Dodgy Looking PCN From Vinci at Tube Station

[alewater]

Hi all,

I've searched the forums and I cant find anything on this, so not sure if I'm being screwed or not.

 

Here's the situation,

 

Parked at Newbury Park Tube station today. Last time I was there it was full(as it was indeed today) the attendant just told me to park next to a lamp post that took up 2 bays, so I wasnt blocking any one in. I've done a little diagram to explain a bit better.

 

_______________

|P |P |P |P |P |P |

------------------

 

...........ME

------------------

|P |P |Lamp| P|P |

------------------

|P |P |P |P |P |P |

------------------

 

So today I done exactly the same, bought and displayed my parking ticket and then set off for London.

 

I've come back and I've got a Penalty Charge Notice from Vinci Parking Service stuck on my windscreen. Annoyingly people who were parked on the end of the rows but not in spaces didnt have a ticket.

 

I've had a few parking tickets in the past and know what they should look like and today's one looks very very dodgy.

 

It comes in 2 pieces(www.porter.eu.com/front.jpg and www.porter.eu.com/back.jpg) with nothing on the back of either. There is no mention of appeals procedure, contravention code or reduced fine if paid within 14 days, it just looks plan fake.

 

I've also taken a picture of the sign in the car park(if that helsps?)

www.porter.eu.com/alex/carpark.jpg

 

I know that railway bylaws are different from normal parking notices/charges/fines but I dont know in what way.

 

So do I need to pay this or can I just ignore it and if they get in touch send them a letter stating their regulations and procedures are illegal

 

Many thanks in advance and keep up the good work

 

Alex

[crem]

Isn't this the same thread as this one?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/168135-vinci-pcn-tube-station.html?highlight=vinci

 

So did you have this problem "today" or on the 12th November because obviously the timescales have moved on by now?

[alewater]

Hi Crem,

Yeah your right, sorry got back after a night shift and wasnt totally with it when I reposted it with a picture from the car park sign. I got the ticket on the 12th November which is 25 days ago.

 

Thanks

Alex

[Zamzara]

There are two possibilities:

 

1. Private PPC invoice fraudulently purporting to be official. No further comment needed.

 

2. Real penalty under by-laws, issued on behalf of a public authority. In this case:

 

- railway by-laws allow for a penalty for causing an obstruction or breaking the rules on a sign. The sign says park in designated bays, which you did, as designated by the attendant.

- the public authority is acting unlawfully by misleading you about your right to an independent hearing.

[alewater]

Hi Zamzara,

Thanks for the quick reply.

 

So just to clarify, if its the first possibility, I forget it until I hear from them then send them the standard 'need to deal with driver not owner/your acting illegal' letter and if its the second then...... do I need to do anything? If they come back at me what proof do I have that the attendant told me to park there a few months ago?

 

How can I find out if its a PPC or issued on behalf of a public authority?

 

 

Thanks again to all you guys n girls, your all stars

alex

[Steve__M]

Their ticket implies they are acting under Railway Bye-laws (Railway bye-law 14 is relevant and apt, but only if the land is owned by Network Rail and the company are authorised to enforce the bye-law). The reference to the bye-law is in such a brief manner to suggest that it is suspect.

 

Their sign says nothing about it, but refers to another sign. Can you check the other sign to see if it says anything about Railway Bye-laws?

 

None of the railway bye-law threads I could find (either here or in other forums) came to any sort of conclusion either way. One could assume that you ought to be notified in advance of action that could be taken, but '"assume" makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me"'.

[alewater]

Hi Steve_M,

 

The sign I posted is in multiply locations in the car park and I couldn't see any other signs. I'll get on the blower and try and find out who owns the land, any ideas who to call?

Thanks

Alex

[alewater]

Me again,

I spoke to Transport for London(who spoke to the underground station) and they said that Vinci owned and managed the car park.

 

So I called Vinci and they put me through to their London office who then said that London Underground own the car park and they only manage it for them. I ask what happens after the 28 days and they told me that they will pass it onto a debt collection company. If I contested then I would be given another 28 days to pay.

 

hmmm. So is London Underground the same as Network Rail??

 

Thanks again

Alex

[Steve__M]

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think the risk with Bye-laws is that they can be legitimately pursued through the magistrates court.

 

That said, other than an out of context mention on the original ticket, nobody has mentioned bye-laws, nor specifically the applicable bye-law 14. Instead they are pursuing the debt collection route which is usually a chocolate teapot method where letters can be freely ignored.

 

I would have thought that if railway bye-laws were in force they would have made it very clear by now...could you check that "Important notice" mentioned on the sign.

 

It does sound like you could probably ignore this.

[Al27]

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think the risk with Bye-laws is that they can be legitimately pursued through the magistrates court.

 

Yes, where you would be able to state your case and appeal.

 

I spoke to Transport for London(who spoke to the underground station) and they said that Vinci owned and managed the car park.

 

Which raises alarm bells. If it's nothing to do with TfL, then Vinci might be using the byelaws route in order to trick you into paying.

 

It might be worth sending a brief appeal letter and end by saying you are willing to defend in magistrates court, as is the protocol for Railway Byelaw PCNs.

 

And then in the unlikely event of it all being kosher, you'd get you say in magistrates court. Although I seriously doubt that will happen.

 

There's obviously also the possibility that Vinci are committing fraud and acting highly illegally, but we'll look at that after.

[alewater]

Hi Al17 and Steve__M,

 

Your help and advice is much appreciated. I just spoke with Vinci again and asked if he could tell me what is on the "important notice" sign, he couldn't give me a straight answer and just said the by-laws and wanted my pcn number(which I didn't give him). I asked who's by-laws and he said London Underground. I asked which by-law and he said he couldn't tell me unless I gave him my pcn number. I asked are you sure its LU and not Network Rail he said yes.

 

I explained to him that the attendant told me to park there and he asked if I was going to pay or appeal. I said I'm not going to pay because I think its invalid and he told me to write in stating my version of events.

 

So how does the following sound

 

Ref:PCN XXXXX

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I received the above whilst parked in Newbury Park Tube Station car park on the 12/11/08. I arrived at the car park to find it was full, on a previous visit to the car park(when it was full) the attendant told me to park in front of the pay and display machine so I wasn't blocking anyone in. So I done the same again this time and correctly displayed my ticket. I returned to my vehicle a few hours later to find the above attached to my windscreen.

 

The PCN states that the vehicle was parked in an unauthorised area. The area I parked in was authorised by the attendant on a previous visit resulting in this PCN to be invalid.

 

As a result of this PCN being invalid, I want you to confirm in writing within 28 days that you have cancelled it.

 

If you fail to cancel this PCN I am willing to defend myself in a magistrates court, as is the protocol for Railway By-law PCNs.

 

Yours faithfully

MR A Rse

[Steve__M]

A copy of the railway bye-laws is here. Bye-law 14 is about parking, and 24 is about enforcement.

 

Southeastern Railway - Railway Byelaws

 

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what the implications of magistrates is. That said, the bye-laws do not seem to give them the right to issue penalties (except by way of an "out of court" settlement, perhaps), only the right to pursue you through the courts.

 

The gut feeling would be that they are unlikely to pursue this because it is hard to prove, but I have nothing concrete to base this on. For that reason I would limit what I told them to what is required to fulfil the bye-law:

 

"I received the above whilst parked in Newbury Park Tube Station car park on the 12/11/08. I was parked in a position authorised by the attendant and such that I was not causing an obstruction or hindrance to anyone. I returned to my vehicle a few hours later to find the above attached to my windscreen..."

[pin1onu]

I would agree with Steve's post.

 

 

 

I wrote up some notes when researching this issue previously.

 

 

 

Railway Parking Tickets should mention the Transport Act 2000 and the Railway Byelaws Paragraph 14.2(i) or 14.2.(ii). These two clauses relate to parking that may cause an obstruction and parking not as directed by an authorised person.

 

 

If you can have a good look at the signs particularly if the ticket is not for obstruction. If the issue they are trying to ticket you for something other than obstruction and the signs are not explicit in their directions (e.g. ticket is for not parking in a marked bay and the signs do not say you must park in a marked bay) then you would have a good case for argueing that the ticket is invalid.

 

 

One other thing to bear in mind is that any ticket quoting the above legislation and threatening court action will take you to the magistrates court not a civil court.

 

 

 

The other thing to note is that the owner is liable for the penalty under the byelaws not the registered keeper or the driver.

 

Also if they are not authorised by the Rail company or network rail as the OP has suggested then they have no business attempting to recover under the byelaws and would, IMO, be sailing close to the wind on Fraud:Obtaining Money by Deception.

[crem]

Agree with Steve M. The less you tell them at the moment the better. i.e. If you told me you had been told you could park there "on a previous occasion", I would not agree with you that this authorisation was perpetual and that you could park there on any futher occasion without specific re-authorisation on each visit. Steve M's phrase of "I was parked in a position authorised by the attendant...." is suitably vague and does not imply which day this authority was given.

[Guest Ting]

edited

edited

 

Alewater has started a new thread and all of the sequence of events isn't here. As i understand it - fairly simple to amalgamate threads?

 

crem spotted it early and linked to the original thread - and isn't that oh so relevant!

 

This is what I said to OP nearly four weeks ago >>

 

Best to check with the landowner what the true circumstances of enforcement are and signs at the location will give further clues.

 

Now everyone's posts are basically trying to help by raising the same questions. The kind of research required isn't rocket science or anything specialist to do with parking, just common sense. Follow up research and actually establish some facts.

 

Very simple and we are all saying the same - is it issued under Railway byelaws or are Vinci 'trying it on'. It makes the world of difference and will resolve the case.

-

Edited December 10, 2008 by jonni2bad

[lamma]

If Vinci is claiming bylaws when not applicable then their paper is both unlawful and illegal (i.e. Fraud). what we have seen does not look like 'proper' bylaw paperwork to me. The land registry can tell you who owns the land.

[alewater]

Hi all,

 

 

Many thanks again for all your help. I've now sent vinci a letter basically saying I was parked in a position authorised by an attendant and such that I was not causing an obstruction or hindrance to anyone and I want them to write to me confirming they have cancelled it. I didn't give them any more details than they needed.

 

 

Thanks again to everyone for all your help:)

al

 

 

 

 

Lamma,

I tried the land registry but they didn't hold any data on who owns it.

 

 

Pin1onu,

There have been no mention of transport act or railway byelaws (apart from "Railway byelaws" on ticket)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ting,

 

 

Thank you for your replys.

Firstly, if I knew how to amalgamate threads I would, sorry I'm not a massive techno person.

Secondly, life as with everyone is busy and things get put on the back burner sometimes and this was one of those times for me.

Thirdly, common sense isn't always well known:).

Fourthly, I don't know if its issued under the railway byelaws or if vinci are trying it on. I've spoken to TFL, who spoke to LU who said that vinci own it and manage it(I know what to do in this situation) but on speaking to vinci(double checking) they said LU own it and they only manage it. Which to me tells me it could be under Railway byelaws. You have all the info that I have, you have a cut down version of my phone calls and pictures of the ticket and signage at the car park. To me its like they are both pointing the finger at each other.

Lastly, my finger has been firmly pulled out:eek:(esp if you can tell me how to amalgamate threads):D:D:D:D

thanks again

al

[Steve__M]

Please tell us how you get on (bookmark the thread so you don't have to start a new one and put Ting into even more of a tizz . There is an infuriating number of threads relating to railway parking that fizzle out because the original poster disappears.

[alewater]

Will do

Bookmark added:)

 

Thanks again.

[crem]

Ting,

 

Thirdly, common sense isn't always well known:).

 

In my experience m'laud, common sense is far from common.

[Guest Ting]

Ting,

 

 

Thank you for your replys.

Firstly, if I knew how to amalgamate threads I would, sorry I'm not a massive techno person.

Secondly, life as with everyone is busy and things get put on the back burner sometimes and this was one of those times for me.

Thirdly, common sense isn't always well known:).

Fourthly, I don't know if its issued under the railway byelaws or if vinci are trying it on. I've spoken to TFL, who spoke to LU who said that vinci own it and manage it(I know what to do in this situation) but on speaking to vinci(double checking) they said LU own it and they only manage it. Which to me tells me it could be under Railway byelaws. You have all the info that I have, you have a cut down version of my phone calls and pictures of the ticket and signage at the car park. To me its like they are both pointing the finger at each other.

Lastly, my finger has been firmly pulled out:eek:(esp if you can tell me how to amalgamate threads):D:D:D:D

thanks again

al

 

Well, how refreshing that is!

 

My post that you reference was quite direct and critical. I can be like that sometimes, the aim being to get people focussed - but - admittedly I'm sometimes a little too direct.

Much respect to you for not taking it the wrong way, responding in a decent manner and explaining further.

 

On 'amalgamation of threads' - I should explain - that wasn't aimed at you. It was a comment on the forum moderators.

Yeah, you should really have found your original thread and added to it - but - you are by far not the first and you won't be the last, here or elsewhere. edited. The Mods are good though, at deleting some of the more inept and ridiculous trolls or touts - very swiftly - and they act as volunteers as far as I know.

 

On the issue of research.

Where I had an issue is that the relevant things had been explained. I don't doubt you tried and I know how difficult it can be to get answers over the phone. Point was though that what you really needed to find out - just hasn't happened. Not necessarily your fault, I know, but don't take 'don't know' as an answer. The answer is there somewhere but speaking to Vinci isn't going to get it! (you did well to refuse to identify yourself to their, ahem, clever little questions though!).

Someone owns that land! Someone knows under what laws and conditions parking there is managed. Just an idea: On site, there must be a 'site/station manager' He must know?

 

If I had to guess it, based on the 'ticket', Vinci are trying it on and that is outrageous behaviour.

For your safety you need to be sure it isn't a Railway Byelaw issue. I'm fairly sure that if it was there would be some info on the 'ticket' about appeals and pursuit via criminal proceedings in a Magistrates Court. They are not saying that so it does look most likely a ppc situation IMO.

 

regards.

Edited December 10, 2008 by jonni2bad

[alewater]

Hi Guys,

Hope you had a good xmas and new years. I thought I would just give you a little update, hopefully not jinxing myself.

 

As of this morning I've not heard anything from vinci regarding this ticket and its been 2 months since I received it and over a month since they recieved my response.

 

I was back a Newbury Park the other day and got there in plenty of time, so I had a really really good look around the car park and I found the 'Important Notice' sign. Its slightly bigger than a piece of A4 paper and was mounted on a sign a entrance, just were the speed bumps and posts are, so you are making sure you dont scratch your car instead of looking at the sign, anyway I digress.

 

You will never guess what this o so important sign says...

 

About railway bylaws, NO

About their t&c, NO

 

It says the prices will be going up, nothing more, nothing less.

 

If I eventually ever hear anything,I'll post it here again.

 

thanks to everyone again

 

Regards

Alex

[Steve__M]

Good news. Sounds like not paying was the right course of action.

 

To me, the main new lesson of this thread is that private parking companies operating at railway sites are not averse to making references to Railway By-laws even if the laws are not applicable to that location.

[Al27]

It's not unknown for there to be a 5 or 6 month delay though. Just so you know!