Hypothetical car parking query

[Stigy]

The railway bye-laws and Private Parking Companies is a whole can of worms. There's quite a few posts on Pepipoo regarding these.. Lots to do with the POFA Act and who has the authority to take someone to court over an unpaid parking ticket.. It's a lot to do with whether it is relevant land, etc.. Using railway byelaws I understand only the owner of the land can take the driver/keeper to court as apparently violating a byelaw is a criminal offence and PPC's cannot try and extract money to make a criminal offence

The only way it would go to court (magistrates' court rather than the county court) would be if a) the offender was reported by staff of the railway, Police or an agent of the railway or b) if the TOC was responsible for issuing their own notices, taking byelaws in to account. A PPC can act as an agent of the railway and in theory prosecute said cases, however, realistically I think they will keep using the county court if anything.

The Byelaws are quite clear and although rarely tested on this way, I'm sure if a TOC were to take matters further, as long as all avenues were explored, they would succeed as with most other cases.

 

[island]

The railway bye-laws and Private Parking Companies is a whole can of worms. There's quite a few posts on Pepipoo regarding these.. Lots to do with the POFA Act and who has the authority to take someone to court over an unpaid parking ticket.. It's a lot to do with whether it is relevant land, etc.. Using railway byelaws I understand only the owner of the land can take the driver/keeper to court as apparently violating a byelaw is a criminal offence and PPC's cannot try and extract money to make a criminal offence 'go away'.

Oh Yeah, Beavis was a very specific case and relevant to that car park only as their Lordships made clear. The Private parking companies will try and say that it justifies anything they want to do but it doesn't... It just means that you can't use Genuine pr-estimation of Loss as an argument.. Many PPC's have notices which are not POFA compliant, have inadequate signage, have no relevant interest in the land, etc....

Eminently beatable (unless they are IPC which is a kangaroo court) and it costs them £27 to lose at POPLA if they aere a member of the BPA.

The above is eminently bad advice. Parking infringements on railway land constitute criminal offences under the railway Byelaws which anyone may prosecute. Even me.

 

[vrbarreto]

The above is eminently bad advice. Parking infringements on railway land constitute criminal offences under the railway Byelaws which anyone may prosecute. Even me.

Have a read of this:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105569

Only the Train operating company may pursue the byelaw through the courts, not the ppc..

have a read here:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/byelaws/

 

[jkdd77]

With ticketing offences, the TOC normally knows the identity of the offender.

Byelaw 14 parking offences are committed by the driver, and, in the absence of any admission, the TOC, or PPC, normally finds it difficult to prove the identity of the driver to the required standard, bearing in mind that:
1) the registered keeper (RK) is not necessarily the driver, and;
2) that the magistrates' guidelines, quoting from relevant case law, make clear that the fact that the defendant is the RK would not normally be sufficient in itself to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the RK was the driver, regardless of the nature of the offence. Police can serve a notice under the Road Traffic Act requiring the RK to name the driver under pain of criminal penalties for failure to do so, but this option is not open to TOCs or PPCs.

There have been cases reported on Pepipoo where magistrates have convicted RKs of the byelaw 14 offence regardless, despite a not guilty plea, and despite the TOC producing no substantive evidence to support the proposition that the RK was the driver.

 

[Stigy]

Have a read of this:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105569

Only the Train operating company may pursue the byelaw through the courts, not the ppc..

have a read here:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/byelaws/

To be honest the info on such sites as Pepipoo is no more valid than the information posters receive here. I read the first paragraph to a reply in a thread in the first link you provided and found an error. The TOC has 6-months to lay the matter to the court, not get to court as the reply suggests. Same as any other Railway Byelaw offence or similar.

And there's nothing stopping a PPC taking a matter to court or enforcing such matters as they are, after all acting as an agent of the railway.

 

[island]

Have a read of this:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105569

Only the Train operating company may pursue the byelaw through the courts, not the ppc..

have a read here:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/byelaws/

They're wrong too.

 

[jkdd77]

They're wrong too.

They're correct to all practical intents and purposes, in that FoI requests disclose that no PPC has ever brought a byelaw 14 prosecution; nor is a PPC ever remotely likely to do so.

PPCs have neither the legal expertise nor the financial incentive to bring a private prosecution, since any fine would go to the State.

 

[najaB]

PPCs have neither the legal expertise nor the financial incentive to bring a private prosecution, since any fine would go to the State.

I agree with the latter part of your assertion (incentive), but I wouldn't be so certain about the former (ability).

 

[34D]

Only the Train operating company may pursue the byelaw through the courts, not the ppc..

I don't believe this to be correct.

 

[dquebec]

The Byelaws clear this up neatly:

BYELAW 25

“authorised person” means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or
(ii) any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in
connection with the railway;

Therefore private car parking company employees can be authorised to enforce the Railway Byelaws.

Whether they actually do go all the way to court - I'm unsure - but there is certainly nothing (legally) stopping them.