Parking fine at train station

[patdavies]

posted in error

[Al27]

I think it's a [problem]. But if you follow the advice in this thread, you'll be covered IMO: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?247689-Meteor-Orpington-I-m-actually-in-the-wrong-what-to-do/page2

 

Plus, if this is a [problem], this is a major one. And we need all the paperwork we can get hold of.

[lamma]

I agree. A well worded letter to them may result in revelations.

[RichardM]

One thing that makes me very nervous about this and some of the advice so far, is that the correspondence has been sent from the Revenue Protection Support Services Office of L&SE, not from a private debt collection agency. (check the address against revenue protection letters in the railways section!)

 

The RPSS are the body who have responsibility for collection and administration of unpaid penalty fares notices for various Train Operator Companies, and have a legal right to do so under Railway Byelaws and the Transport Act 2000. It would appear that L&SE have given them a responsibility for collection of parking rickets as well, as they are quite entitled to do, as long as the signeage in the station car park refers to the Railway Byelaws.

 

Where the railway companies differ from PPC parking is that it is the "owner" of the vehicle who is liable for any charge under Byelaw 14(3) and 14(4)(i)of the Railway Byelaws, and it is an offence for which a magistrates appearence would be required.

 

Byelaw 14.

 

(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.

 

What you have to weigh up is what the implications for yourself are if it does end up in magistrates court. There it is not as easy to argue you case, because it is not about breaches of contracts, it is about breaches of legislation. Remember, the Train Operating Companies take several hundred (if not thousands) to court each year for fare evasion offences, which are essentially breaches of the same Railway Byelaws taht they are quoting at yourself, and unlike the PPC's they rarely lose because they have law on their side.

 

This is probably one of those sad cases where, had you kept the notice and the ticket, and responded to the first letter, the matter probably would have been dropped by the railway company without further action. Now, the only way your could possibly argue your case would be on signage - Byelaw 24 (4) unless you can prove at this late stage that you had paid and therefore complied with Byelaw 14 (3)

 

Full copy of the Byelaws can be found here

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/legislation/regs/railwaysbyelaws.pdf

[lamma]

Does the display show a charge of £165 ?

[rickyquicky]

Does the display show a charge of £165 ?

 

Im not sure as luckily, I no longer have to commute to central london every day!

 

I am going to go to the train station tomorrow and take some photo's of signage etc regarding parking...and will then update.

 

Thanks to all

[Zamzara]

Section 219 of The Transport Act 2000 is the enabling legislation, but does there does not appear to be any power to make bye-laws which make any person liable to a penalty, or to make the owner liable rather than the offender.

 

There is a power in schedule 20 of the Act to make any person contravening them guilty of an offence, but the bye-laws do not appear to do so.

[patdavies]

IF this is a genuine byelaw ticket, then at the moment they have approached the OP as RK.

 

Unlike DPE, owner is not defined as RK unless otherwise proven.

 

As the burden of proof in a Magistrates' Court is beyond reasonable doubt, how are they going to prove ownership to the level of proof required without an admission from the OP.

[Al27]

Section 219 of The Transport Act 2000 is the enabling legislation, but does there does not appear to be any power to make bye-laws which make any person liable to a penalty, or to make the owner liable rather than the offender.

 

There is a power in schedule 20 of the Act to make any person contravening them guilty of an offence, but the bye-laws do not appear to do so.

 

They might have a specific byelaw for that specific station. Any council can apply to make any byelaws, but they have to be approved.

 

I'd be surprised though! Hence why we need to see the byelaw they are on about.

[Zamzara]

It's still hard to see how it could be enforced without a s.172 request first. I don't think the owner or registered keeper can be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence without primary legislation to that effect.

 

It's starting to look like railways bye-law tickets are in trouble.

[patdavies]

S.172 does not and cannot apply. It relates to matters under the RTA and any request must be made on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police; not some numpty in revenue protection.

 

Councils can use a different approach to discover the identity of parking offenders under the provisions of the RTRA 1984, but only where parking is not decriminalised.

[Zamzara]

Exactly.

[rickyquicky]

[rickyquicky]

Sorry its taken a while but I had to find the time to go to the train station to take a photo of the parking sign!

 

Its a big sign and my photo is of the section 'enforcement' which is probably the most relevant.

[green_and_mean]

It's still hard to see how it could be enforced without a s.172 request first. I don't think the owner or registered keeper can be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence without primary legislation to that effect.

 

It's starting to look like railways bye-law tickets are in trouble.

 

The penalty is not for a criminal offence in the same way a penalty fare is not the bye laws enable operators to charge a penalty not paying the charge is probably a criminal offence but the penalty is as it says a penalty not a fine.

[Wriggler7]

They might have a specific byelaw for that specific station. Any council can apply to make any byelaws, but they have to be approved.

 

I'd be surprised though! Hence why we need to see the byelaw they are on about.

 

National Rail Byelaws, made unders Section 219, Transport Act apply to all National Rail stations, and car parks on railway land.

[Wriggler7]

I think that before anyone gets brave, and ignores parking 'penalties' (please forget the semantics) for offences in railway station car parks, they should understand that railway byelaws are used by train companies and their agents all the time.

 

Ignoring a railway leads to prosecution in Magistrates Court. I must confess, I haven't had any dealings with parking in a railway car par since about 1997, but in those halcyon days, British Transport Police prosecuted these cases. I think that my local line has contracted the management of their car parks to NCP, and I know that NCP put railway Byelaws (quite correctly) at the entrance to all those car parks. I think that NCP also deal with the other railway in Essex.

 

The OP is troubled, so we are told, by RPSS, which is part, I believe, of Southeastern Railways. Foriegn country to me, but I think from threads in the 'railway' area that Southeastern have a very proficient team of prosecutors.

[Al27]

Yes, railway byelaws exist and we have seen legitimate examples.

 

But so do private companies acting fraudulently by giving out unenforceable invoices unlawfully and fraudulently masquerading as legitimate byelaw penalties.

 

You mention NCP - the exact company who give out fraudulent tickets. You can't put byelaw signs at the entrances, issue invoices and pocket the money yourself!

[Wriggler7]

S.172 does not and cannot apply. It relates to matters under the RTA and any request must be made on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police; not some numpty in revenue protection.

 

Councils can use a different approach to discover the identity of parking offenders under the provisions of the RTRA 1984, but only where parking is not decriminalised.

 

Numpties in revenue protection prosecute more cases succesfully than any other agency that I have come across. Consider them numpties at your peril.

 

On a typical day in Basildon Magistrates, Basildon Council prosecute 4 cases, DWP 2, Environment agency 6, local Railway 38.

 

Railways have been prosecuting one way and another since the Rainhill Trials.

[Al27]

Yes, plenty of fare dodging cases are heard in mag courts around the country everyday.

 

We're getting off the beaten path - nobody denies the enforceability of railway byelaws.

 

But what is the evidence that this case is one of them?

[rickyquicky]

As a follow up to the image I posted there is absolutely NO mention of any byelaws etc. It merely states a 'parking charge notice' is payable.

[Wriggler7]

Quote from Al27: "You mention NCP - the exact company who give out fraudulent tickets. You can't put byelaw signs at the entrances, issue invoices and pocket the money yourself!"

 

Who 'gets' the money is a matter between the car park management team and the Railway. If the Railway lets a contract to NCP which indicates that NCP get the 'penalties', then that is a question for them. The management of the car park, tarmaccing it and so on, costs money, and parking fees are charged, how the receipts are divvied up is between the contracting parties.

 

When the 'Essex' railways employed a contractor to prosecute fare evasion, the contract was that the railway got the fares recovered, but the contractor kept the 'costs'. It worked quite nicely for the contractor, who I knew, and when his contracts came up for renewal, which was about when he wanted to retire anyway, the railways took the work back 'in hoiuse'.

 

I do not see that there is any difference in allowing a contractor to keep parking penalties. They pay the wages of the car park patrols.

[Al27]

They are not issuing non-endorsable Fixed Penalty Notices for breach of railway byelaws, they are issuing invoices for alleged breach of contract and using the term 'breach of railway byelaws' to dupe the public into paying.

 

This is the issue.

[lamma]

That is fraud to my mind

[green_and_mean]

They are not issuing non-endorsable Fixed Penalty Notices for breach of railway byelaws, they are issuing invoices for alleged breach of contract and using the term 'breach of railway byelaws' to dupe the public into paying.

 

This is the issue.

 

There is no legislation to permit the issuing of fixed penalty notices for breach of railway byelaws, the legislation states that the railway operator or an authorised person can issue a penalty for an amount as advertised locally for the breach which is what they are doing. You don't get a fixed penalty notice for fare evasion you get a penalty fare this is exactly the same concept which is not that hard to grasp is it? The only point of argument should be that the signage was clear that a penalty would be given if parked in breach. It doesn't matter who issues the penalty SWT, NCP or casey jones himself as long as he is authorised the penalty is due.