Railway Bylaws and PPCs

pappa_golf

I have no need to joust with you , you seem to have jumped on my "simplification"c of matters and gone off at a tangent

you have mentioned the IPC , I have no interest in what the IPC think or do ,lets await the outcome from POPLa .

HO87

pappa_golf wrote: »

I have no need to joust with you , you seem to have jumped on my "simplification"c of matters and gone off at a tangent

you have mentioned the IPC , I have no interest in what the IPC think or do ,lets await the outcome from POPLa .

As I have commented in the past sometimes simplifications are overly simplistic.

Northlakes

This comment in the Times in reply to this article was interesting.

Indigo operates several railway car parks. !They issue penalty tickets which are not based on breach of contract. These charges are "opportunities to avoid a criminal prosecution", in other words, "pay us a fine and we won't report you to the train operating company", since only the TOC can initiate a Magistrate's court action for a byelaw breach. !This approach is equivalent to solicitation of bribes, and may be illegal under the Bribery Act 2010. Only the government benefits from a Magistrate's court fine, so TOCs don't actually want the hassle.!

pappa_golf

much the same as doing a speed awareness course and upon completion you will not be reported for further legal action.

hell it the "establishment" can do it , why not the TOCs and PPCs

Handbags-at-dawn

Can I just expand on this? The TOCs who employ Indigo as their agents - London Overground and the Govia-owned Thameslink, London Midland, Great Northern, Gatwick Express, and the the trouble-strewn Southern - cover a huge swathe of the country so it is a really important point.

Indigo's standard car park signs say:
"A Penalty Notice may be issued for any breach of the conditions above and, in accordance with Railway Byelaw 14(4)(1), the penalty for such breach is £100.......Failure to pay is an offence under railway byelaw 24(1)....."

Anybody reading those words would naturally believe the "penalty" is a statutory fixed penalty - imposed under some sort of statutory fixed penalty regime. It's not of course: as the DfT has said, only the Courts have the power to impose penalties for breach of Byelaw 14. So this looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead. It is also pretty apparent that the TOCs/Indigo know it: the NtKs sent out by their agents ZZPS soften the wording and the penalty suddenly becomes "an offer to allow you an opportunity to avoid a criminal prosecution".

This was confirmed in an email I got from ZZPS which says:
"Penalty Notices issued on railway assets are an offer of resolution to avoid prosecution, if this offer is not accepted, then the operator may pursue the offender through the Magistrates Court by way of a private criminal prosecution."

So: it's not, after all, a penalty which must be paid, and which it is an offence not to pay; instead it's a contractual offer, which you can accept or not - up to you. Yet in the same breath the NtK tells the Keeper "You are legally liable for this penalty even if you were the not the driver at the time".

Right. So in TOC land you can be liable for a contractual offer even before you have accepted it. And payment of a bribe is obligatory.

trisontana

Here is an example of the muddled signs from East Midlands Trains that cannot make up its mind about penalties and parking charge notices

Castle

How one motorist recovered their "bribe" thanks to Bargepole's help:-
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/bargepole-assists-motorist-to-reclaim.html

peter_the_piper

trisontana wrote: »

Here is an example of the muddled signs from East Midlands Trains that cannot make up its mind about penalties and parking charge notices

I think its not muddled, they know exactly what parts apply to b14 and what not. What they have done is mix them up deliberately to confuse the drivers.

Or am I giving them too much sense.

Northlakes

Another comment from the Times who looks to know what they are talking about.

Nigel Byrom 13 hours ago


The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) only applies to vehicles parked on "relevant land".! Para
3(1) defines such land, and sub-sub -para (c) includes any land on which parking is subject to statutory
control. Sub-para (3) states that such control exists! "..... if any statutory provision imposes a liability whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind...."! applies
to the parking.! Statutory provision, in turn, is defined in sub-para (4) as! (a) any Act (including a local
or private Act), whenever passed; or (b)! subordinate legislation including, inter alia, any order,!
regulations, BYELAWS or other legislative instrument.! Railway Parking Contravention Charge Notices
(PCCN's) are sometimes justified in accordance with the Railway By-Laws under section 219 of the
Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Railway Authority and confirmed under Schedule 20 of the same
Act on 22 June 2005 by the Secretary of State for Transport. Attention is specifically drawn to Railway
By-Law 14 which goes on to state: ".....in England and Wales the owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or
other conveyance, used left or placed in breach of By-Law 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty
as displayed in that area."!
Much though private parking operators would wish to operate freely in railway car parks, it is difficult to see, from the foregoing, how such car parks are 'relevant land' and come within the ambit of POFA.
Similar arguments would also appear to apply at car parks at airports and harbours/ferry terminals
quays etc where By-Laws (normally enforceable in a Magistrates Court) usually appear to apply.

trisontana

According to the Parking Prankster POPLA have now decided to hear bylaw cases. What a mess it's going to be.:-

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/popla-to-hear-byelaw-cases.html

Note the comment by Hotel Oscar 87 regarding proof of guilt in criminal cases.