Railway car park charge notice, contacted by solicitors

[DB_SamX]

Following on from this thread which I had hijacked (Railway Car Park / NCP/ PCN), I have decided to make my own one because I could do with further advice as I have now been contacted by solicitors regarding both alleged offence, which to summarise, was for not parking in a marked bay (car was not obstructing anything). Parking signs did not say that was not allowed and I have photos to prove. CP Plus have not replied to my latest letter in which I ask them to prove their case but instead got a solicitor involved.

Basically, the solicitors have said that if I don't pay the 2 amounts, CP Plus will issue court proceedings without further notice.

I plan to write to them telling them about the obv. wrong signs, the lack of response from CP Plus, attaching the photos and my original letters to CP Plus. I am the car owner and the letters are addressed to me; should I ask them to prove who the driver was as I haven't told them who it was.

Any advice welcome pretty please.

DB

P.s. I have seen bits in the templates section regarding "alleging I was the driver" and "threatening court action" I will be using.

[Barnsley Boy]

The letter is basically a "call my bluff". From what I've gleaned from the other thread, you are being hounded by CP Plus for not parking in a marked bay but no such direction was there on the signs - "the contract bit as far as CP Plus are concerned"

If it were me I would simply write stating "I deny any liability whatsoever for your proposed charges. Should you disagree with this position please commence the threatened court proceedings within the next 14 days."

I don't think there is much mileage in going in to the nth degree of your defence, may as well keep your powder dry.

[RichardM]

Be careful:

Under Railway Byelaws, they do not have to prove who the driver was, it is the owner of the vehicle who is responsible. (highlighted sections below are relelvent. Note the wording: The owner.

14. Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking

(1) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign.

(2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway:

(i) in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or

(ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person.

(3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place.
(4) In England and Wales

(i) 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.
(ii) Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an Operator or an authorised person.
(iii) The owner of the motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that the costs incurred by an Operator or an authorised person for this may be recovered from the vehicle's owner.
(iv) The power of clamping and removal provided in Byelaw 14(4)(ii) above shall not be exercisable in any area where passenger parking is permitted unless there is on display in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped and/or removed by an Operator or an authorised person.

[DB_SamX]

Thanks RichardM.

But, if I have not broken any Railway Byelaws but apparently one of CP Plus's (not written) rules which does not specify exactly who is liable (signs don't say who is liable), can I ask them to substantiate the claim and who is liable?

[RichardM]

The problem as I see it is that you are parking in accordance with railway byelaws (which almost certainly will be on the signage). They do not have to list every one of the byelaws on the signage. Only to have them available if requested. By parking outside the bays, they may well argue that you are in contravention of para 14.2.1 "in any manner that MAY cause an obstruction or hinderance". May is the operative and important word in the sentence. They don't have to prove that you were causing an obstruction, only that you may have caused an obstruction at some time by not parking in the designated areas.

[DB_SamX]

Letter sent off. I had already explained in my letters that the attendant did not select the "causing an obstruction or hindrance" option as the reason for charge on the notice, so I'll await their response.

The annoying thing I have found is that despite me asking for further clarification for the basis of the charge, they have not given one but just pressed on with claiming money.

[RichardM]

Sorry, you don't quite get it. You may think that you have not broken any by-laws and the parking company are making it up, but I can assure you that you have contravened a Railway by-law.

In your first post you say that you were not parked in a marked bay. If this goes to court, the company do not have to prove that you were causing an obstruction. They only have to prove that, by leaving your car in a position that was not designated as a suitable position for parking (which is what the markings are there to indicate), you MAY have created an obstruction at some point in time, either at the time the offence was noted, or at an earlier or later time than when the offence was noted.

The best of luck to you. I hope that you do get let off. When it comes to parking on private land, I would normally side with the driver. However, I'm afraid that if you do decide to go to court to fight it, you may not have much of a defence judging by your first post. Railway bylaws are far more watertight.

[DB_SamX]

Just heard from the parking company again (but not the solicitors oddly enough).

Basically they say:
(i) signage are clearly signposted advising users of the tariffs and charge applicable for non-compliance.
(ii) the onus is on the driver to park correctly in a designated parking space, car parks are marked in bays and this is how one notices a car parking area.

Now, while (ii) is correct, strictly speaking there was nothing to say that it wasn't allowed to park outside of them.

With regards to (i), I disagree with them. I have photos to show that their signs didn't show anything relating to (ii) when the offence allegedly took place. In fact, over late December I noticed that new signs appeared in addition to the existing ones. They are printed cardboard/plastic ones tied to lamp posts with a plastic tie. These do state it is an offence not to park in marked bays. However, they are not everywhere which is why I didn't notice straightaway when they appeared - there are none in the area where I usually park and walk. One of these was also put near the entrance. However, this week I saw that a few (including the one near the entrance) have already disappeared.

They make no mentions of Byelaws and also imply I was the driver (who would be responsible).

Should I reiterate my arguments to them with more photos or give in due to the hassle? They will accept the initial reduced charge. Byelaws aside, I am confident they are still wrong.

[Zamzara]

Just found this thread. If it was issued under bye laws it would need to say so on the notice. The railway bye laws on parking also require the regulations in force on the land (e.g. park completely inside a space) to be listed on the sign.

[DB_SamX]

Well, notices refer to sign conditions which mention byelaws (pics below):
PCN side 1

PCN side 2

Sign Note the white square cardboard/plastic sign hanging upside down behind the pay meter.
Sign t&c 1

Sign t&c 2

[wlofy260]

hi all.
i'm new on here and would like some advice....
got a ticket issused at three bridges rail station crawley, by meteor ltd.
as the above post was parked ouside of a parking bay, due to no spaces (others park on the grass bank, and this seems ok, no tickets!)
i still payed the day rate and was not an obstruction to any other cars, where as the above post reads "may cause obstruction" the sign here reads "will cause obstruction".
the way the ticket itself is worded caught my eye, it simpley states,
"issued at" then displays the time and date.
then states "by reason of your breach, you are required to pay the sum shown below"

the wording for the payments may be an issue to, that reads,"the payment required within thirty (30) days is seventy pounds (£70)
however, if you pay within fifteen (15) days meteor will accept fifty pounds (£50)".

now as far as i'm aware the wording is wrong and this ticket is not enforceable.
am i right? please help!!!!!!!!!

[DB_SamX]

I am a bit confused here; were my links to my CNs deleted by a mod or have I screwed up posting them? If the latter, sorry. Must have missed it in the rules.
Never mind.

[DB_SamX]

Just an update:

Still appealing against the CN and a few letter going back and forth. Every time I provide a rebuttal for one of their arguments, they ignore it and mention something else. So, just gonna tell them to take the matter to solicitors if they want.

But, the most interesting thing happened today. I happened to be at the station car park as the parking attendant appeared. I decided to have a little chat, ask a few questions, and am I glad I did! He was very nice and polite; I was surprised tbh.

As I asked him whether he always puts “parking tickets” on cars parked out of bays, he told me that yes he did, but not always. His time is limited as he has to visit other nearby stations. His priority is making sure all cars have been paid for, so that’s what he does first. His next task is to fine those who are parked out of bays, even if it means coming back the next day to that task (that implies he is not there every day). He works his way from the area closest to the station right to the end, time allowing. Basically, people who have been lazy and not driven to the far end for a proper space get fined. Time allowing, he may fine everyone. He is considerate (!) and may ignore those parked in unobtrusive areas, but will definitely get on the case of those parked stupidly.

I told him that some signs in certain areas (i.e. upper level which you can drive to without seeing any other sign) did not prohibit parking outside bays and surprisingly, he agreed with me and said he knows about them! He encouraged me to make a formal complaint so that they can correct them and also to carry on appealing when he asked me why I was interested.

Best of all, his own car was parked outside of a bay, and blocking 2 other cars. My camera was ready.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by DB_SamX

But, the most interesting thing happened today. I happened to be at the station car park as the parking attendant appeared. I decided to have a little chat, ask a few questions, and am I glad I did! He was very nice and polite; I was surprised tbh.

Contrary to popular belief they are human beings. Treat them like one and they respond. Treat them as sub-human and they respond to that too!

[pin1onu]

I've found a copy of the railway byelaws on the dft site here for your reference.

Under the transport act 2000 the byelaws, which previously could be set by the operating companies were combined into one document.

This is the relevant section from the act:

222. Section 219 and Schedule 20 change the current system whereby byelaws are made by the individual train companies and Railtrack and are then confirmed by the Secretary of State. Instead, the Authority will have the power to make uniform byelaws for the whole rail network. The Authority will be able to designate which stations shall hold copies of the byelaws.


The authority referred to is "The Strategic Rail Authority".

One other point as to the legal authority of those enforcing parking - quoting from the byelaws

In these Byelaws the following expressions have the following meanings:
“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;

[DB_SamX]

Sorry, am I missing something with the last post?

[Zamzara]

Originally Posted by pin1onu

I've found a copy of the railway byelaws on the dft site here for your reference.

Under the transport act 2000 the byelaws, which previously could be set by the operating companies were combined into one document.

But this ticket isn't issued under byelaws. If it were it would say so on it, and it would have gone to the magistrate's court.

[pin1onu]

Quote: