advice on northern rail parking fine please

esmerobbo

cjj wrote: »

Northern rail today rejected the appeal. Did exactly as coupon- mad suggested and wrote a polite letter. They are saying I should have parked in a marked bay, but signage states " park in marked bays and authorised areas only " ,which I thought it was as no yellow lines and not causing obstruction. Other users regularly parked in same place etc.i don't know what happens now as they have given us 14days to pay £50 and does not state what they will do if we dont pay. Thanks all x

Its pay or a likely trip to Magistrates court then with Northern rail one of the few who do prosecute byelaw 14's.

Last one I saw on Pepipoo ended up over £700!



http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=70164&st=40

cjj_2

Thanks. Don't fancy a trip to the magistrates at all . Think I may have to pay up x

cjj_2

Forgot to mention on ppn there was an option for them to tick "was not parked in a designated area" and they did not tick this. Only thing ticked was "was not parked in a marked bay"
Signage stated "park in marked bays and authorised areas only". This is confusing x

Stigy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Thing is, the ONLY offences covered by bylaw 14 seem to be not paying for a P&D ticket (as I understand it) or breach of clear t&cs as specifically displayed in the car park. So technically that's the only sort of offence they can take to Magistrates' Court if you do not pay.

Byelaw 14(3) takes in to account non-payment. 14(2) takes in to account all other parking issues. The compensation at court, if applicable, would be the avoided charge, not the PCN amount. If no cost was avoided, then no compensation would be owed, but that's not to stop Magistrates' Court proceedings, unlike in the CC where they'd have to evidence a loss.

Coupon-mad

So with your knowledge, would you pay it, Stigy? We know Northern Rail do follow these through to Magistrate's Court and no-one on pepipoo has braved it yet...they paid up. So we haven't seen an outcome.

cjj_2

RENEGADE wrote: »

Let us know what was said. I mean, even an initial rejection by them may not spell the end of the road for you.

Would love to know what renegade meant by this x

Stigy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So with your knowledge, would you pay it, Stigy? We know Northern Rail do follow these through to Magistrate's Court and no-one on pepipoo has braved it yet...they paid up. So we haven't seen an outcome.

If it's a genuine Byelaw ticket, then yes, I'd pay it. I'd always appeal in the first instance though, especially if I felt hard done by. The Strict Liability nature of the Byelaw offence means there's little defence. The only defence I could see is that there was no place to pay, and to be fair, if that was the case, a PCN shouldn't have been issued anyway.

If there's no spaces and you breach Byelaw 14(2) for example, at best you've got mitigation, or a very weak defence. For the sake of £80 to end it, I'd take it and put it down to experience.

jkdd77

Stigy wrote: »

If it's a genuine Byelaw ticket, then yes, I'd pay it. I'd always appeal in the first instance though, especially if I felt hard done by. The Strict Liability nature of the Byelaw offence means there's little defence. The only defence I could see is that there was no place to pay, and to be fair, if that was the case, a PCN shouldn't have been issued anyway.

If there's no spaces and you breach Byelaw 14(2) for example, at best you've got mitigation, or a very weak defence. For the sake of £80 to end it, I'd take it and put it down to experience.

The advice by at least two solicitors on Pepipoo appears to be that it is the *driver* who commits the offence, that, in a criminal case, it is for the TOC to prove the identity of the driver beyond reasonable doubt (which, in the absence of an admission, they usually can't), and that, whilst the owner may be civilly liable under 14(4)(i), failure by the owner to pay the ticket is not an offence in itself. How would the TOC prove the identity of the owner, (who may not necessarily be the RK and might be, for example, a hire purchase firm), anyway?

That said, it appears that magistrates have been convicting regardless of the complete absence of driver ID (as per the linked thread), and in your case it sounds like you've already admitted to being the driver anyway.

jameswakey

I got the same fine, Contravention 1 "Was not parked in a marked bay" Contravention 2 "Not parked in a designated area" thing is I use the car park regularly and the space I was in was in a line three other cars were parked there and are everyday, I have used the same spot for a few weeks now with no issue. I have not yet appealed therefore they have no evidence that I have actually received the ticket (Anyone could have removed this from my car, blown off etc) so should I appeal and identify myself as the driver or could I get away with pleading ignorance?

pogofish

jameswakey wrote: »

I got the same fine, Contravention 1 "Was not parked in a marked bay" Contravention 2 "Not parked in a designated area" thing is I use the car park regularly and the space I was in was in a line three other cars were parked there and are everyday, I have used the same spot for a few weeks now with no issue. I have not yet appealed therefore they have no evidence that I have actually received the ticket (Anyone could have removed this from my car, blown off etc) so should I appeal and identify myself as the driver or could I get away with pleading ignorance?

Start your own thread please - do not bump old/outdated threads"