Railway Station Parking Ticket

Stigy

It looks as though East Coast, although they could do if they wanted to, intend to not use the Magistrates' Court for their parking tickets. All the terminology they use (collection orders and costs etc) make me think they would proceed in a civil manner as opposed to a criminal one (County Court and not Mags Court).

esmerobbo

PooroldSimon wrote: »

Yes its Doncaster. Don't understand the significance of Car park and operator

A lot are operated by PPC's and use the Sec14 byelaw as a threat without ever intending to use it. As Stigy says Eastcoast may have the option of doing so.

Livingthedream

Interesting the address on the letter; PO BOX 89, Portsmouth PO1 1EG is the same as the other post on railway parking tickets, but the address header is different this one is for; Revenue Protection Services Dept and the other from Debt Recovery Prosecutions Office.

Happy to be corrected but isn't that a trick of a PPC.

TwistedPsycho

To cater for the wide range of services that RPSS provide........

I take it you would also recommend ignoring reminders for Unpaid Fare and Penalty Fare notices from them as well then?

Livingthedream

TwistedPsycho wrote: »

To cater for the wide range of services that RPSS provide........

Just thought it was strange, but thank you for answering my question.

TwistedPsycho wrote: »

I take it you would also recommend ignoring reminders for Unpaid Fare and Penalty Fare notices from them as well then?

I would need to know the circumstances of the UFN or PFN before I would advise on what to do, if it was a genuine ticket irregularity then I would advise on 'how to get off it'. If it was a scammer/fare dodger that got gripped, then it's 'grovel time/pay up' before it gets more expensive. So you can see from both those answers, 'Ignore' isn't one of my options.

Stigy

TwistedPsycho wrote: »

To cater for the wide range of services that RPSS provide........

I take it you would also recommend ignoring reminders for Unpaid Fare and Penalty Fare notices from them as well then?

I don't think that's what Livingthedream was suggesting, as he knows the processes with reagrd to unpaid UFNs and PFNs, as stated in other threads.

Although I certainly wouldn't suggest simply ignoring this parking ticket, I do find it rather strange that Byelaw 14 tends to be stated almost in the small print, whereas breach of T&Cs seems to be their main wording. Don't get me wrong, the T&C breach goes hand in hand with the Byelaw anyway, but I think if they had any intention of enforcing it through the Magistrates' Court they'd a) Use the Railway Byelaws as their reasoning more early on in the letter/ticket, and b) Not use a PO Box address.

PooroldSimon

Surely it would be fare to say that East Coast are not a cowboy operator.
Thay are used to people trying to get off tickets in significant volumes.
On reflection I would guess they have dotted the i's and crossed the t's with regard to technicalities. To save people the bother they have stressed my car was locked and they took photos.
It was said the owner is responsible and not the driver, so if I can't use the "Prove who was driving or leave me alone" technique then I think I will take it on the chin and cough up the £30

RENEGADE_2

Note: RPSS is a private company itself, purporting to "liaise" with government agencies. It is NOT the magistrates' court. YOU MAY NOT have a criminal record if the matter is dealt with by County Court, and why do you think they are mentioning "or County Court?", surely if it is purely to enforce B14 then Magistrates' should suffice. Obviously they are citing "County Court" as their disclaimer so if the matter comes to light, "oh we were chasing a civil matter but we mentioned Magistrates because we were scratching our heads at the time not knowing how to take this on".

My advice to you is this: if B14 places the onus on the owner then it is probably all the same, DO CONTACT the company but DENY the ticket by citing some ground which may or may not be reasonable. I mean, appeal it without using "appeal" so as not to accede to their authority. By stating for example, signs not visible or something to that effect, you have a case against them whether they accept it or not. Now this way, Magistrates' or County, it will from your angle be presented as a "disputed demand", so you will not appear to be defiant. Now should these vermin (East Coast et al.) head straight for the letter-chain policy involving "collection" agencies, lawyers, etc. then not only is it looking less and less likely that it is enforceable but YOU are building up a case against them for various harassment laws. After all, you'll have told them once that you DISPUTE the ticket and that they should resolve the matter before judicial personnel so there is no excuse for them to continue to "enforce a law" by their own methods. The PPCs here are merely an agent - the ticket is simply to inform the driver that terms have been violated and he is expected to pay a sum, and if the owner refuses after being located, the PPC should at this point defer the matter to the law, "all right, over to you boys now, we've done our bit". AND.... if it is looking to be a magistrates' summons, as YOU were only disputing and not ignoring the document, you can capitulate in the last minute before the hearing goes ahead and say "well I've reconsidered, maybe the signs were in place and my mind wasn't thinking right, so here is the initial demand" - byelaws do NOT offer "reduced amounts" and by the same token, un unpaid amount cannot accumulate after Joe Bloggs Collections intervene.

Even in Mags Court, there is such thing as "pleading innocent", you have beyond reasonable grounds to assume this is a private scam (discount for early payment being the first) and should you raise an issue on unclear signage, it will require a full and independent investigation. In the end, it will either be deemed in your favour, or in theirs, but nobody can accuse you or lying.

Stigy

RENEGADE wrote: »

Even in Mags Court, there is such thing as "pleading innocent", you have beyond reasonable grounds to assume this is a private scam (discount for early payment being the first) and should you raise an issue on unclear signage, it will require a full and independent investigation. In the end, it will either be deemed in your favour, or in theirs, but nobody can accuse you or lying.

Not sure I'd use the term "innocent", as nobody is innocent, other than a new born baby of course. Not Guilty sounds much better.

Lets not get confused with what's occuring here. It is NOT a PPC scam as you seem to be puting it. It is directly from East Coast Trains, therefore the OP should tread with caution. East Coast have a lot more powers at their direct disposal than a PPC would have (although it still wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that the dreaded PPC could enforce Byelaw 14 on the TOCs' behalf!). Yes, RPSS is a private company, but that doesn't matter to be honest, as they wont be the ones doing the prosecuting, East Coast will.

I personally wouldn't want to risk ignoring it, or letting the matter go to court. If they did use the Mags Court (although as I said, it looks as though they would proceed in a civil manner through the CC, it's not impossible to suggest they'd go to the Mags Court), they'd be on to a winner I think. Regarding the discounted rate, it's no different to offering a discounted rate for a Penalty Fare that TfL use, bearing in mind the innitial penalty won't be the amount being claimed in a Magistrates' Court, and this amount will be cancelled, and the initial Byelaw will be charged.

I also believe, that had it been a 'fake' ticket, the amount would be far in excess of the £30 being asked for here!

For the sake of £30?

RENEGADE_2

trisontana wrote: »

That is rather confusing as it mentions both County and Magistrates courts.

No, it says IF it goes to Magistgrates' court. It doesn't say "it will". If it does, why even mention the judgement of County Court?