Summons to Magistrate's court

Half_way

Just seen the post on the railway prosecution site, and you havent mentioned what byelaw they are using, instead its been guessed at by the posters over there.

With regards to the failiure of the payment system , if people are using a timetabled form of transport, and a mobile payment system is in place, it would not be unreasonable to expect this mobile payment system to work whilst mobile, especially if waiting would mean missing the train, and the mobile payment had worked this way previously

MadAboutFines

NeilCr wrote: »

Have to say if I was the judge that's how I would see it.

The problem is habit. The driver has commuted from this station for YEARS and paid by app for YEARS now and it works 99% of the time. So they always pay from the train, which made it too late to fix the problem by buying a ticket when the problem did arise. I doubt a judge will have sympathy though!

MadAboutFines

NeilCr wrote: »

Have to say if I was the judge that's how I would see it.

Half_way wrote: »

Just seen the post on the railway prosecution site, and you havent mentioned what byelaw they are using, instead its been guessed at by the posters over there.

With regards to the failiure of the payment system , if people are using a timetabled form of transport, and a mobile payment system is in place, it would not be unreasonable to expect this mobile payment system to work whilst mobile, especially if waiting would mean missing the train, and the mobile payment had worked this way previously

Thank you so much for the heads up, I have added info on there. It's interesting what you say because that is my gut feeling but I am not sure how much of that comes into play with the law, just like I feel it's unfair that debt collectors asked me to pay £200 (and most recently £360) for two occasions on which £8.10 wasn't paid, when the TOC have received £1000s over the years in dutiful daily payments for parking. But that is not how the law works I think, based on the really strong reaction from regulars on here - and if you look at the facts I am definitely in the wrong because I did not pay for parking when I knew I should have.

I am not sure where the other forum will get to but I think it will be best to try to settle because I think the only place I will be given an opportunity to defend would be in front of the magistrate and I would have no idea where to begin or how to tackle that and probably just end up p*ssing the magistrate off!

waamo

MadAboutFines wrote: »

Thank you so much for the heads up, I have added info on there. It's interesting what you say because that is my gut feeling but I am not sure how much of that comes into play with the law, just like I feel it's unfair that debt collectors asked me to pay £200 (and most recently £360) for two occasions on which £8.10 wasn't paid, when the TOC have received £1000s over the years in dutiful daily payments for parking. But that is not how the law works I think, based on the really strong reaction from regulars on here - and if you look at the facts I am definitely in the wrong because I did not pay for parking when I knew I should have.

I am not sure where the other forum will get to but I think it will be best to try to settle because I think the only place I will be given an opportunity to defend would be in front of the magistrate and I would have no idea where to begin or how to tackle that and probably just end up p*ssing the magistrate off!

I would hang fire for now. Take a very careful read of the post by Handbags-at-dawn

MadAboutFines

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

It’s a funny sort of summons. A summons on complaint, which comes under the Magistrates ‘ civil jurisdiction. See Part 2, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/contents

So it’s not a criminal prosecution. It’s an application for a civil order but they don’t say what.

Thanks Handbags-at-dawn, I have read Part 2 and have drawn some conclusions from it but not sure they are right....! Maybe I should call the court tomorrow and ask for help to understand the summons.

MadAboutFines

waamo wrote: »

I would hang fire for now. Take a very careful read of the post by Handbags-at-dawn

Thanks Waamo.

Coupon-mad

MadAboutFines wrote: »

Thanks Handbags-at-dawn, I have read Part 2 and have drawn some conclusions from it but not sure they are right....! Maybe I should call the court tomorrow and ask for help to understand the summons.

Search to see if you have a local free Law Centre. Some areas do.

Castle

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

It’s a funny sort of summons. A summons on complaint, which comes under the Magistrates ‘ civil jurisdiction. See Part 2, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/contents

So it’s not a criminal prosecution. It’s an application for a civil order but they don’t say what.

Byelaw 14(4)(1) I'm guessing.

Handbags-at-dawn

Castle wrote: »

Byelaw 14(4)(1) I'm guessing.

A complaint is not allowed to leave the defendant guessing.
The TOC would have a lot of difficulty with this:-
I. The complaint merely alleges the car was parked in breach of the Byelaws. It’s not a complaint the OP hasn’t paid a Byelaw 14.4.1 penalty.
2. The penalty cannot be payable on the basis of a mere allegation anyway.
3. The Byelaw only says the owner “may” be liable. Nothing in the Byelaws to say when the owner in fact is liable.
4. There is nothing to say when the penalty must be paid by.
5. There is nothing in the Byelaws stating who can impose it.
6. The DfT has declared that no-one but the Court may impose a penalty.

So there is no civil debt for which the Magistrates have jurisdiction to order payment.

Handbags-at-dawn

The Dropbox link to the copy of the Summons is broken - could you re-instate it?
You should also show us the covering letter which is hidden behind the Summons on your photo.

Since this is a departure from their normal practice, the Notice to Owner and follow up letters from ZZPS/QDR may also be different from what we've seen before, so please would you post them up as well.