Warning - apcoa - must see

Stigy

geordieracer wrote: »

Again, No it is not. We have just discussed this before why do you not bother listening to someone who has been doing this for a lot longer then you.I manage and run more stations then yourself and i have even been in consultation about this many years ago with both the BTP and local police forces when we were thinking about getting in a PPC to manage our car parks for us. And also what is this about you being accredited?

Accredited to whom may i ask?

How do you know you deal with alot more car parks than I? You don't even know what part of the country I work in! Judging by how the parking tariff reads on the stations I cover, it takes in to account that parking notices issued are done so in conjunction of railway byelaws. Maybe that's just misleading. I'll be honest I haven't checked with our retail standards department, and that was more of an assumption.

I'm accredited by BTP under the Railway Safety Accreditation Scheme, but work for a TOC.

geordieracer

Stigy wrote: »

How do you know you deal with alot more car parks than I? You don't even know what part of the country I work in! Judging by how the parking tariff reads on the stations I cover, it takes in to account that parking notices issued are done so in conjunction of railway byelaws. Maybe that's just misleading. I'll be honest I haven't checked with our retail standards department, and that was more of an assumption.

I'm accredited by BTP under the Railway Safety Accreditation Scheme, but work for a TOC.

that means your a railway enforcement officer that means you work for southeastern trains - that is different from a PPC operating a car park on behalf of the TOC. Now you cannot issue a PCN to a person for breaching the railway bylaws covering car parks. Your only powers are to take the name and address for fixed penalty notices - This is not the same as a PCN issued by Apcoa. Again - the Apcoa ticket is appealable by post/phone call and the offence under the railway bylaws is not as you have to attend a magistrates court for this offence.

For others on this thread this is what the REOs are allowed to do

request the name and address for fixed penalty notice offences
request the name and address for offences that cause injury, alarm and distress to another person or damage or loss of another’s property
request the name and address of a person acting in an anti-social manner
confiscate alcohol from young people
confiscate cigarettes and tobacco products from young people
issue a penalty notice for trespassing on the railway
issue a penalty notice for consumption of alcohol in a designated public place
issue a penalty notice for behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress

Stigy

geordieracer wrote: »

that means your a railway enforcement officer that means you work for southeastern trains - that is different from a PPC operating a car park on behalf of the TOC. Now you cannot issue a PCN to a person for breaching the railway bylaws covering car parks. Your only powers are to take the name and address for fixed penalty notices - This is not the same as a PCN issued by Apcoa. Again - the Apcoa ticket is appealable by post/phone call and the offence under the railway bylaws is not as you have to attend a magistrates court for this offence.

For others on this thread this is what the REOs are allowed to do

I could be an REO. But then, it's not only Southeastern Trains that have Accredited Staff. You're mistaking the Accreditation powers with those that all rail staff have. My being able to issue a PCN would come from the TOC, and not from RSAS. The same as reporting for byelaw offences, that is the same power as any other TOC employee, and nothing to do with RSAS.

There are only five powers given by RSAS, these don't include the sort of sub catagories such as offences you're able to issue a Penalty Notice for Disorder for. I'll list them.

• The Power to request a name and address from a person acting in an anti-social manner
• The power to request a name and address from a person when issuing a Penalty Notice for Disorder
• The power to confiscate alcohol from a person under the age of 18
• The power to confiscate tabacco products from a person under the age of 16
• The power to take a photo of a person away from a Police station

geordieracer

You see your big error there? You called it a PCN again. A PCN can not be issued under the bylaw 14. How many more times do i have to keep telling you therefore it is unenforceable along with all the others.

The only way to get someone done for the bylaw is to prosecute which needs to go to a magistrate.

i give up - You obviously know more about it then me given your only an REO.

Stigy

geordieracer wrote: »

You see your big error there? You called it a PCN again. A PCN can not be issued under the bylaw 14. How many more times do i have to keep telling you therefore it is unenforceable along with all the others.

The only way to get someone done for the bylaw is to prosecute which needs to go to a magistrate.

i give up - You obviously know more about it then me given your only an REO.

I take it you're not a manager as one of your posts suggest, otherwise you wouldn't be so condecending, would you?

A PCN as in a Parking Charge Notice, not a Penalty Charge Notice? I would say that issuing such an 'invoice' is a means of remedy for a minor byelaw infringement, therefore it wouldn't need to be prosecuted anyway. I've always said in this thread that a railway official can report a parking offence as opposed to issuing an 'invoice', but logistically it would be difficult as people park their car and disappear usually. What I was wondering, reference to the enforceability of an invoice issued where byelaws stand, why is it not acceptable to cancel the notice and prosecute under the byelaws if it goes unpaid? A Penalty Fare can be, so why not a parking invoice? I know that most railway stations subcontract their parking enforcement (as do the TOC I work for....we issue their notices), but a subcontractor can still enforce a byelaw, so what's the difference? I would imagine it has to do with the burden of proof in that you're dealing with a car and not usually a driver, therefore who do you prosecute?

And I havn't said I'm an REO.

geordieracer

Stigy wrote: »

I take it you're not a manager as one of your posts suggest, otherwise you wouldn't be so condecending, would you?

A PCN as in a Parking Charge Notice, not a Penalty Charge Notice? I would say that issuing such an 'invoice' is a means of remedy for a minor byelaw infringement, therefore it wouldn't need to be prosecuted anyway. I've always said in this thread that a railway official can report a parking offence as opposed to issuing an 'invoice', but logistically it would be difficult as people park their car and disappear usually. What I was wondering, reference to the enforceability of an invoice issued where byelaws stand, why is it not acceptable to cancel the notice and prosecute under the byelaws if it goes unpaid? A Penalty Fare can be, so why not a parking invoice? I know that most railway stations subcontract their parking enforcement (as do the TOC I work for....we issue their notices), but a subcontractor can still enforce a byelaw, so what's the difference? I would imagine it has to do with the burden of proof in that you're dealing with a car and not usually a driver, therefore who do you prosecute?

And I havn't said I'm an REO.

you dont read things properly do you? I run and manage 35 stations and all their staff. It would be more but im not travelling that far.And im being condescending towards you because you have not listened to a word i have said.

Ahh so you actually work for a PPC on behalf of the TOC then not work for a TOC as you first claimed.

And no a PF is not the same as contravening this bylaw - itself has its own rules which govern the issuing and then the prosecution for an unpaid PF. You dont get that with a PCN.

No matter which way you try and tart it up your in the wrong and any ticket you issue has nothing to do with the bylaw 14.

Im giving up now because you wont be told will you.

Coupon-mad

Stigy wrote: »

I was wondering, reference to the enforceability of an invoice issued where byelaws stand, why is it not acceptable to cancel the notice and prosecute under the byelaws if it goes unpaid?

Because they can't prove who was driving, which is what I said to you ages ago when I pointed out that the person collecting the car at the end of the day and driving off in it is NOT necessarily the person who parked the car there.

You would have to prove who drove into the car park, (not who drove the car away later) and also prove that the first driver did breach a bylaw.

What is it with this Country that some jobsworths honestly believe it's a good thing to be able to prosecute people for minor or made up contraventions like parking over a white line !!!!!!?!

Driver8

Stigy wrote: »

I take it you're not a manager as one of your posts suggest, otherwise you wouldn't be so condecending, would you?

A PCN as in a Parking Charge Notice, not a Penalty Charge Notice? I would say that issuing such an 'invoice' is a means of remedy for a minor byelaw infringement, therefore it wouldn't need to be prosecuted anyway. I've always said in this thread that a railway official can report a parking offence as opposed to issuing an 'invoice', but logistically it would be difficult as people park their car and disappear usually. What I was wondering, reference to the enforceability of an invoice issued where byelaws stand, why is it not acceptable to cancel the notice and prosecute under the byelaws if it goes unpaid? A Penalty Fare can be, so why not a parking invoice? I know that most railway stations subcontract their parking enforcement (as do the TOC I work for....we issue their notices), but a subcontractor can still enforce a byelaw, so what's the difference? I would imagine it has to do with the burden of proof in that you're dealing with a car and not usually a driver, therefore who do you prosecute?

And I havn't said I'm an REO.

You've been outed sunshine. A PPC troll masquerading as a REO, you couldn't make it up.

I've told you, why don't you become a PCSO. Imagine all that POWER you'll have ! (not) :rotfl:

mcjordi

Driver8 wrote: »

You've been outed sunshine. A PPC troll masquerading as a REO, you couldn't make it up.

I've told you, why don't you become a PCSO. Imagine all that POWER you'll have ! (not) :rotfl:

lmfao at this thread,

re the pcso- i think mr stiggy wants to "nick" people so this posistion wouldnt be suitable as most forces dont allow the pcso's to arrest, they only have power of citizens arrest- ie not allowed to arrest on suspicion

Stigy

geordieracer wrote: »

you dont read things properly do you?

Ahh so you actually work for a PPC on behalf of the TOC then not work for a TOC as you first claimed.

And no a PF is not the same as contravening this bylaw - itself has its own rules which govern the issuing and then the prosecution for an unpaid PF. You dont get that with a PCN.

No matter which way you try and tart it up your in the wrong and any ticket you issue has nothing to do with the bylaw 14.

Im giving up now because you wont be told will you.

I don't read things properly? No, I DO NOT work for a PPC, and fail to see how anything I've written states otherwise. Yes, there are rules that govern the issue of a PF, but if a PF goes unpaid, it's the byelaws (usually 18.1) that are used to prosecute the non-payment. So you're not being prosecuted for not paying the PF, but for not haveing a ticket in the first place.

mcjordi wrote: »

hmmm new poster defending stiggy...

is that you stiggy??? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

NO, Somebody probably found this farce by way of a Google search and realised this thread is full of barrack room lawyers.

Amazing really, how people supposedly savvy with the law, know pretty much nothing about it, and simply use the fact that they pretty much all support the same cause and are in their own sad little group, in order to brush over really quite large and important aspects of the law.

Seriously guys, get over yourselves.