Meteor / Southeastern Parking

jlsmith_2

Hello,

Update on the attached. I have had a reply from Debt Recovery and Prosecution services, which has made the matter very clear. They are clueless.

The letter is found via the attached link:

http://s1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee424/jlsmith10/Meteor/


Key points:

- Their demand has gone back down from £165 per ticket to £90.
- The owner had 7 days to appeal to Meteor (including for the PCN they didn't actually issue).
- For the PCN which you didn't receive, we have supplied you with a picture of a car without a PCN on it. Hmmmm... the photo also shows a clearly legible note attached to the windscreen with the hastily written words "Machines not accepting credit cards" ... which does now ring a faint bell in distant memory...
- despite Meteor saying they have nothing to do with this and it is in SouthEastern's hands, DRPS say they are simply collecting a debt on behalf of Meteor. Good! So no-one's interested then??
- Stuff about byelaw 14. No explanation as to when they issued a byelaw compliant ticket.
- The owner is legally responsible for outstanding PCNs.
- At the end of the debt recovery process, if payment has not been received, a magistrates' courts summons will be applied for. BUT Ha ha! Not for the first one it won't - it is now more than 6 months old and the next two will be shortly. It will be too late for them to lay an information before the court. Not that they would survive ten minutes with this nonsensical letter.

Thoughts anyone? A quick note to say the debts are denied and stop the harrassment? Or is that being too kind?

Many thanks,,

jamesallen

jlsmith wrote: »

Hello,

Update on the attached. I have had a reply from Debt Recovery and Prosecution services, which has made the matter very clear. They are clueless.

The letter is found via the attached link:

http://s1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee424/jlsmith10/Meteor/


Key points:

- Their demand has gone back down from £165 per ticket to £90.
- The owner had 7 days to appeal to Meteor (including for the PCN they didn't actually issue).
- For the PCN which you didn't receive, we have supplied you with a picture of a car without a PCN on it. Hmmmm... the photo also shows a clearly legible note attached to the windscreen with the hastily written words "Machines not accepting credit cards" ... which does now ring a faint bell in distant memory...
- despite Meteor saying they have nothing to do with this and it is in SouthEastern's hands, DRPS say they are simply collecting a debt on behalf of Meteor. Good! So no-one's interested then??
- Stuff about byelaw 14. No explanation as to when they issued a byelaw compliant ticket.
- The owner is legally responsible for outstanding PCNs.
- At the end of the debt recovery process, if payment has not been received, a magistrates' courts summons will be applied for. BUT Ha ha! Not for the first one it won't - it is now more than 6 months old and the next two will be shortly. It will be too late for them to lay an information before the court. Not that they would survive ten minutes with this nonsensical letter.

Thoughts anyone? A quick note to say the debts are denied and stop the harrassment? Or is that being too kind?

Many thanks,,

Based on the rest of the thread, I'd say go back to the standard "ignore" policy. Don't nibble the proverbial bait

Stigy

jlsmith wrote: »

- The owner is legally responsible for outstanding PCNs.
- At the end of the debt recovery process, if payment has not been received, a magistrates' courts summons will be applied for. BUT Ha ha! Not for the first one it won't - it is now more than 6 months old and the next two will be shortly. It will be too late for them to lay an information before the court. Not that they would survive ten minutes with this nonsensical letter.

Thoughts anyone? A quick note to say the debts are denied and stop the harrassment? Or is that being too kind?

Many thanks,,

Unless there's exceptional circumstances, the fact that they have yet to lay these charges with the Mags Court should be enough to justify ignoring them. I say exceptional circumstances in that they'd have to satisfy the court that laying the information with them at 6.5 to 7 months as opposed to the 6 month maximum is in some way justifyable (unable to locate a defendant etc).

vax2002

I spoke with a transport police officer on regards to railway parking laws, his reply was that its not a "parking law", it is for vehicles which are causing an obstruction and they dont issue them any more and have not since parking was decriminalised and due to threat levels, they have the vehicle removed if it is left where it should not be, on the car park he said that was dealt with by private contractors who have their own tickets , I asked could they issue railway by-law tickets for parking , he said no because they dont issue them for parking it is decriminalised but if you park outside the carpark, your car will get towed away quick damned sharp to the btp compound and you will have to pay to get it back . So maybe just his opinion but some information

HO87

Stigy wrote: »

Unless there's exceptional circumstances, the fact that they have yet to lay these charges with the Mags Court should be enough to justify ignoring them. I say exceptional circumstances in that they'd have to satisfy the court that laying the information with them at 6.5 to 7 months as opposed to the 6 month maximum is in some way justifyable (unable to locate a defendant etc).

There is no provision in the Magistrates Court Act for an information to be laid after the 6 calendar month limit unless the matter was indictable which does not apply to an alleged PCN offence.

peter_the_piper

Can they still send it to mags court after trying to claim it privately? I can't see the logic of allowing that, they won't get any money out of it.

Stigy

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Can they still send it to mags court after trying to claim it privately? I can't see the logic of allowing that, they won't get any money out of it.

That's what they do when trying to get people to pay up their penalty fares. If they still fail to pay, the PF is cancelled and it's off to court for the original byelaw offence.

Vax wrote:

he said no because they dont issue them for parking it is decriminalised but if you park outside the carpark, your car will get towed away quick damned sharp to the btp compound and you will have to pay to get it back . So maybe just his opinion but some information

Parking being decriminalised has nothing to do with it. Surely the decriminalising of parking relates solely to local Government and not to private campanies?

As they'd potentially be using the Railway Byelaws, it's not parking law that's being used, and is still criminal.

jlsmith_2

Stigy wrote: »

That's what they do when trying to get people to pay up their penalty fares. If they still fail to pay, the PF is cancelled and it's off to court for the original byelaw offence.

Stigy - only if the information is laid before a magistrate within six months. By the time they exhaust the PPC process it will be too late. It already is for the first of mine, and will be shortly for the other two.

The open question is about whether the byelaws effectively compel the owner/driver to abide by the terms and conditions of the car park operator. I don't think the byelaws are explicit enough in this respect. Compliance with the terms & conditions is judged under contract (ie civil) law - which is subject to a the lower burden of proof. And I cannot see how a parking company could succeed in a criminal prosecution when as part of that prosecution it would have to demonstrate that the customer broke the terms and conditions, yet has failed to prove this at a County Court under a lower burden of proof.

Final point - has anyone ever been prosecuted for a parking offence under Railway byelaws? In all my internet searching I've never found a single case. I don't believe it's a real prospect - probably for the reasons outlined in VAX2002's post.

peter_the_piper

Stigy wrote: »

That's what they do when trying to get people to pay up their penalty fares. If they still fail to pay, the PF is cancelled and it's off to court for the original byelaw offence.

.

Not being difficult but trying to get my head round it. What you are saying is that they can try to claim under contract(civil) law(with a vague ref to rail bylaws) and if that fails they can have another go under criminal law. Seems very unfair.

Stigy

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Not being difficult but trying to get my head round it. What you are saying is that they can try to claim under contract(civil) law(with a vague ref to rail bylaws) and if that fails they can have another go under criminal law. Seems very unfair.

They can inflate the amount of the penalty fair with admin costs etc, if the person doesn't pay within 21-days. If it is still ignored then the notice is cancelled and the original byelaw offence is charged (bear in mind that the amount they claim in court is compensation for the original ticket and not the cost of the Penalty Fare). PFs are a civil remedy for a criminal offence, and they'll never be prosecuted as an unpaid PF or through the County Court system. I think if any thing, it's fairer, as they are giving the person ample time to pay the PF before they cancel it.

jlsmith, they Byelaw is quite clear as I see it (this is Byelaw 14 as a whole, with the exception of the extract that relates to PCNs);

(2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall
leave or place it on any part of the railway:
(i) in any manner or place where it may cause an
obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using
the railway; or
(ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or
on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person.
(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.

Byelaw 14 (PCN)

(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.
(ii) Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle
or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw
14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or
under the direction of an Operator or authorised person.
(iii) The owner of the motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance
shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the
costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided
that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle
parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed
and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that

As for whether anybody has been prosecuted. I cant answer in respect of Parking Tickets, although it would be easy enough to do with some resourses thrown at it, going to Magistrates' Court, but certainly I've seen people go to Mags court for breaching some part of Byelaw 14, and have reported people for it, too.