PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Another Northern Rail "Penalty Parking Notice"
NotEve
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 19:30
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,679



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 55)
Advertisement
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 19:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
NotEve
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:14
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,679



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:34
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,664
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You hadn't told us who sent the letter
What exactly does it state? No paraphrasing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NotEve
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 06:45
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,679



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.


This post has been edited by NotEve: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 06:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 07:46
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,664
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



"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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NotEve
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:38
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,679



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.

This post has been edited by NotEve: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 08:59
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,664
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NotEve
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 09:00
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,679



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dramaqueen
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 11:56
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 1 Jul 2014
From: east sussex
Member No.: 71,587



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.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NotEve
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:13
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,679



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:35
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,664
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NotEve
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:46
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,679



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 12:58
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,116
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NotEve
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 13:08
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,679



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 13:54
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,605
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



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?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NotEve
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 14:38
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,679



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 14:41
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,605
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



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


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 21st June 2018 - 08:23
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.