Merseyrail station car park 'offence'

[Fawkes Cat]

or the OP, I would suggest signing up for http://forums.pepipoo.com/ as they are probably better suited at dealing with car parking tickets.

This, I think is the best advice we can give. As a forum we concentrate on railway matters, and while this is a railway matter it’s also (and mainly) a car parking one.

When you add that we’ve shown ourselves not to be particularly knowledgable on disability issues (are there fora elsewhere that specialise in how the Equalities Act interacts with criminal law?) we’re really not well equipped to help. I hope it’s obvious that we want the most just outcome for the OP - but we may not be able to say anything to get that.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I think the biggest problem for the OP is that they feel they can be found not-guilty on both charges simply by saying they have a visual impairment.
This isn't really how it works. I suspect the attitude test has been failed in their communication with Merseyrail, which is why they've ended up with two court cases.
But, with a change of attitude and tone of communication, the OP might still be able to stop both of these getting to court.

 

[Snow1964]

This is rather too difficult without full details.

Normally out of hours disputes are where someone didn't check closing time, and finds the gates / barriers have been locked. Then are unhappy about unlocking fee.

Normally obstruction disputes are due to not parking fully in marked spaces, (over the line, so blocking next space). Perfectly reasonable as trying to provide as many spaces as possible.

Restricted hours car parks (which this appears to be) are common where they serve something that closes in evening. If it's not open it's associated parking is also not open.

It appears to be free car park, so not any dispute about being overcharged.

It is unclear to me why Op was in the car park when service wasn't running, and if they were parked correctly in a marked bay. Perhaps unlucky it was checked at 2am.

But if they just used it and walked past signs, ignored them and decided they won't go and park somewhere else because they won't be back in time. I can't see much of a case. It was private car park not public road so not checking hours seems silly.

 

[Puffing Devil]

As for the OP, I would suggest signing up for http://forums.pepipoo.com/ as they are probably better suited at dealing with car parking tickets.

Completely agree. Much more experience in parking offences there. Asking for assistance here is like asking Pepipoo for help with rail ticket matters.

Unfortunately, by engaging the OP has admitted being the driver and opens the door for prosecution.

 

[Skiddaw]

Pepipoo specialise in LA parking offences.

May I suggest the parking penalty sub-forum on Money Saving Expert? They're the gurus when it comes to penalty notices.

Parking tickets, fines & parking

Categories - Confused about parking penalties and fines? Get help with all kinds of car parking problems.

forums.moneysavingexpert.com

 

[Titfield]

Most if not all Merseyrail owned car parks are free, they just have this silly no overnight parking rule!

Thanks for that clarification.

I have gone through this again and hopefully I have not now misled myself.

The problem for the OP I see is they have committed the offence. If a defence of inadequate signage is allowed then potentially it opens the floodgates.

The onus has to be on the user to satisfy themselves as to the terms and conditions of using the land they have entered and act in accordance with those terms and conditions.

 

[Starmill]

When reading this whole chain of events, it's probably worth remembering that the initial penalty would have been a mere £30 if paid promptly.

If the OP has engaged with Merseyrail as they have here (long blocks of text, quoting meaningless codes of practice etc) then it's going to take a lot of untangling which will be impossible without seeing the correspondence from both sides, as has been requested. As a plea has been entered, there's not much time to do that.

If the Trade Association for Merseyrail's car parks requested the Registered Keeper's data from the DVLA, then strictly I wouldn't say their Code of Practice is irrelevant, as the DVLA make it a requirement to follow it if you wish to make a request for (usually confidential) data. Not that I'm saying that means no offence under the Byelaw has been committed, though on balance I would be rather surprised if it has.

Unless, of course, the OP's name and address were recorded in person?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2024 ==

The onus has to be on the user to satisfy themselves as to the terms and conditions of using the land they have entered and act in accordance with those terms and conditions.

The Codes of Practice do not bear that out it must be said.

 

[thejuggler]

OP should have taken specific parking ticket advice in September as soon as the penalty notice was received.

Penalty notices on railway land are relatively easy to time out beyond the 6 month timescale they have to take court action.

Now it is at Court the rules of the game change significantly and the current defence will be ripped apart.

 

[skyhigh]

If the Trade Association for Merseyrail's car parks requested the Registered Keeper's data from the DVLA, then strictly I wouldn't say their Code of Practice is irrelevant, as the DVLA make it a requirement to follow it if you wish to make a request for (usually confidential) data. Not that I'm saying that means no offence under the Byelaw has been committed, though on balance I would be rather surprised if it has.

Unless, of course, the OP's name and address were recorded in person?

Could not Merseyrail make that request themselves? I can't find any reference to Merseyrail being part of a parking body.

In any case, from a search online the standard wording on the paper penalty which is issued on the spot and attached to the vehicle states (or at least used to) "Failure to pay by the above date may result in the keeper's details being requested from the DVLA and could result in legal proceedings being brought against you. If you wish to dispute your liability to pay a parking penalty, a statement giving an explanation must be made to Merseyrail..."

So I suspect what has happened is that the penalty was attached to the OP's vehicle, and they have then made an appeal giving their name and address, without the DVLA being consulted.

 

[Starmill]

Could not Merseyrail make that request themselves? I can't find any reference to Merseyrail being part of a parking body.

In any case, from a search online the standard wording on the paper penalty which is issued on the spot and attached to the vehicle states (or at least used to) "Failure to pay by the above date may result in the keeper's details being requested from the DVLA and could result in legal proceedings being brought against you. If you wish to dispute your liability to pay a parking penalty, a statement giving an explanation must be made to Merseyrail..."

So I suspect what has happened is that the penalty was attached to the OP's vehicle, and they have then made an appeal giving their name and address, without the DVLA being consulted.

I don't think so, because DVLA usually don't permit data requests for parking enforcement unless they're from a Trade Association. Merseyrail wouldn't be allowed to pursue for Schedule 4 civil keeper liability either as this doesn't apply where a statutory parking regime (such as the Railway Byelaws) is in place.

Sound like your summary is very likely accurate, though. If the car park had been owned or leased / managed by a British Parking Association-approved parking company the OP would have had a route to appeal on the notice. Also, while I wouldn't encourage it, if they'd ignored the notice entirely they may have never been identified to face any consequences of their alleged offence. Now, however, they have been identified, and admitted to having been the driver. As such they've no leverage or route to appeal, and must either offer to settle (seems they've already rejected this possibility), plead guilty (also rejected) or attempt to show that the charge against them is somehow not proven.

If the above is the case I think it's very unlikely we can help further.

 

[island]

Merseyrail wouldn't be allowed to pursue for Schedule 4 civil keeper liability either as this doesn't apply where a statutory parking regime (such as the Railway Byelaws) is in place.

That is correct.

Also, while I wouldn't encourage it, if they'd ignored the notice entirely they may have never been identified to face any consequences of their alleged offence. Now, however, they have been identified, and admitted to having been the driver. As such they've no leverage or route to appeal, and must either offer to settle (seems they've already rejected this possibility), plead guilty (also rejected) or attempt to show that the charge against them is somehow not proven.

This is also correct.

A Byelaw 14 prosecution would be bound to succeed.

 

[Deafdoggie]

My guess, given the OP has failed to come back with copies of correspondence, is that the OP is hoping that "i have an eyesight problem" is a suitable defence in court.

 

[island]

My guess, given the OP has failed to come back with copies of correspondence, is that the OP is hoping that "i have an eyesight problem" is a suitable defence in court.

Which is definitely isn't, but it may serve as mitigation (a reason for reduction of the penalty)

 

[Sultan]

I don't see how eyesight could be a mitigating circumstance in what is a parking violation of the conditions. Surely it could only be if there is sufficient signage visible in accordance with whatever regulations there needs to be (similar to the DVLA driving sight test, perhaps - numberplate at 'X' yards).

But as said previously, probably best to seek advice from a forum relevant to parking issues. Perhaps the OP has gone to one, hence no update yet.

 

[Elecman]

Merseyrail probably asked BTP to get the owners details from DvLA

 

[John Luxton]

I guess if they were free and didn't have the rule they'd be overrun with cars, this way it empties them out. I'm impressed they have someone checking!

I leave my car at home when using Merseyrail and only found out about this rule a year ago when someone I correspond with was wanting to park their car before going for a short break. It was only when I asked them why they couldn't leave it a the station that I found out about the rule. Obviously if one wants to get people to use the railways more the Merseyrail rule does appear a little unreasonable as it penalises people staying away overnight. Perhaps they should have a system which allows people to pay say £5 for an overnight stay up to say four nights? That should stop the car parks getting too full. Perhaps even limit it to weekends if necessary?

 

[John R]

I leave my car at home when using Merseyrail and only found out about this rule a year ago when someone I correspond with was wanting to park their car before going for a short break. It was only when I asked them why they couldn't leave it a the station that I found out about the rule. Obviously if one wants to get people to use the railways more the Merseyrail rule does appear a little unreasonable as it penalises people staying away overnight. Perhaps they should have a system which allows people to pay say £5 for an overnight stay up to say four nights? That should stop the car parks getting too full. Perhaps even limit it to weekends if necessary?

That would surely mean there would need to be some sort of ticketing infrastructure put in place, for what would be very little demand. So not an effective use of funds.

 

[matt]

Thread closed until @jymford returns to post an update. Please contact a member of staff to reopen the thread