Railway Penalty Ignored Best Course of Action?

pappa_golf

can I jump in


if this "is" a bylaw offence then POPLa cannot act on it , and must refer you back to the PPC/train operating Co


as you well know , there is a 6 mth time limit for the TOC to press charges in a magistrates court


I think a game of second class "ping pong" is called for , including letters to the BPA demanding a POPLa code or shut up , BUT NOT mentioning bylaws


we must be coming up close to 100 days now , 80 to go?

Coupon-mad

pappagolf as it is CP Plus they DO offer POPLA codes for these cases normally - certainly they did last year.


Yes, Canyon, state that the appeal was sent in time to PCS - a company you are aware are a trading name of DRP - and they appear to have overlooked the small matter of the POPLA code.

And ask how they contend the keeper is liable.

The reason I suggest you contact DRP about this is because they have an email address that I know they do reply from and you say they have replied. I'm not aware of a PCS email address and there's no point delaying this or wasting money on stamps!

Was the PCS letter that you got, headed up 'Notice to Keeper' or 'Notice to Owner' or something different? I am wondering if you actually appealed to a subsequent letter and that they are contending there was an earlier NTK.

pappa_golf

CM , I am aware that they do offer codes , however my intention was to reveal to POPLa the fact that they admit its under railway bylaws and put POPLa in a position of declining the appeal or being ridiculed in a civil court , and at the end of the day a magistrates timeout

Canyon_2

pappa golf - agreed coming up to 100 days.

CM, my 'appeal' (I didn't actually appeal I asked what their process for appeal was and the evidence which they took as an appeal!) was via email using the Enquiries@parkingcsl.co.uk address found on the NTK. Which was titled 'Unpaid Penalty Notice - £120' or on the right side under CPPlus logo Penalty Notice Reminder. So I do have a trail going already with PCS although they state they may not reply.

So as the owner from the first information I received on the matter I replied within their timeframe. They have taken a question as an appeal and sent a DRP letter as well.

So a reply back to PCS stating grounds for appeal and asking for a Popla code?

Coupon-mad

Yes you may as well as you have an email address - but I would not add grounds for appeal as that alerts them to the fact you are adding them very late. You don't need to add anything if they took your first contact as an appeal.

More important then would be to state you appealed when the first letter arrived on xx/xx/xx and as it was the first letter, this was considered to be the Notice to Keeper. If they contend there was a prior letter, you require a full copy of it, both sides of that letter and an explanation of whether they contend the keeper is liable in this case, and why.

Then finish by saying you still await a POPLA code and will be complaining to the BPA.

Just to flush out some info, really...and do wait till 23rd to get closer to the 6 months each time. No rush!

I don't think you will get a POPLA code and expect they'll insist there was an earlier NTK.

A big fat 'so what' really! You will then be ignoring these letters a bit longer until they stop, but will at least know whether there 'was' (allegedly in their mad 'laalaa' World) an earlier NTK and also once past the 6 months you will know it can't go to Magistrates court.

By the way, DRP will have made it obvious it's county court they are talking about by threats of court action 'affecting credit rating' and alarmist stuff about CCJs (neither is true, they cannot litigate) but it shows they are talking about a different sort of court than PCS their sister company. Clear as mud and all rubbish.

Canyon_2

I will follow up as you suggest next week and let you know the outcome.

By the way, DRP will have made it obvious it's county court they are talking about by threats of court action 'affecting credit rating' and alarmist stuff about CCJs (neither is true, they cannot litigate) but it shows they are talking about a different sort of court than PCS their sister company. Clear as mud and all rubbish.

Actually there is no mention of any of this it really just repeats what the PCS follow up says. The only additional info is about liability for this charge on the back. Which says the driver of the vehicle at the time is responsible for this charge...However in certain circumstances set out in POFA liability may be transferred to the keeper.

As recommended I haven't identified the driver.

pappa_golf

I think you need to read this


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/enforcement_of_railway_byelaw_14?nocache=outgoing-516142#outgoing-516142




Then the PoFA does not apply if there are statutoy powers in place. The DfT has said that if there are statutory powers and you choose not to use them, preferring instead to use a PPC and the law of contract, then the DVLA will not make data available. The DfT does not appear to be living up to that assurance.




oh what a shambles

Canyon_2

Are there known cases of a TOC taking people to court for this infringement?

pappa_golf

there was one on pepipoo a few mths ago , but we think it was a hoax


read it but then re read post 35 http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=101327


if the case was true , the guy admitted to the wrong offence


time is your saviour (6 mths) if it went to the magistrates court the PPC would get nothing , neither would the debt recovery lot , come to think of it neither would the TOC , it would go to the government!




is it a fine or is it a bribe? https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/151812/response/375054/attach/5/Document%204b.pdf

HO87

@pappa golf

The overall game here is to delay the entire process so that the 6 months passes which, regardless of their approach, removes the possibility of a magistrates court summons. Playing the various parties off against each other and exploiting the differences in approach must form part of that. It is better, from the OP's perspective at the moment, not to nail things down and there is a risk, if the "they admit its railway byelaws" is used to box things into a corner that that is the way things will stay - at POPLA or elsewhere.

@OP - if you happened across this thread on PePiPoo - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=101327&st=0 about a supposed prosecution under the byelaws then you can discount it, assuming you haven't read all the way through.

There were doubts about the OP's initial account but it has now been shown that Southeastern Trains did not issue any proceedings during the relevant time. It is suggested that the entire story was the product of an overactive imagination.