Free Traffic Legal Advice

Offences under Bylaw 14.3 can only be committed by the "person in charge of the vehicle" (i.e. the driver who parked the car).

The TOC does not know who the driver was and has no way of finding out. Bylaw 14.4 may extend, to the owner, a liability to pay a penalty. Whether it would extend to form the basis of a criminal prosecution I don’t know. But once again, the TOC does not know who that is either and has no way of finding out.

In my view there must be a requirement on the prosecution to prove who committed the offence. That must be either the person in charge of the vehicle (under 14.3) or the owner (under 14.4). All they have proved is who the Registered Keeper is.

To relieve the prosecution of that burden would be completely unjust (particularly in this case as the defendant did not actually commit the offence). It would be no different to police detecting a speeding offence and instead of establishing who was driving via s172, they simply prosecuted the RK. Section 172 is not available to TOCs (unless they can persuade the BTP to issue them on their behalf) but that’s scarcely the defendant’s fault. Or am I really missing something fundamental?

Northern Rail disappeared in 2016. Is there a company number on the ticket? Or is it Northern Railway?

Also how did they obtain the registered keeper details? (I'm sure there was a thread on Pepipoo regarding TOC's, probably related to Southern, there was issues with keeper details)

Northern Rail disappeared in 2016. Is there a company number on the ticket? Or is it Northern Railway?

Also how did they obtain the registered keeper details? (I'm sure there was a thread on Pepipoo regarding TOC's, probably related to Southern, there was issues with keeper details)

It's northern railway, and I guess they retrieved the details from the DVLA. It only took about a month.

Quote from: NewJudge on January 05, 2025, 01:13:13 pm

Section 172 is not available to TOCs (unless they can persuade the BTP to issue them on their behalf) but that’s scarcely the defendant’s fault. Or am I really missing something fundamental?

Section 172 isn’t available at all, because the offence in question doesn’t fall within section 172(1).

People seem to be overcomplicating what is a simple question of evidence. Does the prosecution have sufficient evidence so that the court can be sure that the defendant was the person in charge of the vehicle (etc.)? Yes or no. If the only evidence the prosecution has is that the defendant is the registered keeper and the defendant elects not to give evidence then the answer is likely to be “no”.

Good to know! So we don't think that they can assume that the relative is the owner and charge them based off of that?

No, I don't think so.

Assuming a charge is raised under bylaw 14.4 ("the owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area") I see no reason why the prosecution should succeed if they asked the court to make that assumption.

The prosecution has to prove who committed the offence with which the defendant has been charged. The "mischief" is the parking contravention under bylaw 14.3 and that can only be committed by the “person in charge of the vehicle.”

What they would be expecting in those circumstances would be firstly the transfer of a criminal charge from the alleged perpetrator to A N Other and then to expect the court to assume that because A N Other was the RK of the car, he was necessarily the owner (and so somehow was responsible for the original mischief).

I believe any one of those two steps would be a step too far to support a criminal conviction.

I think the conventions provided for the convenience of parking companies and adjudicators to make it easier for them to recover their penalty charges do not transfer very satisfactorily to the criminal justice system.

Okay, thank you! I'll keep this thread updated with how it goes.

The TOC would argue that they have "just cause".

They would contend that somebody owes them money as a result of the use of a motor vehicle.

A subject access request to DVLA from the registered keeper would find this out.

How would that help the RK? He has been prosecuted for an offence that he did no commit.

Post #13 includes this

"A Penalty Parking Notice was therefore issued and placed on the vehicle showing that it had failed to pay the appropriate charge"

The Driver might be expected to pay or cause to be paid but I don't understand how "the vehicle" can pay anything.