Railway Byelaw 14 NTK

HO87

da_rule wrote: »

Bylaw 14(4)(i) does introduce owner liability.

It does, but only in respect of a penalty provided that that penalty was displayed in the area at the time. It does not make them liable for the specific offences in 14(1) or 14(3) and nor is there an offence of failing to pay the penalty. If they seeking to impose the penalty one would expect them to cite 14(4)(1) not as they appeared to have done on the notice the OP has received. They are being careless or more likely don't actually understand the wording.

da_rule

HO87 wrote: »

It does, but only in respect of a penalty provided that that penalty was displayed in the area at the time. It does not make them liable for the specific offences in 14(1) or 14(3) and nor is there an offence of failing to pay the penalty. If they seeking to impose the penalty one would expect them to cite 14(4)(1) not as they appeared to have done on the notice the OP has received. They are being careless or more likely don't actually understand the wording.

It actually does. 14(4)(i) states: "The owner of any motor vehicle ... left or places in breach of Bylaw 14(1) to 14(3) maybe liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area."

So as long as there was a sign with the penalty amount on it the owner can be liable.

HO87

da_rule wrote: »

It actually does. 14(4)(i) states: "The owner of any motor vehicle ... left or places in breach of Bylaw 14(1) to 14(3) maybe liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area."

So as long as there was a sign with the penalty amount on it the owner can be liable.

Is there some element of the way I have worded my previous posts in which my comments/summation has failed to make the point? Making the keeper liable for the payment of a penalty does not in anyway render them liable for the substantive offence. That offence can only be committed by the "person in charge of a vehicle". In order for a penalty to be payable the offence must already be complete - without the complete offence there can be no liability. The provision doesn't render the keeper liable to be pursued for the substantive offence just a liability for the penalty. As I have previously said, however, there is no enforcement provisions beyond that and specifically there is no offence of failing to pay the penalty.

jobdone1

Pays to purchase a ticket in the first place.

da_rule

A contravention of a bylaw creates criminal liability. The body responsible for enforcing the bylaw can offer a conditional offer of a fixed penalty notice, conditional on it being paid within XX days. If it isn't then court proceedings can be commenced. The court proceedings should then be brought under bylaw 14(4). The liability to bylaw is no different to the liability for, say a council issued ticket for parking on double yellows. The council will first offer a conditional fixed penalty notice (normally followed by a letter to the keeper) and then proceed to court. If the owner/registered keeper was not the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence then they need to tell the relevant body. The point is quite simple, the bylaws allow for an owner to be liable for the breach of the bylaws by someone who was in charge of the vehicle. The fact that they are offering to deal with it by fixed penalty rather than going straight to court is just to save both sides time and money. The thing that muddies the water somewhat is the fact that they use a private parking company to do the leg work.

HO87

da_rule wrote: »

A contravention of a bylaw creates criminal liability. The body responsible for enforcing the bylaw can offer a conditional offer of a fixed penalty notice, conditional on it being paid within XX days. If it isn't then court proceedings can be commenced. The court proceedings should then be brought under bylaw 14(4). The liability to bylaw is no different to the liability for, say a council issued ticket for parking on double yellows. The council will first offer a conditional fixed penalty notice (normally followed by a letter to the keeper) and then proceed to court. If the owner/registered keeper was not the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence then they need to tell the relevant body. The point is quite simple, the bylaws allow for an owner to be liable for the breach of the bylaws by someone who was in charge of the vehicle. The fact that they are offering to deal with it by fixed penalty rather than going straight to court is just to save both sides time and money. The thing that muddies the water somewhat is the fact that they use a private parking company to do the leg work.

I wonder if you could point me to all of the underlying provisions that makes this "penalty" a conditional offer and where, in the byelaws the conditionality, if there is any, is set out? Where are the powers necessary to do this beyond what is provided for in Byelaw 14(4)(1)?

This is most certainly not a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty which has a clear and established meaning and to suggest otherwise is to mislead.

Please explain where, in the byelaws, is the offence that the keeper commits as you suggest? 14(4)(1) despite your creative interpretation does not create one it merely establishes a liability to pay the penalty and nothing else.

da_rule

All fixed penalty notices are, by their nature, conditional. They are conditional on:
1) You accept guilt,
2) You pay the specified amount,
3) You do the above by a specified day.

I also fail to see how they could make 14(4)(i) any clearer. If you own a vehicle and it is left in breach of any of the bylaws 14(1) - 14(3) you are liable for payment of the fine. They are alleging a breach of bylaw 14, it would appear from the OP's original post they are not mentioning specific subsections. As long as the signage in that area set out (a) how much the fixed penalty notice would be for (including any discount) and (b) if you ignored the penalty notices how much the fine could be (level 3 on the standard scale) then it would be compliant. It would appear from the OP's post that they are, at the moment, attempting to get payment by applying bylaw 14 in a broad way. Should the matter go to court the owner (the OP) would be liable under 14(4) as the owner of a vehicle which breached the bylaw.

da_rule

I have no doubt that 14(4) would be ultra vires and it appears that Meteor bring very few (if any) prosecutions. My point is simply that the bylaws are drafted in such a way that whilst not making the owner liable for the parking offence they do create liability for non-payment of fine. Now whether you can make someone liable for paying the fine of another person is a completely different legal debate.

HO87

da_rule wrote: »

I have no doubt that 14(4) would be ultra vires and it appears that Meteor bring very few (if any) prosecutions. My point is simply that the bylaws are drafted in such a way that whilst not making the owner liable for the parking offence they do create liability for non-payment of fine. Now whether you can make someone liable for paying the fine of another person is a completely different legal debate.

My point entirely.

spacey2012

The Problem with the arguments is you would initially be dealt with by Magistrates.
They do not have to follow any law and often do not, disregarding the advice of the legal clerk appears to be part of the job.
If you are wanting to argue points of law, you must be prepared to appeal a magistrates decision so it reaches a higher court where the law must be applied.
At magistrates, you get what they say you get, around 40% of appeals are not challenged and those that are around 30 - 35% are successful.