Amended Title - SJP After Penalty Notice Cancelled

[Haywain]

If the forum thinks its warranted for me to try reaching out to them again, I am willing to do so.

In very simple terms, you are not going to get anything that you don't ask for.

 

[John Palmer]

In very simple terms, you are not going to get anything that you don't ask for.

Yes, pretty much my own thoughts.

 

[KirkstallOne]

I would be absolutely willing to settle with them, however based on the email I sent to them before I sent the not guilty plea, I took it that it was out of their hands and past that (post 69). If the forum thinks its warranted for me to try reaching out to them again, I am willing to do so.

No it’s not out of their hands they are free to settle at any point.

I think reach out again and stick to the main points:

- you have pled not guilty and your intended defence is that prosecution is barred due to regulation 11
- you are aware of the Monteiro ruling and note it is not binding
- you had no intent of evading any fare and only set foot on the train to enquire how to proceed. You remain open to settling the matter out of court

 

[Manda78]

This is what I received. I don't get why it says new date as this is the first correspondence I have received since I entered the not guilty plea.

 

[island]

This is what I received. I don't get why it says new date as this is the first correspondence I have received since I entered the not guilty plea.

It's just a default wording of the automated letter, nothing to be concerned about.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is what I received. I don't get why it says new date as this is the first correspondence I have received since I entered the not guilty plea.

It's because you have filed a defence and so this will be a contested trial. That requires it to be listed as a contested trial (most of these types of matters are effectively dealt with in bulk). It's nothing to worry about.

 

[Manda78]

Yay ..one less thing to worry about. It has been so long from the time I sent my plea in I wasn't sure what was going on.

 

[MrJeeves]

It's just a default wording of the automated letter, nothing to be concerned about.

Is it normal for the letter to refer to "the cases listed below" and then just list no cases?

 

[island]

Is it normal for the letter to refer to "the cases listed below" and then just list no cases?

There is a case at the end.

 

[MrJeeves]

There is a case at the end.

The colon at the end of the first paragraph certainly confused me. I expected the list of cases to be directly under it rather than at the bottom of the page.

 

[Manda78]

So I have an update. I have been so stressed as my case was due in court on Sept 24th.

Yesterday I had a letter from Northern saying they are withdrawing the current proceedings and will no longer be seeking further judgement against me. I didn't get any full explanation, just that there is an ongoing review of their prosecution procedures. They state they are making it clear this decision doesn't relate in anyway to any arguments put forward by myself in the appeals process. I'm not sure I fully believe that, but I also have no experience with this so perhaps its valid. Either way, I am so happy.

Thank you to each and everyone who took the time to reply to this thread and help keep me sane. I honestly cannot thank you enough. If you need copies of the letters I was sent, I am happy to upload them. Perhaps they can help someone else.

 

[Watershed]

Thank you very much for updating us.

You may wish to look into pursuing a civil claim in the County Court against Northern for what they have done. They had no right to prosecute you, and they arguably breached the GDPR by misusing your personal data to pursue their unlawful prosecution.

Breaches of the GDPR entitle you to claim not only for direct losses, but also non-material damages such as distress and inconvenience. Clearly the prospect of this prosecution has caused you a lot of stress - that is certainly something which would give rise to a non-material damages claim if a GDPR breach is established. Such claims typically range from £250 (i.e. it's not going to be a minimal sum) to several thousand in more severe cases.

The other, more nuclear, option would be to pursue a civil claim for malicious prosecution. There are several elements you need to prove for a malicious prosecution claim, which may not all be met in your case. Nevertheless it would be a way of holding them to account for their misconduct.

Please do let us know if either option is something you are interested in, and we can provide you with more information on what you can do and how you could go about pursuing it.

 

[KirkstallOne]

That’s great although I am a little disappointed we won’t see Northern’s arguments tested in court! Thanks for the update.

Yesterday I had a letter from Northern saying they are withdrawing the current proceedings and will no longer be seeking further judgement against me. I didn't get any full explanation, just that there is an ongoing review of their prosecution procedures. They state they are making it clear this decision doesn't relate in anyway to any arguments put forward by myself in the appeals process. I'm not sure I fully believe that

I would like to see the full redacted letter if possible. There is a general pause on low level prosecutions I think because of (yet another) legal quagmire Northern are embroiled in so it is possible this is true. Having said that, Northern would be mad to try and make their section 11 arguments against you in court imo as it just invites further scrutiny to what is a pretty questionable ruling by the Chief Magistrate.

 

[Manda78]

This is what was sent to me

 

[KirkstallOne]

Great thanks, seems clear there are was an actual lawyer involved in drafting this application to withdraw!

Anusha Price is their current head of legal (and a qualified solicitor).

 

[John Palmer]

Since there was no apparent technical error in the manner in which this prosecution was instituted, and Northern Trains remains adamant that it was entitled to prosecute notwithstanding the defence argument advanced that the penalty fares appeal barred such a prosecution, I'm having difficulty in seeing how a review of the company's procedures explains its application to withdraw. The review pretext on which the company relies looks to me like a smoke screen concealing its concerns about the reliance that can be placed upon the Chief Magistrate's Monteiro judgment, having regard to the absence of defendant representation in that case and the failure to address the contrary interpretation that Northern Trains itself had previously advanced in Ballington.

Having said that, I am delighted to learn that the company has chosen not to proceed, as it is plain from @Manda78's previous posts that the prosecution had added much stress and anxiety to the day-to-day burdens she was already having to bear. In that respect, this is a good outcome.