Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

vb44

Being prosecuted by South West trains. Could it be a criminal conviction?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2728 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Sorry it's perhaps not what you wanted to hear, but I should have added to the long message above.

 

The amount that you have been ordered to pay by the Court is due by 30th March as they specify.

 

If you do not intend to appeal the sentence and are going to make payment that should now be paid in full, but if this payment will cause you immediate hardship or difficulty, you should contact the 'Fines Officer' at the Court where your case was heard without delay.

 

The address will be on the papers that you have received, and you should explain the difficulty and ask for time to pay.

 

The Fines Officer will be able to set up a repayment plan by manageable instalments, which you must keep to until it is cleared.

 

If you have difficulty in making any instalment then you must again contact the Fines Officer to request any variation.

 

Hi Old-CodJA,

 

Sorry to bring this up again after all these years

 

 

but I have received a letter from South West Trains Prosecuting Office

saying they are reviewing my case and I have 14 days to provide any mitigating circumstances.

 

 

"My Case" is being on a train without a ticket due to the machine not being working.

 

 

I didn't buy one at the interchange and so although not happy about it,

I am willing to accept that I am guilty.

 

 

My concern comes over whether I will have a criminal record at the end of this

i.e. what is the full extent of the prosecution?

 

 

I can deal with a fine but really don't want to have criminal record.

 

Thanks,

vb44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HiOld-CodJA,

 

Sorry to bring this up again after all these years but I have received a letter from South West Trains Prosecuting Office saying they are reviewing my case and I have 14 days to provide any mitigating circumstances. "My Case"is being on a train without a ticket due to the machine not being working. Ididn't buy one at the interchange and so although not happy about it, I am willing to accept that I am guilty. My concern comes over whether I will havea criminal record at the end of this i.e. what is the full extent of the prosecution? I can deal with a fine but really don't want to have criminal record.

 

Thanks,

 

vb44

 

This will depend on what charge they actually put before the Court.

 

Only conviction for 'intent to avoid a fare' ( RRA Section 5. (1889)) will be likely to have a detrimental effect as an enhanced CRB check will disclose it

 

If you are charged with breach of National Railway Byelaw 18 (2005), this is a strict liability matter and much easier for the prosecution to prove, conviction is what is known as 'non-recordable' and the fine will also be correspondingly lower.

 

If there were genuinely no facilities available to get a ticket before you were checked you should say so and ask the company to accept payment of the fare only.

 

If there were facilities to get a ticket before you were checked and you accept that you are guilty of the breach of Byelaw, you could try writing to the rail company and ask if they will consider an out of Court disposal. The main points of your letter should be as follows:

 

i) Offer an unreserved apology to the company and staff concerned,

 

ii) Stress that this was an out of character action for which you are genuinely sorry

 

iii) Explain that if you are prosecuted and convicted this will have a wholly disproportionate effect on your future employment .

 

iv) Offer to pay any unpaid fare/s and all of the reasonable costs incurred by the company in dealing with this matter , all of which you recognise arise as a result of your actions

 

v) Give a written undertaking not to travel without a valid ticket on any journey in future.

 

The company are not obliged to accept your offer, but will give your letter consideration.

 

The prosecution costs applied for in any successful prosecution are normally in the region of £120 - £150 so you might consider making an offer based on that knowledge.

 

If they agree this will need to be paid in full immediately.

Edited by Old-CodJA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. Im being charged under section 5)3)c) as I stupidly gave a false name and address in frustration before giving my real one. Does this mean I'll have a criminal record then? Will I still be able to settle out of court if I'm not being charged under a bylaw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no guarantee that any TOC will allow an out of Court disposal and giving false details does make it much more likely that you are charged with the more serious matter, as you have been. That fact will make it less likely that they will accept settlement, but you never know, it's worth a try.

 

Yes, if you do not succeed in getting a settlement and are then convicted (or plead guilty) this will result in a criminal conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you supplied false details too, then there's every chance SWT will prosecute under S5(3)a and 5(3)c of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, as supplying a false name and address could quite easily be seen as you wanting to avoid any further contact, and thus paying the fare due when it would have been requested as part of the prosecution, or in settlement.

 

Edit: Just seen that you are being charged under S.5(3)c...And, I assume 5(3)a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello vb44.

 

I'm moving these posts to a new thread rather than adding to a 2009 one. Please continue to post on this one.

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you arrested by the Revenue Protection Inspector? 5(2) gives them the power of arrest for failing to have a ticket and not providing your (correct) details. I would be interested to know whether SWT do this, although it isn't really relevant.

 

I don't think you will be charged with 5(3a) as well as 5(3c), because it is effectively the same offence, except in addition to not having a ticket, you provided false details, making it more serious than 5(3a).

 

5(3c) also does not require proof that there was any "intent" to avoid paying the fare. Unusual for 5(3c) to be used in my experience though. A 5(3a) offence is usually more typical, supplemented with Transport Act 2000, S219/ Byelaw 23 breach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were you arrested by the Revenue Protection Inspector? 5(2) gives them the power of arrest for failing to have a ticket and not providing your (correct) details. I would be interested to know whether SWT do this, although it isn't really relevant.

 

I don't think you will be charged with 5(3a) as well as 5(3c), because it is effectively the same offence, except in addition to not having a ticket, you provided false details, making it more serious than 5(3a).

 

5(3c) also does not require proof that there was any "intent" to avoid paying the fare. Unusual for 5(3c) to be used in my experience though. A 5(3a) offence is usually more typical, supplemented with Transport Act 2000, S219/ Byelaw 23 breach.

Although it my look a bit ambiguos on paper, the idea is that the 5(3)a and 5(3)c go hand in hand in most cases, as if somebody goes to the extent of supplying incorrect details, proving they intended to dodge the initial fare is much more easy, due to the dishonesty involved. You can use the two offences together, as 5(3)c alone doesn't necessarily prove intent. Only 5(3)b can obviously not be used as well as 5(3)a.

 

SWT inspectors won't have arrested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although it my look a bit ambiguos on paper, the idea is that the 5(3)a and 5(3)c go hand in hand in most cases, as if somebody goes to the extent of supplying incorrect details, proving they intended to dodge the initial fare is much more easy, due to the dishonesty involved. You can use the two offences together, as 5(3)c alone doesn't necessarily prove intent. Only 5(3)b can obviously not be used as well as 5(3)a. SWT inspectors won't have arrested.

 

Stigy is spot-on. This will normally see two charges. 5.3.a 'intent to avoid a fare' and 5.3.c 'gave false details'. They are two distinct offences, 'c' is supplemental to 'a' and on conviction, both carry the same potential penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...