Jump to content


APCOA Parking Enforcement Notice Railway Byelaw 14 - Parked over two bays


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5450 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hallo All

 

I was parked in a train station car park a few days ago, I paid the required £5.20 parking fee (covers up to 24 hours), when I returned later that day I had a 'ticket' stuck to the windscreen. It is from 'APCOA' and, as stated in the title of this thread, is titled 'Parking Enforcement Notice Railway Byelaw 14'. The infringement code is 05 - Parked over two bays and they are demanding £80.00 within 28 days (or £50 if paid within 14 days).

 

Can anyone clarify please whether or not the fact that they have put 'Railway Byelaw 14' on the ticket gives them any more power / legal right to demand money from me for parking over a line (only did this as otherwise I wouldn't have been able to get out of my car!). Has the usual threats of county court judgement if I don't pay etc. Based on this Railway Byelaw 14 (does that exist, what is it?) can I still follow the same principles of refusing to pay?

 

Thanks in advance for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, Railway car parks are private property and thus I would say wipe yer bum with it. BUT I may be wrong.....

 

You may well be........

 

Railway byelaws are different from normal private parking

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.

(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.

 

 

 

These byelaws hold up in LAW

 

 

 

Can you scan and post up the ticket you received?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely worth seeing the paperwork.

 

It's also worth enquiring with the rail company if Apcoa is acting as their agent. In some cases they have leased the car park and have no authority to enforce the byelaws. If they are acting as agents then they do have statutory backing under the byelaws and the transport act.

 

NB: If this is being persued under the transport act and byelaws this will be persued in the magistrates court and not the county court.

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

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

need to see the paper - suitably washed of personal details.. Real by law tickets get enforced through Magistrates court. However we have seen some PPCs claim railway By laws on their paper when they do not apply (I think NCP and Excel and both been found to do this).

Edited by lamma
Link to post
Share on other sites

need to see the paper - suitably washed of personal details.. Real by law tickets get enforced through Magistrates court. However we have seen some PPCs claim railway By laws on their paper when they do not apply (I think NCP and Excel and both been found to do this).

 

This is a good point, PPC's will are not unknown to use any underhand tactic available, in particular misrepresenting their authority!

 

TFT

09/07/09 :)Business Studies BA(Hons) 2:1:)

 

eCar Insurance overpayment - £325

Settled in full - 15/09/08

NatWest Student A/C bank charges - £260

Settled under hardship scheme - 08/06/09

Natwest Business A/C bank charges - £60

Settled in full as GOGW - 20/04/09

Santander Consumer Finance late payment fees - £60

Part settled for £48 - 01/03/08

Peugeot Finance late payment fees - £50

Settled in full before county court hearing - 01/09/09

Peugeot Finance overpayment of £247

Settled in full - 01/12/08

Valley Leisure - complaint about collections agent

£160 part refund of gym membership in compensation - 01/02/09

HFC Bank - complaint about payment deducted from my account on wrong date

GOGW £10 - 01/05/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

As well as posting a washed copy of the PCN, post a photo of the signs in the car park as well.

 

The amount of the penalty payable for breach of bye-law 14 must be contained on the signage to comply with section 14.4.1.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen ones that mention the amount of the penalty, signs that mention the by laws, paper that mentions the by laws but still the by laws don't apply. In such circumstances it is clearly Fraud (S.2) in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've attached 'cleaned' scanned copies of the front and back of the 'ticket'

I will have to go back to the car park and take a picture of the sign, I don't recall it specifying charges and their amount but I could be wrong and will check this.

 

Thank you all for your input so far

 

The first scans looked a little small on this thread so I rescanned with a higher dpi, however these don't look much bigger on the thread - can everyone read them? ]

 

 

Thank you all for your input so far

 

 

 

Front of 'ticket':

2hpq78p.jpg

 

 

Back of 'ticket':

adn90h.jpg

apcoa.jpg

apcoa2.jpg

apcoa.jpg

apcoa2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no ticket expert, but there seems to be a distinct lack of information on that ticket to support it's "Railways Byelaws" claim.

 

Await some of our more learned CAG members input I would suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My immediate instincts are that this is issued, not under byelaw 14 of the Railway Byelaws, but as a private parking ticket.

 

It might say Railway Byelaw 14 on front, but on the back it states:

 

"a summons will be issued in the county court where judgement may be sought for debt...."

 

If this was a fine, issued under the Transport Act 2000, it would not refer to a debt. It would also be dealt with by issue of a summons to magistrates court, not small claims court.

Edited by RichardM
missed a couple of words

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

claiming statutory authority when they have none is an offence.

 

check out who the landowner is - check with the railway company, in writing/email not over the phone !

 

there is a (probably slim) chance that it could by a by law issue and the paperwork is just rubbish. If/when you ascertain that it not actually a by law issue then report them for Fraud. and see if you can get it in the local papers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The land owner, irrespective of which station is it, would almost certainly be Network Rail. The land is leased to the Train Operating Company appointed by the Strategic Rail Authority/Office of Rail Regulator to manage the station under the franchise agreement system.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My immediate instincts are that this is issued, not under byelaw 14 of the Railway Byelaws, but as a private parking ticket.

 

It might say Railway Byelaw 14 on front, but on the back it states:

 

"a summons will be issued in the county court where judgement may be sought for debt...."

 

If this was a fine, issued under the Transport Act 2000, it would not refer to a debt. It would also be dealt with by issue of a summons to magistrates court, not small claims court.

 

Good Point :)

 

TFT

09/07/09 :)Business Studies BA(Hons) 2:1:)

 

eCar Insurance overpayment - £325

Settled in full - 15/09/08

NatWest Student A/C bank charges - £260

Settled under hardship scheme - 08/06/09

Natwest Business A/C bank charges - £60

Settled in full as GOGW - 20/04/09

Santander Consumer Finance late payment fees - £60

Part settled for £48 - 01/03/08

Peugeot Finance late payment fees - £50

Settled in full before county court hearing - 01/09/09

Peugeot Finance overpayment of £247

Settled in full - 01/12/08

Valley Leisure - complaint about collections agent

£160 part refund of gym membership in compensation - 01/02/09

HFC Bank - complaint about payment deducted from my account on wrong date

GOGW £10 - 01/05/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

So should I reply to APCOA stating that I'm going to report them for fraud or just wait until they contact me?

 

Should I still go back to the car park and take a photo of the signage - is it still relevant as to whether or not the signage mentions a charge for parking not wholly in a single bay etc?

 

Should I still use the approach that seems to be advocated on here of waiting to be contacted by them and then ask them to prove it was me driving etc?

 

I'm still a little concerned that if they are legally using this railway byelaw and I go accusing them of fraud etc I'm going land myself with a lot of hassle. Are you guys sure that, based on the reference to a county court rather than magistrates and reference to a 'debt' etc, that APCOA are definitely demanding these charges from me unlawfully?

Link to post
Share on other sites

every real by law ticket I have seen has mentioned enforcement through magistrate's court. County Does not apply.

 

precursor your complaints with words such " I believe that APCOA has acted fraudulently (Fraud Act 2006 S.2) and in breach of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (multiple breaches of several parts)".

Link to post
Share on other sites

So should I reply to APCOA stating that I'm going to report them for fraud or just wait until they contact me?

 

Should I still go back to the car park and take a photo of the signage - is it still relevant as to whether or not the signage mentions a charge for parking not wholly in a single bay etc?

 

Should I still use the approach that seems to be advocated on here of waiting to be contacted by them and then ask them to prove it was me driving etc?

 

I'm still a little concerned that if they are legally using this railway byelaw and I go accusing them of fraud etc I'm going land myself with a lot of hassle. Are you guys sure that, based on the reference to a county court rather than magistrates and reference to a 'debt' etc, that APCOA are definitely demanding these charges from me unlawfully?

 

I wouldn't write to them at all at the moment. Let them come to you and see what else they try to throw at you. It would still be good to see a photo of the car park signage, to see what that says exactly. By the way, which station is this.

 

The real difference between private and railway enforcement is who is responsible. Under railway byelaws the owner is responsible, under PPC the driver enters into a contract. What we have seen on here more and more is PPC's operating these car parks and using the PPC route. It doesn't make sense when they have a slam dunk route for enforcement using the byelaws, unless there is something in the relationship between the PPC and the train operator which makes it dodgy to use the byelaws.

 

I suspect that it could relate to the wording of who can enforce the byelaws. Clearly they cannot be an operator as the companies designated as operators are listed in schedule one of the byelaws. Therefore, it comes down to whether the PPC's are deemed to be agents appointed by the operator. My own thoughts are, that if the train operator is still in receipt of the takings, the PPC may be called an agent. If the PPC is sub-leasing the car park from the train operator for a fee, and keeping the takings, then they an't really be called an agent for the TOC amd they are having to go down the PPC route, while trying to hide the legitimacy of their tickets behind a smokescreen of byelaw 14.

 

The relationship between the train Operators and the PPC's operating car parks needs to be looked at in much greater detail. This may tell us why they are issuing more and more tickets under contracts legislation instead of the Transport Act 2000.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Can't really say without seeing the ticket. However, the clues are normally in the small print on the back. If it starts talking about debt collectors, CCJ's for not paying, or even discount for early payment, then they are taking the PPC line and you can safely ignore it for the time being.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...