Summons to Magistrate's court

waamo

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

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.

Indeed. The paperwork that is missing may be incredibly important. If you no longer have it then send a SAR to get it.

MadAboutFines

Summons:

First letter:

Second letter:

Third letter:


I have added the full correspondence I have had for this now; I am not currently at home so cannot add the first page of the summons unfortunately but will do so when I am back. All it says is something along the lines of 'Please find enclosed' - there is no additional text or anything.

MadAboutFines

Castle wrote: »

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

Hi, yes, the summons quotes Byelaw 14(4)(i).

Quentin

#OP

Are your initials **?

If so take down those links as they all show your full name

MadAboutFines

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

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.

Thank you for explaining this HaD. I guess this is the kind of stuff I would have to defend myself with on the day? I had the advice on another forum that in the decision tree for where I am now, after the decision of trying to settle or not in advance of the case, the next stage would be to either plead guilty (and pay a fine plus costs, so it seems a better idea to try to settle in that case) or not guilty and risk being found guilty and paying a much bigger fine. That poster implied it would be a criminal conviction even if it is a complaint for a civil order.

They also recommended posting on Pepipoo which I will do a bit later today.

MadAboutFines

Quentin wrote: »

#OP

Are your initials MD?

If so take down those links as they all show your full name

Thanks Quentin, I've deleted them now. I was really pleased I got the links up after failing yesterday, and I thought I had redacted the photos! Will have to look at it again when I am at home to work out what I did wrong.

Castle

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

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.

Here's the F.O.I request with regards to point 6.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/enforcement_of_railway_byelaw_14?unfold=1#incoming-770331

MadAboutFines

Castle wrote: »

Here's the F.O.I request with regards to point 6.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/enforcement_of_railway_byelaw_14?unfold=1#incoming-770331

Thanks Castle! One to get familiar with, crikey....!

MadAboutFines

I have uploaded all photos to one link: . I hope this works better and is showing up properly redacted....!

Quentin

You can post live links now

No need for hxxp etc