Meteor / Southeastern Parking

jlsmith_2

Stigy wrote: »

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.

Your comments relate to Penalty Fares, not PCNs, which is what I am asking about.

Stigy wrote: »

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.

So section 2 relates to the placement of the car on the 'railway' - and in particular 2ii says that the way the car is parked must be in accordance with instructions given by an Operator. So if I parked across the car park entrance, or outside a bay, conceivably that might be caught by section 2, but I don't think this section can be used to claim a general adherence to all T&Cs. But even if it is, I doubt they can prove at a 'criminal' level of proof a contravention of T&Cs if they have failed to prove it at a 'civil' level of proof.

Section 3 says a parking charge must be paid (by the driver). So they need to prove a charge has not been paid. I have proved to them that a charge was paid on one occasion; on another no PCN was issued but the photographic evidence shows a note in the car window saying that the machines were out of order; and on a third occasion there has been acknowledgement that the charge wasn't paid (for good extenuating reasons - it was physically impossible to pay it) and a remedy offered.

In the instance of out of order machines, the T&Cs state: "13.2. In the event of any pay and display machine failure, the Company, its servants or Agents reserve the right to collect the parking fees either on arrival or at the exit of the Car Park as vehicles leave."

They did not do so, thus no breach of T&Cs on behalf of the driver can be claimed by them.

Stigy wrote: »

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

The owner (note, not the driver) may be liable to pay a penalty AS DISPLAYED IN THE AREA. But as we know, there are no 'penalties' displayed in the area - the T&Cs do not refer either to 'penalties' (of course) nor to any level of possible charge. Therefore, in this case, the owner is not liable to pay a penalty.

Stigy wrote: »

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.

If it was easy enough to do it, they would do it, just like councils do. I don't think Byelaw 14 gives them sufficient leeway. They have set their processes up to follow a PPC route in order to maximise the level of income, but therefore are cutting off the route to imposing a penalty under Section 14 because they do not display any notice of penalty in the area.

Note they have not answered my question as to when they think they issued a Penalty Charge Notice compliant with byelaw 14.

Also, there is no independent appeal process, as there is with council parking tickets, prior to reaching magistrates' court.

To me it's clear that it is only sabre-rattling - if they choose to lay information before a magistrates' court (and they had better hurry up if they are) then I would be delighted to contest & claim costs against them too.

Stigy

jlsmith wrote: »

Your comments relate to Penalty Fares, not PCNs, which is what I am asking about.

I know, but the same system could feasibly be used I'd have thought.

jlsmith wrote:

If it was easy enough to do it, they would do it, just like councils do. I don't think Byelaw 14 gives them sufficient leeway. They have set their processes up to follow a PPC route in order to maximise the level of income, but therefore are cutting off the route to imposing a penalty under Section 14 because they do not display any notice of penalty in the area.

It is easy enough to do, but it's far easier and more direct income to gain income from tickets issued by a PPC.

jlsmith wrote:

Also, there is no independent appeal process, as there is with council parking tickets, prior to reaching magistrates' court.

Does there have to be an independant appeals process for a Strict Liability offence? Often the appeals process is the Magistrates' Court if you look at tickets issued for other Strict Liability offences such as RTA ones (Speeding etc....). Not sure on that one though.

jlsmith_2

Stigy wrote: »

Does there have to be an independant appeals process for a Strict Liability offence? Often the appeals process is the Magistrates' Court if you look at tickets issued for other Strict Liability offences such as RTA ones (Speeding etc....). Not sure on that one though.

Good question - I don't really know the strict legalities, but the existence of one for council tickets would suggest to me that there should be for railway tickets too.

jlsmith_2

PS: not that these were railway tickets, of course!

jlsmith_2

Update - I wrote in the summer explictly denying the debts and threatening to report the debt collectors for harrassment if they contacted me in any way in the future. I've heard absolutely nothing since and all three tickets have long since timed out of the six month limit to lay an information at magistrates' court. So it was all bluff.

vax2002

jlsmith wrote: »

Update - I wrote in the summer explictly denying the debts and threatening to report the debt collectors for harrassment if they contacted me in any way in the future. I've heard absolutely nothing since and all three tickets have long since timed out of the six month limit to lay an information at magistrates' court. So it was all bluff.

Looks like I keep my tenner ! :T
hats off to you sir.