Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Northern Rail - PPN - Failing to display valid parking ticket
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Madwitch
Hello. I've read the many posts on Penalty Parking Notices/PPCs issued by Northern Rail but should appreciate advice on how to proceed. We received the attached ticket for a PPN for failing to display a valid parking ticket. Indeed, we didn't have a parking ticket at all since we weren't aware that charges were in place (we've used the car park on many occasions previously when it was free and had no idea the situation had changed). I'm planning to take photos of the notices (which we noticed after we'd got the ticket!) - these are very high up the posts and about a foot square - and could not be seen from the driving seat. I'd really like to dispute the ticket on principle, but especially because the charge of £50 is disproportionate to the "loss" suffered by Northern Rail. Any advice would be appreciated, even it it's "pay up". Thanks
Incandescent
YOU need to get a moderator to move this to the Private Parking Tickets forum.
metalmick
any relation of disco's
M
big_mac
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 19 May 2016 - 22:44) *
YOU need to get a moderator to move this to the Private Parking Tickets forum.

I'm not sure this is a private parking ticket.
It is issued by Northern Rail - and they certainly have been known to bring byelaw prosecutions.
Mad Mick V
Extract from the Railways byelaws:-

14(3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place.

IMO not worth the hassle if you can settle for £50. Otherwise you can appeal on defective signage or untoward recovery of costs or "I wasn't the owner". All of which may land you in the Magistrates Court with the prospect of a steep rise in what you have to pay out.

Mick
emanresu
With bylaw tickets they have 6 months to file papers at the Magistrates Court - signs, loss, visibility don't count. Its a genuine penalty like a speeding fine.

So what you have to do is to string it out to get passed the 6 months date. If you can't do that, then pay as NR do take people to Court and it can get expensive there.




The Rookie
QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 20 May 2016 - 06:15) *
signs, loss, visibility don't count.

Well signs and visibility most certainly do count, the requirements made by the TOC need to be conveyed before they can be contravened.

QUOTE
14(3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place.
emanresu
QUOTE
Well signs and visibility most certainly do count, the requirements made by the TOC need to be conveyed before they can be contravened.


We'll disagree then.

There are certain activities that are so common as to require no signs. The oft quote example is riding on a bus. No signs to pay - but everyone knows. And absence of knowledge of the byelaws made no difference to their enforceability hence "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
Madwitch
QUOTE (metalmick @ Thu, 19 May 2016 - 23:07) *
any relation of disco's
M


biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif wink.gif



wink.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Thanks for the advice folks. Guess it's pay up time. Even local councils reduce the fine for prompt payment so it irks somewhat. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask!
ostell
But it's often argued that there is no bye law offence of failing to display a ticket.
unicorn47
Not paying is a breach of the byelaws.

If they did decide to take you court you could be facing a potential fine of up to £1.000.00.

Personally i would put it down to experience and reluctantly pay the £50.00
Barry S
One thing I would note is that the notice itself, like the £80 "Failure to Pay" notices Northern send out to people who haven't bought rail tickets, has no basis in law whatsoever and is offering you the opportunity to give them money instead of taking you to Court.

From their point of view, they'd much rather you pay the £50, as they make more money from that than they would from taking you to Court, where the amount in play would be whatever the cost of parking was plus their costs, with the balance going to HM Courts...
ostell
QUOTE (unicorn47 @ Fri, 20 May 2016 - 08:20) *
Not paying is a breach of the byelaws.

If they did decide to take you court you could be facing a potential fine of up to £1.000.00.

Personally i would put it down to experience and reluctantly pay the £50.00



But the offence on the ticket is "failing to display". The "Failure to pay" box is unticked
Gan
As Ostell's pointed out, failure to pay is a byelaw offence but failure to display isn't
This could just be to leave wriggle room if the ticket had fallen off the dashboard

As the driver didn't pay, this isn't a technicality I'd want to argue in front of the magistrates, especially as you've left the number of the penalty notice in the picture

IIRC, Northern Rail have been known to present threads in evidence and you can't assume that they haven't already seen this

Unless the signs don't support the charge at all, this is one where I'd play safe and pay at the discount

dandyman
Right, let's get some stuff straight here.

Firstly NR doesn't know who was driving, so they can only be using byelaw 14.4(i) to pursue the owner. 14.4(i) reads as follows (my bold):

The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance
used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be
liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.


So the signage is important: the "penalty" (if such it is) must be displayed (which implies that it must be displayed prominently and readably).

Secondly, there is no byelaw offence of "not displaying a valid parking ticket".

Thirdly, all that NR knows is that the OP is the vehicle's registered keeper. They have no idea who the owner is as stipulated in byelaw 14.4(i).

Fourthly, they cannot increase the penalty or add an admin fee, there is no such provision in the byelaws.

Fifthly, as rehearsed many times here, byelaw 14.4(i) appears to be ultra vires the enabling legislation (Transport Act 2000) which makes no provision for creating byelaws penalising people who may never have been on a railway asset.

Sixthly, at the moment NR appears to be treating this as a civil liability (as implied by the byelaws) but at some point, if the OP ignores it or strings it out, it will switch to a threat of prosecution, at which point NR will have revealed its own criminal intent in demanding a bribe not to prosecute.

If I were the OP I think I would engage in a leisurely correspondence with them in an effort to string it out beyond six months. If, at some time during those six months, they get heavy and start threatening prosecution, his options are:

(i) pay it and get on with his life

(ii) tough it out, possibly all the way to the magistrate's court, which could get expensive (his legal position is sound, but ignorant magistrates being bamboozled by NR's lawyer may not see it that way)

(iii) pay it, and then file a claim on the Small Claims Track for his money back, citing NR's aggressive and misleading behaviour (demanding money on their own account under threat of prosecution) and the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014.

He could start the ball rolling with something like this (in a week or two!):

Dear NR,

I am puzzled by your letter dated ??/??/????. Would you please clarify:

- What byelaw you believe has been breached
- Whom you believe is liable to pay a penalty pursuant to such alleged byelaw breach, and the basis in law for that person being liable
- To whom you believe such a penalty is payable, and the basis in law for that party being entitled to receive such a penalty.
The Rookie
QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 20 May 2016 - 08:44) *
QUOTE
Well signs and visibility most certainly do count, the requirements made by the TOC need to be conveyed before they can be contravened.


We'll disagree then.

There are certain activities that are so common as to require no signs. The oft quote example is riding on a bus. No signs to pay - but everyone knows. And absence of knowledge of the byelaws made no difference to their enforceability hence "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

You know you have to pay getting on a bus, yes, you don't know you have to pay in a train station car park as some are free, some are pay only at certain times etc.

Dandyman, you can't sue in civil court for a penalty paid under a criminal law (or at least it's far from being as simple as that).
dandyman
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 20 May 2016 - 09:56) *
Dandyman, you can't sue in civil court for a penalty paid under a criminal law (or at least it's far from being as simple as that).

What are you on about? If the OP pays NR than it's clearly not a penalty paid under criminal law, unless NR has magically transformed from a private company into a criminal court.
emanresu
Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877] An individual cannot escape a contractual term by failing to read the contract.

Judges expect that if in doubt they should check since it again is plain that there are varieties of car park. The onus is on the driver to identify which one. In this case the driver didn't.

Not seeing the signs does not hold, especially when they don't look for them in something as mundane and everyday as a car park.

Edit: Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877] is one of the most quoted cases by the LPC reps when in court.
Barry S
As for the "owner" vs "keeper" issue, I suspect the argument would be that it's covered by primary legislation which equates the two as being the same thing for the purposes of parking enforcement. How successfully you could run a defence against that assumption given the link isn't also made in the Byelaws remains to be seen, however.
dandyman
Come off it emanresu, you're better than this, have you got a hangover or something?

Firstly we're not talking about a contractual clause, we're talking about (supposedly) a byelaw, and the byelaw is clear: the penalty must be displayed in the area to which it relates.

Secondly, even if it were a question of contract, Parker vs. S.E. Railways was clear in that a party seeking to rely on a clause must take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the customer ergo your assertion that there does not need to be signage is nonsense. This was affirmed in a recent case where a court ruled that a consumer couldn't be bound to a (mobile phone) contract if he'd never received a copy of it i.e. it was not sufficient for the 'phone company to refer the consumer to a contract on a website (which also puts paid to your bizarre and unsubstantiated assertion that the onus is on the consumer to seek out the contract).

Parker was given the contract (a ticket). He didn't read it. If he'd never been given the ticket he'd have been fine, he wouldn't have been expected to interrogate the staff or scour the station looking for the terms.
The Rookie
QUOTE (dandyman @ Fri, 20 May 2016 - 10:30) *
What are you on about? If the OP pays NR than it's clearly not a penalty paid under criminal law, unless NR has magically transformed from a private company into a criminal court.

Perhaps try reading the byelaw (criminal law) and it's provision for penalty charges and reconsider?

QUOTE
(4) In England and Wales
(i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance
used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be
liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.
dandyman
QUOTE (Barry S @ Fri, 20 May 2016 - 10:49) *
As for the "owner" vs "keeper" issue, I suspect the argument would be that it's covered by primary legislation which equates the two as being the same thing for the purposes of parking enforcement.

We're not talking about decrim parking enforcement, we're talking about railway byelaws on land to which decrim parking enforcement does not apply. In any case I'm not aware that the primary legislation with respect to decrim parking enforcement (which I presume is what you a referring to) equates "owner" with "keeper": it simply makes the keeper liable.


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 20 May 2016 - 10:58) *
QUOTE (dandyman @ Fri, 20 May 2016 - 10:30) *
What are you on about? If the OP pays NR than it's clearly not a penalty paid under criminal law, unless NR has magically transformed from a private company into a criminal court.

Perhaps try reading the byelaw (criminal law) and it's provision for penalty charges and reconsider?

Nothing to reconsider. Anything paid to a private company is a civil matter. Criminal penalties can only be imposed by a criminal court. Clear?
emanresu
QUOTE
the penalty must be displayed in the area to which it relates.


It was displayed - see post#1

QUOTE
Parker vs. S.E. Railways was clear in that a party seeking to rely on a clause must take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the customer


It was displayed - see post#1

QUOTE
his was affirmed in a recent case where a court ruled that a consumer couldn't be bound to a (mobile phone) contract if he'd never received a copy


Different contract type as this is a unilateral contract by behaviour and not reading/signing.


This is not about legal dick waving, this is about letting people know if they wander into court saying they did not see the signs, they will lose.

The best way to win these case is actually the reverse - to read the signs and decide if what it says on the signs makes sense. But that only applies to contract cases - and this is not a contract case.

QUOTE
Come off it emanresu, you're better than this, have you got a hangover or something?


Perfectly sober, but thanks for asking.


This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.