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 am hoping for some feedback on a parking ticket I have recieved. It is from a carpark dedicated to rail users in Blackburn Railway station. There is no car parking fee to pay. I have parked there many times before it became a 'NCP carpark just recently. There is still no fee to pay. It just displays signs saying no parking in disabled spaces etc which I noticed as I parked.
I went back to my car to find a parking ticket in a yellow plastic sleeve. It was a very wet day and the notice has been written in pencil and then as I peeled the paper from the yellow sleeve, half of the writing peeled away with it so I can't make out what it says completely.
I can tell that it says I have been fined for parking more than 4 hours. I hadn't seen this on any of the notices so I walked right up to the sign and noticed it said max 4 hours stay in smaller writing to the rest of the sign at the top. Even with my glasses on I couldn't see it without being directly beneath the sign!
I have been fined £100!! Which is double the usual amount for an NCP fine or £50 if I pay within 14 days. I am a student so skint, that decided to commute that day as Govt is always trying to promote public transport. Can they really charge that much money for parking for more than 4 hours in a RAILWAY CARPARK???
PS. I do not recall seeing anything on the sign about a fine but it may be there.
You need to establish if the ticket was issued under railway byelaws.
If it was, you will have to pay it, if it wasn't, IGNORE it.
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 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
12
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.
(5) In Scotland
Any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of this Byelaw in Scotland may be removed by or under the direction of a constable.
Jogs
Blackhorse Finance : Isssued court papers for £3400 and return of car, settled for £1000
Lloyds TSB : SAR request taken all the way to Court, Damages awarded.
Lloyds TSB PPI : FOS found in my favour, awaiting settlement figure.
Capital ONE : Issued Court papers, refund of £635.38
Barclaycard : Refund of charges £456.16
How do I tell if it is under railway by-laws or not? The ticket just says notice of a breach of terms and conditions of parking at a car park owned or managed by NCP ltd. Gives a parking contravention number. Says it will commence legal action if not paid by 28 days. My breach constitutes a breach of the contract to park. terms and conditions are in the car park.
some claim bylaws but the ticket patently isn't a bylaw ticket - hence the Fraud. NCP are well known for this. only way to be sure is to see the ticket. make sure it washed of all indentifying details.
There is nothing on it about by-laws other than I have breached the contract of parking, even though I didn't pay anything because it is a free carpark (surely you need consideration such as payment for it to constitute a contract?) With regards to the ticket, I've checked it out now it's dried and the writing is much clearer. It has the date, reg mark, colour etc so enough to identify my vehicle. But it pretty much just says I've breached and it is a parking contravention charge notice.
If it is clearly just a PPC invoice then with no claim to be issued under railway bylaws, then just file it away in a drawer and forget about it. Even when they do claim to have issued it under railway bylaws they very rarely have done so correctly.
There is no appeals process. It's part of the mail [problem] - they want you to contact them so that they can weigh up their victim. If you fall for the appeals process, you're likely to pay up, so they'll pursue you for longer with their junkmail.
The Railway Estates company (whatever they are being called these days) are desperate to earn money quickly, and by leasing out the car park management to firms willing to pay for it (taking the fines generated as payment) is rolling out quickly. Many stations are now dispensing with any reliance on 'Byelaws' as this only empowers the railway, not their lessee to pursue payment.
A case in point was last year at Glasgow (Central), where a PPC took over and decided ALL vehicles must pay parking charges (previously, M/c's were free). After 10 bikes were 'ticketed' there was an uprising and representations made to station management, pointing out that the Byelaws specifically permitted M/c's free parking (even though the byelaws were no longer being used, the PPC relying on contract law. The outcome was surprising, the station owners told the PPC that M/c were to remain free to park in the designated areas. One small battle won!
The Railway Estates company (whatever they are being called these days) are desperate to earn money quickly, and by leasing out the car park management to firms willing to pay for it (taking the fines generated as payment) is rolling out quickly. Many stations are now dispensing with any reliance on 'Byelaws' as this only empowers the railway, not their lessee to pursue payment
Sorry Buzby, but I would have to disagree with your interpretation of events. Firstly, apart from the major stations still owned and operated by Network Rail, the majority of hiring of car park "management" firms is being done by the train operators, who don't want to spend time and resources managing them for themselves. Secondly, the byelaws empowers both the operator and authorised persons to enforce, where the authorised person may not only be an employee of the operator but also "any other person authorised by an operator" (Byelaw 25.1)
Why they are choosing to not enforce without using the byelaws has been discussed in the Stanmore Parking thread, but it basically comes down to (we believe) the fact that if the PPC reports the registered keeper under section 14 of the Byelaws and the RK is found guilty in magistrates court, the PPC gets nothing, the fine going to the treasury, not the PPC.
MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.
Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.
Secondly, the byelaws empowers both the operator and authorised persons to enforce, where the authorised person may not only be an employee of the operator but also "any other person authorised by an operator" (Byelaw 25.1)
Practically though, this doesn't happen. The only byelaw tickets I've seen have been given out by an employee of the rail company (quite possibly an employee who works at the station who dons a jacket and nips round the car park once or twice a day).
Sorry Buzby, but I would have to disagree with your interpretation of events. Firstly, apart from the major stations still owned and operated by Network Rail, the majority of hiring of car park "management" firms is being done by the train operators,.
Thanks for your input - however the comment (that Network Rail is responsible) still holds true, as a check on the Valuation Roll for any Railway Station shows the benficial owner to be 'Network Rail', leaving the train operating companies to 'operate' the trains. However I accept your interpretation of why the Railway Byelaws are not used - this seem a pragmatic and, (for them) a sensible modus operandi.
To add to the debate, and interesting new piece was published in one of the Scottish National daily papers. You'll note, they too swing between who 'owns' the station parking, but the statistics are interesting nevertheless!
Just a point ,do they go round with a scanner where the Muppet puts your reg into and time,then goes round later to check if you have gone past the time? If not how do they know what time you arrived and parked there. Also do they not have to prove who the driver was ?
Thanks for your input - however the comment (that Network Rail is responsible) still holds true, as a check on the Valuation Roll for any Railway Station shows the benficial owner to be 'Network Rail', leaving the train operating companies to 'operate' the trains.
The owner of the land is Network Rail, agreed. It is a little known fact that Network Rail is the biggest landowner in Britain, and leasing that land is a core part of its' business.
However, under the privatisation arrangements, Network Rail (or Railtrack as it was then), was forced to lease the stations to the train operators who became responsible for the operation of those stations and the associated business activities that go hand in hand with them, such as ticket selling, retail franchise leasing, car parking, cleaning. As stations are often used by more than one train operator, a single train operator was identified as the responsible train operator for each individual station, and other operators using that station had to negotiate contracts with the station operator for such activities as ticket sales, provision of train dispatch staff, train catering replenishment, staff mess facilities etc.
The best way of demonstrating this is to look a complaints handling. If a customer has a problem with a train journey which was delayed at a station, they write to the train operator that they were travelling with. If they have a problem with station facilities not associated with a train journey eg they slip and fall on an icy platform, they write to the station operator. If a train operator has a problem with station infrastructure in public areas, such as toilets, they get it repaired themselves. Network Rail are not involved at any stage unless they wish, as landlords, to undertake improvements in the station fabric.
The only place this isn't true is at the 17 major station, where the number of operators and retailers involved made contracts and access agreements impractical. These major stations are the London Termini, Gatwick, Birmingahm new Street, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester Picadilly, Glasgow Central, and Edinburgh. At these stations Network Rail were made responsible for the contractural obligations that the train operator has at all other stations.
The Herald article makes some reference to this fact, but then continues to refer to charges made at stations over which Network Rail have no control whatsover, such as Inverness, Glasgow Queens Street etc.. Also, although I cannot say for definite, I suspect that the charges quoted for Glasgow possibly refer to a short stay car park, where longer term parking would be discouraged by much higher charges after a certain time. Airports are no different in this policy.
MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.
Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.
Parking ticket at railway station
.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Al27
