Railway Byelaw 14 NTK

da_rule

So the OP has two main choices really:

1) Pay
2) Don't pay and hope that either they don't pursue the matter or that he gets a switched on panel of magistrates (or ideally a circuit judge sitting in the magistrates) or at least gets leave to appeal

HO87

Alternatively, because it would, in effect, be a private prosecution - or at least one not presented by the CPS - it would be heard at the end of the list by which time the bench would be well hacked off or the DJ exercising his rubber stamp and little higher brain function.

Much as it pains me to say it unless the OP has deep pockets and broad shoulders he would be best placed paying up and putting things down to experience.

The whole byelaw shambles is leaving otherwise innocent people with a criminal conviction (will only show on an enhanced CRB) who were initially shafted thinking they were ignoring a PPC PCN. The wording is lacking and is clearly missing a number of elements that were excised or simple forgotten about. Any reasoned interpretation of Byelaw 14 will conclude that it is grossly incomplete.

ParkingPhil

I'm really grateful for all your replies.


Just so you are aware, I am particularly miffed because I did not recieve an original PCN which offered me the opportunity to deal with Meteor. I bought and (as far as I am aware) correctly displayed a ticket and the first I knew of a contravention was when I got this NTK. I no longer have the ticket because there was no reason I knew of to keep it. I now doubt myself in case it fell on the floor or I put something on top of it or something. If they can demonstrate that in court then I'm up for a serious loss of money.


I don't know how to put show quotes here so I'll just pick out some points you guys have made and hopefully you know what I am referring to.


It took me a while to work out the liability argument. I think what one of you is saying is that if I don't reveal who the driver is, as the owner I still owe the TOC the debt, but the byelaw does not specifically say I am guilty of the legal offence, for which the court can also impose a penalty (which the TOC would't get). Keeping a secret of the fact that I was the driver does not help me in regard to the TOC's charge, only the penalty the court could impose on me. I couldn't say whether that is correct or not but it is moot. Since the charge increases in about a week, it seems to me more sensible to settle.


Regarding the display of the charge, there is no signage that specifically indicates the level of the charge. It only says there will be a charge, the amount of which will be displayed on the PCN (which I did not get). It does not say £50 at this point, £90 at this point, £165 at this point, which my NTK explains. Does that mean they fall foul of 14 (4) (i)? The wording is slightly ambiguous. I'm sure they would argue the charge is as stated on the sign, i.e. the exact amount will be stated on the PCN.


Incidentally, if I have understood the byelaw correctly, there is no limit to the charge the TOC could impose, only the penalty the court can impose for breaking the byelaw. Is that right? I see nothing in the byelaw that would make a charge of £100k unenforceable. The only thing that would stop them (because I doubt common decency would get in the way of making huge amounts of cash) would be the backlash they would get when the media got hold of it.

da_rule

Your point about it falling foul is interesting, it would depend on the courts interpretation of the bylaw (i.e. is the notice sufficient, is the information readily available on the internet etc). Can you remember whether the pay and display machine asked you to input your vehicle registration? The reason I ask is because there may not have been a ticket on the actual car, it may have been an ANPR job, where they check the number plates entering the car park and match them up to a list of numbers entered on the pay and display machine.

There is a cap on the charge. The bylaw caps the fine at level 3, which is currently £1000.

ParkingPhil

No, the ticket machine does not require a number plate to be entered.


The issue with the limit is that there appear to be two amounts of money involved: the penalty from the TOC, allowed for in 14 (4) (i), and the fine imposed by the court for breaching the law. As I read the law, that limit of £1,000 only appears to me to relate to the latter, not the former. What is your opinion?


I certainly wouldn't like to risk court on the interpretation of "as displayed in that area" unless anybody has anything more concrete.


I agree with the poster who said this law is badly written.


I do notice a list of TOCs at the bottom of the byelaw headed "Table of Previous Byelaws". I don't understand what it's showing but I notice that L&SE Trains are not on the list. Is that significant? It wouldn't be a list of the TOCs that are allowed to make use of this byelaw would it?


For the poster who recommended Pepipoo, I have looked through their forums and I can't find much talk of this byelaw. I tried to create an account but there was something not functioning properly when I do.

da_rule

For a criminal sanction (be it on conviction or a penalty notice) the fine cannot exceed the statutory maximum for that offence.

And from a practical point of view, very few people ever get the maximum, and penalty notices are often considerably lower than the maximum to give people an incentive to pay, to save court costs.

4consumerrights

Just so you are aware, I am particularly miffed because I did not recieve an original PCN which offered me the opportunity to deal with Meteor. I bought and (as far as I am aware) correctly displayed a ticket and the first I knew of a contravention was when I got this NTK.

Meteor are actually a wholly owned subsidiary of Vinci.

Many railway stations use private parking companies - there should be the opportunity to appeal even at notice to keeper stage..as many have done.

Can you post up the Notice to keeper recived both sides, redacting all personal information - we can take a look at the wording .

ParkingPhil

I'm not allowed to post attachments. Maybe it's because I'm new?I can e-mail it to somebody who can if that's any good?

da_rule

If you upload them then post the link without the http://www. bit you should be able to pos them, then we can view them.

ParkingPhil

I can't see how to do it. I haven't got a web site I can load it up to and give you a link. I have tried attaching an image and it doesn't let me.