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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2620 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

I was smoking on an outside/non enclosed section of the overground platform (something i didnt know about) and was approached by two transport officers.

after two months I received a letter about court proceedings asking me to respond in 14 days notice. I responded about there being confusing or limited signs, the sign at the entrance was actually the no smoking circle and was placed the wrong way around (there was no text and I have a photo of this on the day) they’re doing renovations on the station and believe that they had removed the signs for some time.

 

I since received a court summons and am unsure if they received my original letter.

 

I know that there are laws on proper signs and in the summons it says that 'near which there is a notice indicating that 'smoking is not allowed'.

 

I read that businesses not displaying the proper signs can be fined.

also what is the best option, is it possible to settle out of court or pay a fine (used with money for quitting smoking) should i get a solicitor on this. any help, thank you.

Edited by olka
Editing in some spacing for ease of reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

Are you able to post up what the letter says please, in case it helps the guys to advise you? Don't include any of your personal information.

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.The byelaw is byelaw no 3.

the letter states that I

"did contravene bylaw no 3 of the railway bylaws made under section 219 and schedule 20 of the transport act 2000 in accordance with the railways act 2005 in that you did smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, match lighter or other lighted item on part of the railway on or near which there is a notice indicating that smoking is not allowed. "

 

When i asked the where the signs are he pointed further down the platform from where I was standing so at the two edges of the platform and said there was one on the entrance.

 

what are the possible fines is it a maximum £200. It says costs in the sum of £100 are applied for. If i plead guilty will I have to pay £100 as well as the penalty fine or if i go to court will I get charged for £100 and will I get a record??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that, hopefully it will help the guys to advise you.

 

How long do you have before the court date please?

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum fine at court is £1000 plus costs etc, however, realistically it'll be a fine, half that of the average weekly wage (was £175, but probably around £200 now), plus costs etc. The national legislation in-place (not including the Railway Byelaws) states that signage needs to be at all entrances to a premises at the very least, and from experience, Rail Companies only adhere to the bear minimum requirement and only put signage where they have to, plus on the odd one of two pillars and posts around the station, depending on it's size etc. In honesty it should be on every lamp post and/or hoarding so as to avoid confusion. In short, most rail companies are adhereing to the Government legislation as to where they put signage, but are prosecuting using the Railway Byelaws, which dictates that an alleged offender should be 'near' to a sign.

 

Whereas the national smoking ban in all public areas is governed by seperate legislation, the rail networks use the Byelaws which originally, were in place to enforce No Smoking policies on-board trains. This being the case, if we were using the national legislation and not the Byelaws, station platforms would be exempt as they're for the most part, way out in the open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that I have about a month. I really cant afford court fees or a record etc if its still possible to settle out of court and if anyone have any advice can they pm!

Edited by olka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The maximum fine at court is £1000 plus costs etc, however, realistically it'll be a fine, half that of the average weekly wage (was £175, but probably around £200 now), plus costs etc. The national legislation in-place (not including the Railway Byelaws) states that signage needs to be at all entrances to a premises at the very least, and from experience, Rail Companies only adhere to the bear minimum requirement and only put signage where they have to, plus on the odd one of two pillars and posts around the station, depending on it's size etc. In honesty it should be on every lamp post and/or hoarding so as to avoid confusion. In short, most rail companies are adhereing to the Government legislation as to where they put signage, but are prosecuting using the Railway Byelaws, which dictates that an alleged offender should be 'near' to a sign.

 

Whereas the national smoking ban in all public areas is governed by seperate legislation, the rail networks use the Byelaws which originally, were in place to enforce No Smoking policies on-board trains. This being the case, if we were using the national legislation and not the Byelaws, station platforms would be exempt as they're for the most part, way out in the open.

 

Sorry thats incorrect in England the only open air area thats covered by the anti smoking legislation

are station platforms so unless the OP is in Scotland where only the enlosed areas of a station are covered by the legislation he/she was actually breaking the law

 

I am a smoker myself and have known for years where I can and cannot smoke, I dont see how the OP can complain thats there are no signs when he/she should have been aware of the legislation in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry thats incorrect in England the only open air area thats covered by the anti smoking legislation

are station platforms so unless the OP is in Scotland where only the enlosed areas of a station are covered by the legislation he/she was actually breaking the law

 

I am a smoker myself and have known for years where I can and cannot smoke, I dont see how the OP can complain thats there are no signs when he/she should have been aware of the legislation in the first place.

 

I agree with that summary, it has long been known and frequently complained about by some, that smoking is prohibited on railway platforms.

 

The disastrous fire at Kings Cross Underground on 18th November 1987, started by a discarded cigarette butt and resulting in the deaths of 31 people did lead to some very powerful and very restrictive anti-smoking legislation on railways and of course the Rail Company will point to the fact that, as confirmed by the OP, there were in fact 3 signs displayed at the station at which the offence was detected.

 

Stigy may be right in that it might be desireable to have a sign on every concievable lamp post and fixture to deal with the pedantic offender who says 'but I'm not near to a sign', however that response is unlikely to gain a lot of sympathy from a Court in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry thats incorrect in England the only open air area thats covered by the anti smoking legislation

are station platforms so unless the OP is in Scotland where only the enlosed areas of a station are covered by the legislation he/she was actually breaking the law

 

I am a smoker myself and have known for years where I can and cannot smoke, I dont see how the OP can complain thats there are no signs when he/she should have been aware of the legislation in the first place.

I was saying that the enforcement is by way of the Byelaws in most cases, whereas, I'm assuming, other enforcement measures are in-place in all other places? I also assume that if a council official wanted to enforce the ban on a railway station, they'd be within their right to do so, using other legislation?

 

OC, Where it's obviously better to have more signage than not enough, I appreciate that this isn't always possible. However, I do think more signs are needed in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was saying that the enforcement is by way of the Byelaws in most cases, whereas, I'm assuming, other enforcement measures are in-place in all other places? I also assume that if a council official wanted to enforce the ban on a railway station, they'd be within their right to do so, using other legislation?

 

OC, Where it's obviously better to have more signage than not enough, I appreciate that this isn't always possible. However, I do think more signs are needed in general.

 

 

Sorry Stigy you have confused me as you said in your other post station platforms would be exempt as they're for the most part, way out in the open.

 

I was pointing out that they are not exempt and most smokers are aware of this fact and yes more signs would be nice but the onus is on smokers to know where they can and cannot smoke.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about anyone else, and this may not make a difference in this situation however, whenever I go on the underground I am continuously bombarded by tannoy announcements stating that smoking is not permitted anywhere on the underground network including stations and platforms. I take that to mean even those platforms that are open to the elements (and those are the ones I use most frequently - Richmond, Hammersmith and Wood Lane!)

 

Feebee_71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OC, Where it's obviously better to have more signage than not enough, I appreciate that this isn't always possible. However, I do think more signs are needed in general.

 

Yes, I agree that more signs might be useful, but so far as the legislation is concerned, it is sufficient to show that a sign was exhibited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. So we can wrap this up; the railway could actually get away, if they chose, with just one sign per station entrance, à la supermarkets etc, as long as they are visible. Don't give up giving up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replys, does anyone have any legal advice. I'm aware that I shouldn't have and would pay the fine. I'd rather avoid going to court and reach a settlement. In this station the sign was misplaced upside down with no text saying no smoking. when I read on the guidelines for signage it doesn't comply. The other sign outside the station does count but it's the one on the platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the replys, does anyone have any legal advice. I'm aware that I shouldn't have and would pay the fine. I'd rather avoid going to court and reach a settlement. In this station the sign was misplaced upside down with no text saying no smoking. when I read on the guidelines for signage it doesn't comply. The other sign outside the station does count but it's the one on the platform.

 

To be honest, AFAIK the Byelaws do not prescribe what the sign must look like. Just needs to be a sign that indicates in some way, that smoking is prohibited.

 

If the below imagine is displayed, whether upsidedown or not, I would say the signage is sufficiently clear for a prosecution to succeed. It doesn't even have to be that good really!

 

when-the-smoke-is-going-down.jpg

 

If "transport officer" basically means British Transport Police, you can't "settle out of court"! **bribery**

 

Not legal advice, but I'd be pleading guilty. Can't really mitigate the offence IMO. I suspect if convicted you'd get:

 

£150 fine

£100 costs order

£15 victim surcharge

A "record" that is believed to appear on "enhanced" Criminal Record checks

Possibly a lecture about the Kings Cross fire from a Magistrate

 

I'm sorry I can't really foresee a better outlook occurring.... If you go "not guilty" and are convicted, you're looking at a £300 fine plus the rest of the ancillary costs.

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...