Thread: Railway car park charge notice, contacted by solicitors

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!

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.

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!

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;

Sorry, am I missing something with the last post?

Originally Posted by DB_SamX

Sorry, am I missing something with the last post?

Originally Posted by Zamzara

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.

Yeah quite right. Sorry 2 both of you, bit tired after a long week with a bad toothache. Brain went a bit :o

What I was going to go on and say was the ticket can't claim to be issued because of contravention of the byelaws.

Looking at the byelaws and the contravention on the ticket they don't seem to match.

Section 14

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.

Now on their ticket they have marked the contravention as a code 5 - not parked in a marked space. So they haven't claimed obstruction under 14.2(i)

So if they then try to use the byelaws in 14.2(ii) other than accordance with any instructions etc then assuming the signs made no mention of the need to park in a marked bay then they can't use the byelaws to nail you because they have to give you specific instructions. (e.g. You must park in a marked bay).

So I think what we are looking at is a private parking invoice with a charge made for an alleged breach of contract. Assuming there are no signs stating that parking has to be in a marked bay then they can hardly allege a breach of contract. You can't be agree to terms that you haven't seen.

You should write to the solicitors explaining the above to them and then state that you believe that you have been reasonable about trying to resolve the issue, deny liability for the charge and say that the next letter you want to receive is from or on behalf of their client saying that the charge has been cancelled. Failing that you welcome the opportunity to defend these alleged breaches of contract in court. (See Bernie's template stickies for an example of how to word this.)

The other thing to check is whether these cowboys actually have a valid contract with the rail company which was the point I was making about authorised persons

You might also want to check out how they obtained your name and address. Presumably they have obtained from the DVLA. Given that they had no valid reason and you can prove it - you might want to check things out with the DVLA - see the Template stickies and make a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Originally Posted by 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.

Update: Following my final long letter to them 4 weeks ago sumamrising everything and basically telling them to take the matter to court, I haven't heard anything yet.

Now you've told them to "put up or shut up" you can safely ignore any drivel you get short of an actual court summons - which won't happen.