Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Was late producing ticket - now they want to take me to court - help!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4946 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I left my season ticket behind one day and was stopped and issued with a penalty fare ticket. I was told if I produce my ticket I wouldn't have to pay the fine. He didn't mention I had 21 days to do so and I sent it in late.

 

Revenue Protection then refused my appeal and fined me £60. I wrote saying it was unfair and now they've sent me a summons to court!

 

Given that I had paid the fare so am not avoiding paying for my travel it seems grossly unfair. Less like revenue protection and more like extortion.

 

Any ideas? Should I go to court? Or is that madness?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was wrong of the Revenue Protection Staff to say you wouldn't have to pay the PF if you produced your season ticket in the first place, as unfortunately you had already commited a byelaw offence (18.1) for failing to be able to produce a ticket for your journey on demand. Although it may seem unfair to you, these time limits of appeal are in place in order to remain consistant in all cases of appeal. How long did you think you had to produce your ticket? Surely the normal thing to do would be produce it as soon as you located it? At least that way IRCAS or IPSS (think that's what the latter is...) could reject your appeal but still only make you liable for the Penalty Fare!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was wrong of the Revenue Protection Staff to say you wouldn't have to pay the PF if you produced your season ticket in the first place, as unfortunately you had already commited a byelaw offence (18.1) for failing to be able to produce a ticket for your journey on demand. Although it may seem unfair to you, these time limits of appeal are in place in order to remain consistant in all cases of appeal. How long did you think you had to produce your ticket? Surely the normal thing to do would be produce it as soon as you located it? At least that way IRCAS or IPSS (think that's what the latter is...) could reject your appeal but still only make you liable for the Penalty Fare!

 

Thanks for the response. To be honest I forgot about it, which is why I sent proof of my ticket in late. It is still proof of purchase, whether it's within their entirely arbitrary time limit or not. It strikes me that Revenue Protection should be about protecting revenue not generating income from fares that have already been paid. I'm guilty of forgetfulness but I feel I am being mugged here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response. To be honest I forgot about it, which is why I sent proof of my ticket in late. It is still proof of purchase, whether it's within their entirely arbitrary time limit or not. It strikes me that Revenue Protection should be about protecting revenue not generating income from fares that have already been paid. I'm guilty of forgetfulness but I feel I am being mugged here.
What would you have done had the RPI/A just charged you the full single fare for your rail journey and not chosen to PF you? Probably wouldn't have liked it much, as no doubt in your opinion you should have been given the benefit of the doubt. The point I'm trying to make here is that what ever amount you were charged, to you it would have looked like you were being mugged. Unfortunately people do try and play the system like this, and the RPA/I was just playing it safe with the Penalty Fare. Had he/she had any doubt as to whether you intended to defraud the company, then they would have gone straight down the unfortunate road that you seem to have gone down now.

 

21 days is 21 days, and it's the same with most appeals processes I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I would have accepted a single fare but wasn't given that option. It would have been £3.10. I still had to buy a ticket for the rest of my journey so the railway is already up on the deal. I appreciate it's my own stupid fault, but it is absurd to have to pay so much for, well, nothing. It seems like opportunistic money making from honest passengers to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I would have accepted a single fare but wasn't given that option. It would have been £3.10. I still had to buy a ticket for the rest of my journey so the railway is already up on the deal. I appreciate it's my own stupid fault, but it is absurd to have to pay so much for, well, nothing. It seems like opportunistic money making from honest passengers to me.

Unfortunately I can't really offer any advice that you'll like the sound of, and I'm pretty sure it'll be the same with the other members. Presumably it's the TOC that sent you the summons to court? What did the summons say? Whatever happens now, it's likely to cost you I'm afraid. What train company is this, out of interest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The summons came directly from the Magistrates Court. It states I was unable to produce a season ticket and did not respond to their letters, though it does include a copy of my letter, which was sent after the 21 day limit. I guess it would have been Southeastern Trains as it was at Waterloo East. Am expecting a child within days yet am expected to fork out £128.10 for a £3.10 fare I had already paid. My fault and they are within their legal rights but that doesn't mean it's morally right. I wonder what revenue they are protecting when there is no revenue missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are probably just trying to recoup their costs from administering a system of checking tickets that should have been shown on the day but due to your actions wasnt.

Personally I dont think it will proceed at court IF you have later produced a valid ticket for the journey concerned.

(Lots of people produce a ticket either not theirs or purchased after being stopped in the mis-guided belief that will be ok).

Even if it did, a bench is likely to give you an absolute discharge with either no or very small costs awarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The summons came directly from the Magistrates Court. It states I was unable to produce a season ticket and did not respond to their letters, though it does include a copy of my letter, which was sent after the 21 day limit. I guess it would have been Southeastern Trains as it was at Waterloo East. Am expecting a child within days yet am expected to fork out £128.10 for a £3.10 fare I had already paid. My fault and they are within their legal rights but that doesn't mean it's morally right. I wonder what revenue they are protecting when there is no revenue missing.
What I was trying to say was actually who was the TOC and did they speak to you via the mail at all? So just how long has this been going on for? If you've been summonsed to court it must have been dragging out for some time? There's one of two things you can do now, you can either try and settle the matter out of court, or go to court and plead either guilty or not guilty. Where did the £128.10 come from? Is that how much you'll have to pay to keep the matter out of court?
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was wrong of the Revenue Protection Staff to say you wouldn't have to pay the PF if you produced your season ticket in the first place, as unfortunately you had already commited a byelaw offence (18.1) for failing to be able to produce a ticket for your journey on demand. Although it may seem unfair to you, these time limits of appeal are in place in order to remain consistant in all cases of appeal. How long did you think you had to produce your ticket? Surely the normal thing to do would be produce it as soon as you located it? At least that way IRCAS or IPSS (think that's what the latter is...) could reject your appeal but still only make you liable for the Penalty Fare!

Some TOC's do have a policy where you will be issued a nil paid PF if you are a season ticket holder and have 21 days to provide a photocopy of your season, only 2 such occasions are allowed in any 12 month period though.

Views expressed in this forum by me are my own personal opinion and you take it on face value! I make any comments to the best of my knowledge but you take my advice at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some TOC's do have a policy where you will be issued a nil paid PF if you are a season ticket holder and have 21 days to provide a photocopy of your season, only 2 such occasions are allowed in any 12 month period though.

Well, you learn something new every day I guess!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed they do; and from the OP's point of view, what makes it worse is that some TOC's will refund any subsitute tickets bought during the validity of the Season.

 

So would have cost him NOTHING in the long run.

 

To Vincenzoo:

 

What reason box was ticked on the PF? 'Fail to carry Season Ticket'?

 

What period was it valid for- your Season I mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but what does TOC stand for?

 

To Grotesque: Yes, the Notice said 'Failure to carry season ticket (not weekly).

 

Though it was in fact, a weekly.

 

Will write a statement in mitigation to the clerk of the Court, including a bank statement proving that the ticket was mine, and see where it takes me.

 

Thanks for all your comments, everyone.

 

To Stigy: The £128.10 comes from the outstanding fare 'avoided' and the sum of £125 which is claimed as a contribution towards the prosecution costs.

 

It's bonkers if it goes to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but what does TOC stand for?

 

To Grotesque: Yes, the Notice said 'Failure to carry season ticket (not weekly).

 

Though it was in fact, a weekly.

 

Will write a statement in mitigation to the clerk of the Court, including a bank statement proving that the ticket was mine, and see where it takes me.

 

Thanks for all your comments, everyone.

 

To Stigy: The £128.10 comes from the outstanding fare 'avoided' and the sum of £125 which is claimed as a contribution towards the prosecution costs.

 

It's bonkers if it goes to court.

TOC = Train Operating Company

 

Shouldn't the outstanding fare be the single for the journey you had made? I know that the PF was initially £20, then subsequently incurred the £60 on top of that, but the amount they are taking you to court for shouldn't be that of a weekly ticket, surely? Or am I completely missing the point? The season ticket box being ticked was probably the most appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For further reading, look at the case of Eastern Counties Railways v Woodard. An annual season ticket holder is required to show a ticket the same as any other passenger.

 

Passengers must carry their ticket, and must show it on demand. The Inspector will have heard about cases where 'boyfriend' uses 'girlfriend's ticket' to get out of the station, 'girlfriend' says 'I have left my ticket at home'. It happens. Maybe not in this case, but that is why railways will take a 'hard line' with failure to show train tickets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...