Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I have been reading through the boards the last couple of days with great interest. I must apologise if a similar query has already been posted, I have looked but haven't managed to find anything that has much resemblance to my personal situation.
For the past couple of months I have been parking at my local station before getting the train to work - I pay for this weekly online. However on Monday I stupidly forgot to pay for this weeks ticket and subsequently returned from work to find a penalty charge stuck to my windscreen.
From reading through articles on here it seems most problems stem from companies unreasonably ticketing people, or the 'keeper' of the car not being the driver when the ticket issued.
So the problem I can see is that as I have purchased a ticket previously, I am obviously aware the car park requires paying for. However I do not recall ever being advised of potential penalty charges..
Does anyone know if I can avoid paying this or if I pretty much have no choice? I have read that private companies can not issue penalty notices, they can only claim damages. Can anyone verify this?
This was a genuine mistake but I somehow get the feeling a sincere letter of apology in the hope they understand might be a bit fruitless.
Thanks for the quick response. In all honesty I haven't had a chance to look at the ticket is great detail but will check it out later.
If they have claimed to issue it under railway byelaws then, from your response, I assume this would be invalid?
Assuming it doesn't quote railway byelaws, does this mean it isn't fraudulent and requires payment?
Thanks for the quick response. In all honesty I haven't had a chance to look at the ticket is great detail but will check it out later.
If they have claimed to issue it under railway byelaws then, from your response, I assume this would be invalid?
No, not necessarily! If is is correctly issued under railway bylaws, then you absolutely must not ignore it, and unless there is something wrong with the pcn, you will have to pay it. If a PPC claims railway bylaws when they shouldn't, this is illegal and at the very least should be ignored, and possibly reported to the authorities.
Assuming it doesn't quote railway byelaws, does this mean it isn't fraudulent and requires payment?
No, if it doesn't claim bylaws then they don't apply and it becomes a standard PPC invoice which are the easiest ones to ignore
Thanks Crem. In that case I'm hoping no bylaws were quoted! Do you know how you would know if it is correctly issued under bylaws, or if they shouldn't claim them?
Again, assuming no bylaws are quoted - should I respond using one of the template letters or ignore them until they actually send me something through the post?
I have seen quite a few fraudulent byelaw claims by NCP but I don't recall seeing a real one. there is more to it than them just quoting or refrring to the byelaw.
Unfortunately I don't have a scanner but this is what it says :
Parking Contravention Charge Notice
NOTICE OF BREACH OF RAIL BYELAWS
Date of Offence/issue etc etc
Violation:
Parked in a pay and display car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket.
a contravention charge of £50 is now payable within 28 days or a reduced charge at £25 will be accepted in Full and final settlement if payment is received by nation car parks limited within 14 days.
If payment is not received within 28 days, national car parks limited will commence collection procedures which may include legal action for the recovery of the sum claimed in this notice alongwith all costs assiciated with its recovery. National car parks limited reserves the right to apply for any legally recoverable costs whre the company deems appropriate to recover any losses sustained by them.
The other point I should make is that I do use the car park and would like to continue to use it, quite willingly paying the £25 a week it already is - I just don't fancy paying a ridiculously inflated fine which, from what I can gather, is completely unlawful! Anyway, does me having willingly payed for the car park previously make the fine any more plausable?
Fraudulent in my opinion, just like every other NCP byelaw ticket I have seen. report them to the Transport Police for claiming statutory powers which they do not possess. they can't 'fine' you - its not a 'fine'
Thanks. I may just do that! In the mean time should I completely ignore the notice?
It would be interesting to see what action the transport police would take. I find it astonishing they are able to operate in this way when what they are doing is clearly not legal.
Sorry one more question as well. If you believe reporting them to the Transport Police to be the best option, do you know how I can go about doing this? I have looked on their website but it's not really that clear..
Unfortunately I don't have a scanner but this is what it says :
Parking Contravention Charge Notice
NOTICE OF BREACH OF RAIL BYELAWS
Date of Offence/issue etc etc
Violation:
Parked in a pay and display car park without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket.
a contravention charge of £50 is now payable within 28 days or a reduced charge at £25 will be accepted in Full and final settlement if payment is received by nation car parks limited within 14 days.
If payment is not received within 28 days, national car parks limited will commence collection procedures which may include legal action for the recovery of the sum claimed in this notice alongwith all costs assiciated with its recovery. National car parks limited reserves the right to apply for any legally recoverable costs whre the company deems appropriate to recover any losses sustained by them.
It's absolute [naughty word].
Railway bye-law breaches can only be pursued as a criminal matter via the Magistrates' Court system if a ticket is unpaid.
IOW, if it were genuine, they cannot claim for recovery of the sum plus their costs, they can only report for prosecution.
Do you know Pat, I've been wracking my brains trying to figure out why the PPC's who are managing railway car parks don't enforce using the Railway Bye-Laws. I think you have just hit it on the head.
If they use the bye-laws they can only report for prosecution by the Transport Police (who haven't got the resources to deal with offences such as parking violations) and at the end of the day the PPC would get nothing, because any fine goes into the coffers of the treasury.
MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.
Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.
probably because they don't qualify under the appropriate statute. Results within legislation - Statute Law Database To claim statutory authorisation when you have none is a serious offence isn't it ?
No, I don't think that is the answer Lamma. Having read section 219 and schedule 20 of the TA 2000, they only refer to the ability of the SRA to make byelaws, not who enforces them. What has been puzzling me is that byelaw 14 (3) states:
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.
"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
I would have thought that a PPC working on behalf of a Train Operating Company would have been classed as an authorised person, and would have had the full backing of the byelaws for enforcement. It appears, however, that the PPC's are unwilling to use that route, prefering the flawed "civil penalties" breach of contract option. If they went down the breach of byelaw route, there is a lot of work regards to the burden of proof of signage, proceedures etc. for no reward.
MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.
Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.
It appears, however, that the PPC's are unwilling to use that route, prefering the flawed "civil penalties" breach of contract option. If they went down the breach of byelaw route, there is a lot of work regards to the burden of proof of signage, proceedures etc. for no reward.
I suspect the "for no reward" is the key phrase in your paragraph there! i.e if they go with the byelaws it becomes a fine of which they get nowt. Great isn't it.
NCP Car Park
. I must apologise if a similar query has already been posted, I have looked but haven't managed to find anything that has much resemblance to my personal situation.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by SkyHigh
