions in regards to magistrates and the byelaws and posted this thread.

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 15:28
Post #1377639

There's nothing to prevent a Keeper appealing a ticket. It doesn't have to be the Driver.

Sometimes the Keeper is the Driver, but that's not always the case. They can be two different people.

What we are asking you to do is appeal and correspond stating at all times that you are the Keeper.

You can refer to the Driver in third person, ('the driver parked the vehicle, the driver bought a ticket,' etc...), but you, when writing to these companies, are The Keeper.

They don't know if the Keeper was the Driver or not. You DON'T have to tell them whether this is the case.

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 15:36
Post #1377646

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 16:28) *
There's nothing to prevent a Keeper appealing a ticket. It doesn't have to be the Driver.

Sometimes the Keeper is the Driver, but that's not always the case. They can be two different people.

What we are asking you to do is appeal and correspond stating at all times that you are the Keeper.

You can refer to the Driver in third person, ('the driver parked the vehicle, the driver bought a ticket,' etc...), but you, when writing to these companies, are The Keeper.

They don't know if the Keeper was the Driver or not. You DON'T have to tell them whether this is the case.


Yep, thank you. I'm getting it.

I'll draft a response when the time comes and update the thread.

Thanks for the help and patience

Posted by: NotEve Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 17:37
Post #1390221

Uh oh. Although I thought I was being rather vigilant with the post, I found a letter that has been sat around for a little while with some junk mail.

Basically it states there is a new fee that must be paid within 14 days. Failure to pay or challenge will result in Legal action.

Those 14 days have passed. I guess I'm screwed now?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 18:32
Post #1390240

Why do you guess that?
What have you researched about the letter? Obvious searches, who it's from, etc...

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 18:35
Post #1390242

We have no idea

Six weeks have passed and you haven't shown us

1 What if anything you sent as an appeal
2 The reply if you had one
3 The new letter - is it the first one that's been sent ?

By the way, you have never removed the reference number from your picture of the windscreen ticket

Posted by: NotEve Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 19:15
Post #1390253

Hi, I have literally picked up where we left off 6 weeks ago. I was waiting for the letter so I could write the appeal. I have just found the letter today (from Northern rail) in a pile of junk that I have somehow missed. This is the first letter I have received as the registered keeper. I have not made any response and the alloted time to do so has already passed by the time I have found the letter.

I am not deliberately obfuscating any information here. I haven't done anything since my last post in this thread except find this letter and open it.

Posted by: Gary Bloke Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:00
Post #1390288

Some idle observations on this one...


Posted by: NotEve Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:14
Post #1390294

QUOTE (Gary Bloke @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 22:00) *
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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:34
Post #1390305

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

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 06:45
Post #1390366

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 22:34) *
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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 07:46
Post #1390372

"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?

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:38
Post #1390383

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:46) *
"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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:59
Post #1390388

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.

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 09:00
Post #1390389

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 09:59) *
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.

Posted by: dramaqueen Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 11:56
Post #1390449

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.




Posted by: NotEve Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:13
Post #1390460

QUOTE (dramaqueen @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:56) *
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?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:35
Post #1390467

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.

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:46
Post #1390470

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 13:35) *
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

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:58
Post #1390478

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

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 13:08
Post #1390480

QUOTE (Redivi @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 13:58) *
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.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 13:54
Post #1390491

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?

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 14:38
Post #1390503

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 14:54) *
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

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 14:41
Post #1390504

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

Posted by: NotEve Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 10:14
Post #1393534

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:46) *
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?


Posted by: NotEve Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 15:38
Post #1393935

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?

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 15:56
Post #1393943

QUOTE (NotEve @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 16:38) *
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.

Posted by: Gary Bloke Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 16:06
Post #1393946

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.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 16:22
Post #1393950

The letter is, to put it kindly, legally questionable

Northern Rail appears to be saying that the payment of the penalty notice isn't an alternative to prosecution

It's a debt that it wants the magistrates to enforce before they move on to prosecuting a person that is rightly or wrongly assumed to be the driver

The response wants a bit of thinking about


Posted by: Redivi Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 16:54
Post #1393958

An interesting approach that a friend has suggested that might already be the subject of some threads

Pay the £80 (I would make clear it was under duress)

Wait until the six months to prosecute is up
Bring a claim in Small Claims Court for the return of the £80 that you were deceived into believing you were legally obliged to pay

See this thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t99955.html

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 17:53
Post #1393983

Indeed, a criminal prosecution is not nice.

Posted by: NotEve Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 18:29
Post #1393993

Thanks for all your responses and advice. I definitely don't want a criminal prosecution and don't think I've the heart or stomach for it.

I think I'm going to do a bit of back and forth before appealing. I may end up as suggested just paying and taking to small claims court. I like that idea though if it costs me, it could be a hollow victory. I'll have to research on that.

I can't imagine being able to draw out the back and forth for 6 months but I'll postpone as long as I can.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 19:55
Post #1394019

The idea is to pay the £80 now while the offer is still on the table
If you go back and forth, Northern will add extra charges

Recovery isn't a certainty so you want to make sure you don't have too much cash at risk
The lower amount also increases the chances that Northern won't contest

Any claim made using the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 has to be initiated within 90 days of making payment
You therefore want to make the payment as close to the 14 days deadline as possible, and send a polite letter requesting a refund about 85 days later

I would keep this low key rather than the full-blooded Letter Before Action
This has less risk of raising alarm bells and triggering a prosecution


Posted by: NotEve Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 07:41
Post #1394078

QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 20:55) *
The idea is to pay the £80 now while the offer is still on the table
If you go back and forth, Northern will add extra charges

Recovery isn't a certainty so you want to make sure you don't have too much cash at risk
The lower amount also increases the chances that Northern won't contest

Any claim made using the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 has to be initiated within 90 days of making payment
You therefore want to make the payment as close to the 14 days deadline as possible, and send a polite letter requesting a refund about 85 days later

I would keep this low key rather than the full-blooded Letter Before Action
This has less risk of raising alarm bells and triggering a prosecution



Great, ok thank you.

Should I send a letter do you think? Electronic payments are my only means to pay.

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 07:52
Post #1394374

Sorry, another question. Surely they can't rescind the "offer" of payment simply because it was as challenged / appealed and was unsuccessful?

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 08:05
Post #1394378

Right now you would just be paying, not sending anything else, that comes in 85 days.

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 08:07
Post #1394379

Read my Post #61 again

The letter says that, if the penalty is not paid, they will take legal action to recover it in addition to any fines that the court may impose
In other words the penalty is a separate matter from the prosecution

The letter does not say that, if the penalty is paid, they won't prosecute

Unlike the fixed penalty system for exceeding speed limits, the Railway Byelaws do not say anywhere that the penalty is an alternative to prosecution
Nothing therefore prevents a prosecution if you pay the penalty and annoy them afterward

Posted by: NotEve Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 08:21
Post #1394382

QUOTE (Redivi @ Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 09:07) *
Read my Post #61 again

The letter says that, if the penalty is not paid, they will take legal action to recover it in addition to any fines that the court may impose
In other words the penalty is a separate matter from the prosecution

The letter does not say that, if the penalty is paid, they won't prosecute

Unlike the fixed penalty system for exceeding speed limits, the Railway Byelaws do not say anywhere that the penalty is an alternative to prosecution
Nothing therefore prevents a prosecution if you pay the penalty and annoy them afterward


Sorry I'm not being clear. I understand what you're saying above but what I'm trying to ask is, the first letter states that I must pay the penalty or appeal. If I appeal then fail, is it normal that they would just skip straight to prosecution? Rather than trying to re-impose the penalty? Would appealing constitute annoying them?

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 09:05) *
Right now you would just be paying, not sending anything else, that comes in 85 days.
Thanks.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)