Warning - apcoa - must see

Stigy

sassy-one wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I've read enough, please only stick to advice regards 'invoices' on this thread now regards the named parking company in question as otherwise it leaves me no choice but to request this thread is locked, which I would dislike doing as it provides others with help if and when needed.

Think. Type. Submit. :beer:

backfoot

So far we have the following awards:

The 'I'll have the last word' award. The nominations are: Stigy and SassyOne for the ongoing 'apcoa-must see' thread.

The 'Deja Vu' award. Stigy and Sassyone for the same thread.

The 'Jobsworth Parking Award'. Stigy is the only nomination.

HO87

This debate is becoming increasingly pointless - actually its not much a debate any more - just a slagging match.

1. If Stigy is employed as he claims (I can see absolutely no reason to disbelieve him) then Sec. 67(9) Of PACE applies - regardless of what the police may or may not have told you, sassy-one. If what you have represented is true then the officer was incorrect (or at least incomplete) in what he told you. Not that that surprises me.

Sec. 67(9) says:

"Persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard to any relevant provision of such a code"

(where the code it refers to is the Codes of Practice annexed to PACE 1994)

It is a matter of fact that the person is "charged with a duty to investigate".

2. However, sassy-one's account of what they were told by the police with regard to the applicability, or otherwise, of s.67(9) is entirely believable.

3. That Stigy is unable or unwilling to identify where his obligations (to caution) originate has the smack of laziness though the fact that he is an "accredited person" (presumably by virtue of SOCPA 2005 - which probably blows the gaff on his actual position) and still doesn't enumerate the source of his obligation to caution is slightly worrying.

@sassy-one

4. Stigy has been at pains to point out, excruciatingly so, that he records interviews in his pocket notebook. And quite properly so. It would seem that the use of the word "record" has caused some confusion and has been misconstrued as suggesting that he "pressed a button". He did. Only it was on his biro not on a recorder. Lets just get a little bit real?

5. If what Stigy is saying about his being an accredited person then he isn't simply a car park attendant. Live with it.

@ Stigy

6. You might want to change your username. Search “Stigy” in Urban Dictionary Search Here

Stigy

HO87 wrote: »

3. That Stigy is unable or unwilling to identify where his obligations (to caution) originate has the smack of laziness though the fact that he is an "accredited person" (presumably by virtue of SOCPA 2005 - which probably blows the gaff on his actual position) and still doesn't enumerate the source of his obligation to caution is slightly worrying.

Accreditation is under the Police Reform Act 2002.

It wasn't that I was either unwilling, but unable to find the relevant part of PACE whereby the powers of investigation are layed. I'll be honest, I don't know every act of PACE cover to cover, strangely enough. The point is, you really don't need to know the specifics about where legislation comes from, just the facts that it comes from PACE is enough. I did actually spend the best part of an hour seaching through PACE online, but could only find edits to sections as opposed to the whole thing.

I'd hazard a guess that if you asked even the longest serving of Police Constable to tell you off hand where certain powers of his originate and what part of PACE gives him certain powers, you won't get a response. For my own piece of mind (although not at all necessary) I have made it my business to find out what offences relate to what byelaw etc etc etc, but that's something that interests me, and something that is handy to know given my current role (although again, not necessary to know in order to carry out the role).

I've said before here that I'm an Accredited Person, but that still isn't my job title, so I'm still safe from all the nutters.

As for my username, that's interesting, and obviously isn't why I chose it..:D

geordieracer

sassy-one wrote: »

May I add only section 14 of the Railway bylaw may be used to enforce a ticket and by no other means can another section of the Railway bylaw be used.

Also, there are VERY few Train station car parks that are covered by the Railway bylaw and this accepted, any station car park to which is covered by said section 14 of the Railway bylaw must have correct signage in place failing which any ticket received becomes unenforceable and the same as a non covered station car park, to which is a invoice.

Stigy claims that he has power to Caution persons who allegedly park at a train station car park which is covered by section 14 of the Railway bylaw, to which, he simply does not have any said power to give or offer Caution.

Really???? I manage 35 stations and each one is covered under the by-laws as its still on railway land. The ones which have been built the TOCs are not classed as railway land and thus cannot be covered under the by-laws unless they apply to have them converted.

Now im seeing here that the fella your having an argument works for a private parking company yes? Well they are not allowed to issue under the bylaw and then its just a normal PCN which you can throw away as per usual.

My car parks are one price before 9 and then another price after. No point in charging by the hour as we are a commuter railway so we know where they have gone and roughly when they will be back. We do use a parking company but thats only to ensure everyone has a ticket to park - a note is normally left and persistent offenders are then threatened under the bylaw with court if they carry on - oddly they all pay - but he is mainly there for security of the passengers when the booking office closes.




If anyone is done under the byelaw then it is a magistrate issue and not one a Private parking company can issue.

geordieracer

Oh yeh and if you were to be prosecuted under the bylaw you would not be issued with a ticket(PCN) - you would get a notice to prosecute like an MG11

HO87

geordieracer wrote: »

Oh yeh and if you were to be prosecuted under the bylaw you would not be issued with a ticket(PCN) - you would get a notice to prosecute like an MG11

Since when has an MG11 been a "notice to prosecute"?

geordieracer

HO87 wrote: »

Since when has an MG11 been a "notice to prosecute"?

Thats exactly what they are.

Stigy

geordieracer wrote: »

Thats exactly what they are.

An MG11 is Magistrate's Guidance, form 11. Although some say it's Method of Guidance form 11. Same meaning I guess. Basically a form completed that acts as a statement of fact. Notice to prosecute? I'd say the letter that the Prosecutions unit send, post MG11 being submit, is the Notice to prosecute...

geordieracer wrote:

Now im seeing here that the fella your having an argument works for a private parking company yes? Well they are not allowed to issue under the bylaw and then its just a normal PCN which you can throw away as per usual.

I don't work for a private parking company, surely you know that by now? lol.

Geordieracer wrote:

If anyone is done under the byelaw then it is a magistrate issue and not one a Private parking company can issue.

Actually, although not always feasable, a PPC could report parking offences under the byelaws where they apply, as they are acting as an agent of the TOC. This is clear in the byelaw definitions. Although the TOC would have to authorise them to do so.

geordieracer

Stigy wrote: »

An MG11 is Magistrate's Guidance, form 11. Although some say it's Method of Guidance form 11. Same meaning I guess. Basically a form completed that acts as a statement of fact. Notice to prosecute? I'd say the letter that the Prosecutions unit send, post MG11 being submit, is the Notice to prosecute...

I don't work for a private parking company, surely you know that by now? lol.

Actually, although not always feasable, a PPC could report parking offences under the byelaws where they apply, as they are acting as an agent of the TOC. This is clear in the byelaw definitions.

Sorry i didnt fully type out what i meant when mentioning the MG11. im aware that that is the statement form but im just so used to using the phrase when chatting with colleagues.. We always notify them when taking the statement so we just use that as the notice to prosecute.

So you work for a TOC then? They could report them under the byelaws but then they wouldnt issue a parking ticket would they because that ticket would be invalid if they were notifying them of prosecution under the byelaws.