Parking fine at train station

[rickyquicky]

Hi, could any of you knowledgeable people give me some advice?

 

I recieved a parking ticket at a railway station last december, it was for 'failing to display', I had purchased a ticket but it had gone into the gap between the windscreen and although not obvious to see, it was there, and the the date was clearly visible.

 

Annoyed at the ticket being issued I tore off the parking notice, and ignored it. I never heard from them up until last month (7 months later) advising me I was liable and was required to pay.

 

I ignored that too since it was such a long time (and reading up on similar posts on the forum), but have now recieved a letter today from 'PCN debt recovery and prosecution service':

 

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

Dear Mr ...........

 

On 01/12/2009 you were the registered owner/keepr/hirer of vehicle reg number ......... when parking charge notice ........... was issued because the vehicle was allegedly involved in the following parking contarevtion:

 

'Failing to display a valid ticket or voucher at ........ train station'

 

A 'notice to owner' was sent to you as the registered owner/keeper/hirer of the vehicle because a parking charge notice (PCN) was issued to the vehicle shown above and to date the due payment has not been recieved, nor has any other information been recieved to negate liability.

 

If you fail to pay this charge in full within 14 days from the date of this letter you will face prosecution at magistrates court under railway byelaw 14.

 

(This is more text that is probably not relevant at the moment)

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

 

What in your expert opinions is my best course of action? I no longer have any documentation, ticket etc as it was so long ago.

[lamma]

need to see the PCN and the letter. some are valid as they are pursued by the railway company under the byelaws.

Yours sound like it might be such a case.

 

they are relatively rare - mostly its a PPC having a go.

 

need to see to know.

[pin1onu]

It could be they've wised up to using the byelaws and knowing which court to threaten with. The fact that they are using the term parking charge notice would tend to indicate it's a PPC attempting to claim under contract law.

 

Best bet is to post up the notice. You could also contact Network rail and/or the Train Operating Company and ask if the PPC are managing the car park on their behalf?

[Al27]

Breach of byelaws results in a penalty though. Genuine tickets tend to be plastered with the word.

[crem]

If they are threatening magistrates court under byelaw 14 when it is in fact a PPC private invoice, that would be extremely naughty and would need to be brought to tthe attention of the authorities.

[lamma]

PPC versions normally mention the byelaw thing and then use the usual wording for chasing as a civil matter.

 

we need to see it.

[rickyquicky]

Thank you for all the replies so far.

 

I wont be able to scan and upload until later. Until then, I have noticed that at the bottom of the letter it says "London and South Eastern railway limited trading as Debt recovery and Prosecution services"

 

Would this suggest that it is actually the railway company chasing this up?

 

Does the fact they didnt contact me for 7 months not mean anything?

[Al27]

The railway company can chase up alleged debts like any other private company. It doesn't mean it's a legitimate fine though.

[lamma]

It is highly likely to be under the byelaws if the Railway Company is chasing it.

We need to see the letter, the ticket and the signs and lines.

And it would still need to be won in Magistrate's Court.

[letshelp]

subbing

[rickyquicky]

Subbing?

[letshelp]

Subbing - meaning I am subscribing to the thread. I had nothing to add at that stage but it is a topic I have an interest in, so I will now receive updates when new posts are made.

regards

[rickyquicky]

Thanks for all the replies so far, here is a scanned copy of the last letter recieved from them.

 

The PCN was originally issued by NCP.

[rickyquicky]

Hopefully this is clearer.

PCN.pdf

[ForestChav]

It's an invoice from a private company. It's a "Parking Charge Notice" and the PPCs are not allowed to use the "Penalty Charge Notice" because they don't have any real powers to collect it.

 

Though it hasn't been challenged in court sufficiently - they threaten court action but seem never to actually go to court for whatever reason - it's pretty much likely that you can just treat it as an unenforceable invoice, ignore it, not pay it, and just put all their letters under the bed or something.

[Raykay]

Be careful, Debt Recovery & Prosecution Service appear to be acting for various railway companies not a PPCs, as in this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48371&st=20 which had a result you wouldn't expect from a PPC!

[ForestChav]

Standard disclaimer, as with any advice on a forum from amateurs, seek professional advice if you are not sure.

[Raykay]

It's an invoice from a private company. It's a "Parking Charge Notice" and the PPCs are not allowed to use the "Penalty Charge Notice" because they don't have any real powers to collect it.

 

Though it hasn't been challenged in court sufficiently - they threaten court action but seem never to actually go to court for whatever reason - it's pretty much likely that you can just treat it as an unenforceable invoice, ignore it, not pay it, and just put all their letters under the bed or something.

 

I was just warning against your assumption that the ticket was from a PPC and to ignore it as Debt Recovery & Prosecution Service act for the railway companies. If it is dealt with under byelaw 14, ignoring it may result in a magistrates court summons.

[ForestChav]

The wording implies it is. Only local authorities - i.e. enforceable tickets - can use the term "penalty charge notice". If you could use this term, making your ticket legally enforceable (though the PPC's ticket is yet to withstand case law, we can at present presume it is not enforceable), you would do so.

Hence by the wording you can presume it was issued by a company with the power only to invoice as oppose to fine. A solicitor on another forum I discussed this with earlier disputes the stance this is completely unenforceable but given the way such cases have historically panned out, it probably is fair enough that this is treated as a PPC invoice and ignored...

[Raykay]

A Parking Charge Notice issued under the Railway Byelaws cannot be called a Penalty Charge Notice as they can only be issued by local authority CEOs for contraventions under decriminalised parking laws. Unfortunately PPCs also call their invoices Parking Charge Notices, as they also cannot call them Penalty Charge Notices.

 

The OP needs to establish if the notice was issued on behalf of the railway company under byelaw 14 and deal with it if it was, rather than assume it is a PPC invoice and ignoring it, and ending up with a summons.

[ForestChav]

All very logical, but if you can call it a penalty charge notice, you would?

[green_and_mean]

A Parking Charge Notice issued under the Railway Byelaws cannot be called a Penalty Charge Notice as they can only be issued by local authority CEOs for contraventions under decriminalised parking laws. Unfortunately PPCs also call their invoices Parking Charge Notices, as they also cannot call them Penalty Charge Notices.

 

The OP needs to establish if the notice was issued on behalf of the railway company under byelaw 14 and deal with it if it was, rather than assume it is a PPC invoice and ignoring it, and ending up with a summons.

 

PPCs cannot issue penalties which is why they cannot issue Penalty Charge Notices, Railway Operators can however issue penalties so in theory can issue a penalty charge notice the term is not copyrighted to Councils.

[lamma]

Stand back a little and assess.

 

A real byelaw ticket is indeed a penalty and will be called a penalty.

A TRO is just byelaw don't forget.

 

Every set Railway Byelaws I have seen make the Owner responsible. yet this 'thing' has the usual PPC and council PCN text of "Owner'Keeper/Hirer" .

For example for Northwestern it says

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.

 

Suspect ? Yes, very probably.

 

No Set of Bylealws I have read allow them to add increased fees. You pay what the amount it says in the byelaws or it goes to magistrate's court. Looks like this lot have added an amount. Suspect ? Very.

 

They are claiming it as a debt but they are a third party. as it hasn't been to Magistrate's court there is as yet no 'debt'.

Suspect ? very very.

 

No letter of assignment as been received (Law of Property Act). Suspect. Yes. But then they never get issued by powerless DCAs.

 

The do not name the Byelaw !! (just mention Section 14 - of what. How can you check ?

 

Suspect ? Yes.

 

 

I can't see that they have any statutory right to the £165 they claim.

 

Its either a clear Fraud - or a crap company that sends out crap paper.

 

I don't see how they can claim the £165 or why anyone should pay them and the Railway Company if this is a genuine Byelaw ticket.

 

need to see the 'PCN', pictures of the signs etc at the station.

and it would be advisable to dig out the actual byelaw for that station/railway company IF it exists.

[sameagle]

Section 14? Section 14?

 

Where have I just read this?

 

Oh yes, in the thread titled

Meteor / Orpington / I'm actually in the wrong - what to do?

 

Is this the same thing being "tried on" by another lot, do you think?

 

Sam

[rickyquicky]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

 

If you look at the bottom of the letter it says "London and South Eastern railway trading as DPS"

 

What does that mean in this case? Because it looks like the actual rail company is chasing it? Or not?