Summons to Magistrate's court

Fruitcake

Umkomaas wrote: »

A 'v' has replaced the middle 'w' in www! Too cunning!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/is411aaecsl7hv4/letter%20M.jpg?dl=0

I spotted it second time around after taking out 27 million spaces.

The_Deep

Quentin wrote: »

Why bring fare dodging into this issue about parking tickets??

Because both are the act of failing to pay for a service provided by the TOC.

BrownTrout

You will have to answer the summons on the date in question otherwise the magistrates will proceed in your absence

Coupon-mad

https://www.dropbox.com/s/is411aaecsl7hv4/letter%20M.jpg?dl=0

I've received a summons to the Magistrate's court over 2 occasions on which my car was parked in a railway station carpark without a ticket on display.

No it's not, the summons is not for failing to display.

It is for not paying for parking, so for the third time, why not?

If (you keep avoiding the answer to that!) the driver parked there all day and made no payment - twice - then what did they expect, and this is exactly the sort of rare parking that causes such penalties to exist.

I agree with The Deep, this one is akin to fare dodging.

This is nothing like other Indigo fake penalties; if the driver didn't pay the tariff then this falls under byelaw 14 and IMHO in these rare circumstances, Indigo could pass the data to the TOC under the DPA, under excuse that the sharing of the data is required to uphold a law (byelaw).

- The summons is for a court that is very far away from where I live. Do I get a say in where this takes place?
- The summons is for a date which I cannot make because I have a work engagement. Do I get a say in when this takes place?

AFAIK you have to attend or admit the charge but surely the covering letter or enclosures explain?

Umkomaas

Rather curious as to why Nuneaton Mags when the Royston station is 88 miles away, the vehicle being parked there 3-4 times per week?

twhitehousescat

because its done from admin central office , has royston got a court?

Half_way

Try adding in this railway sub forum for disputes/ prosecutions etc
https://www.railforums.co.uk/forums/disputes-prosecutions.152/

state the byelaw, and any mitigating steps you took, such as tried to pay but system (app) didn't work

The_Deep

I am not sure that an app, (whatever that is), failure would sway a Mag. If I was a Mag it would cut no ice with me.

MadAboutFines

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No it's not, the summons is not for failing to display.

It is for not paying for parking, so for the third time, why not?

If (you keep avoiding the answer to that!) the driver parked there all day and made no payment - twice - then what did they expect, and this is exactly the sort of rare parking that causes such penalties to exist.

I agree with The Deep, this one is akin to fare dodging.

This is nothing like other Indigo fake penalties; if the driver didn't pay the tariff then this falls under byelaw 14 and IMHO in these rare circumstances, Indigo could pass the data to the TOC under the DPA, under excuse that the sharing of the data is required to uphold a law (byelaw).

AFAIK you have to attend or admit the charge but surely the covering letter or enclosures explain?

Hi, the covering letter only states "Please find the enclosed." so it is not clear to me what I can do apart from attend. I did reply about why the driver did not pay, apologies if that was not clear:

"The driver parks in this station car park 3-4 times a week so not quite enough to pay for a weekly subscription. Instead, the driver pays via the app (now run by Saba) on a daily basis from the train which works 99% of the time. On these two occasions, there were issues with the app (wouldn't let the driver log in on the first occasion and froze with an error message on the second occasion) and so the driver did not pay that day."

I am not purposely avoiding the question or if the above looks misleading then it wasn't meant to be that way, the driver always pays but couldn't pay via the app on those two occasions and so did not pay. It is true that the app failing sounds like a weak excuse - if the driver had still been at the location they could have simply purchased a paper ticket, but the driver was on the train already like they always are when they pay via the app, so when that failed there was no other way to pay. This is what happened, not necessarily a claim to say it is a valid reason not to pay.

I am also accepting that I may have to attend, and pay, I am just looking for advice I guess along the lines of the questions I asked initially. I cannot make the date (although I could try to move the work engagement) and the location is very far away from my house (I live near the station) and I am not sure if there are any other steps I can take (for example offering to settle) because the covering letter doesn't state this and I could not find any information on this board around what to do when you receive a letter like this (apart from simply attend).

Coupon-mad

Post on the forum linked by Half_way.

Those posters deal with TOCs every day and might have experience as to whether that TOC accepts settlements or will consider these circumstances if you contact them. Ideally maybe they will negotiate with you and vacate the hearing.