Railway station parking, Ticket purchases but 20mins after arriving Options

[Leagrave]

Hi all.

Firstly, any help appreciated as I have 4 PCNs ...

I park in the railway station carpark almost daily and have done for 12 years. Up until recently, they have installed ANPR which is when problems started.

ZZPS are chasing me to pay money, despite me purchasing a parking ticket for the day (albeit 30mins after arriving at the carpark). I usually get the laptop out and purchase a train ticket etc, then wait until next train.. then remember to purchase parking ticket on my phone via cashlessconnect parking ). As my parking ticket was not purchased straight away, they want £60 for the privilege.

I have emailed them with photos of the signage and stated that it is not clear where this 20 minute rule is stated.

I appealed, they then sent lots of photos of various signs. All of which have been taken from a completely different carpark. Where I park, there are 2 separate car parks.

I emailed them, telling then that the signs to the car park I park in do not state the 20 minute rule where a parking ticket must be purchased. Consequently they have now put up a sign dtaring this!

Any help would be much appreciated.

This post has been edited by Leagrave: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 18:10

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

Consequently they have now put up a sign dtaring this!

That's tantamount to admitting insufficient signage...

Who is the underlying operator issuing the charges? (Or are they marked as penalties?)

[Leagrave]

This was received in an email from them. I also have a photo of the signage prior to them putting the 20minute sign up...

From Zz
[i]Please note that this case relates to a Penalty Notice issued on railway assets for the offence of failing to obtain a valid ticket or voucher. This is not a Parking Charge Notice.

We are not a Car Park Operator and so we do not have a contract with the landowner; we are a notice processing company specialising in the recovery of outstanding Parking Charge/Penalty Notices on behalf of car park operators. Our contract is with the operator and would not be provided at this stage.
[/i]

PCN Admin centre are also on the letter they have sent to me..

They are noted as Penalty Notice

This post has been edited by Leagrave: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 18:37

[Jlc]

So they are operating on behalf of a TOC?

[Leagrave]

I think they are acting on behalf of Saba Parking Solutions UK Ltd

[Sheffield Dave]

Are your photos capable of convncing a judge that the "20 mins" signs were added after the event?
Do the PCNs claim to be Penalty CNs or Parking CNs?

I assume that in your appeals to ZZPS you admitted being the driver?

[Leagrave]

The photo is from Google street view and is dated 2019.

Not sure how a judge can be convinced about the dates as the photos are not dated as such.

They are marked as penalty notices.

I haven't admitted to being the driver. The car is actually in someone else's name

[Gary Bloke]

If the car park is being controlled using ANPR then it should not matter when you pay for parking, as long as you do this before exiting the car park. Are you sure this isn't a scam?

Nowhere in the Byelaws does it state that you have to pay within 20 minutes of arrival. So are they claiming this is a Byelaw breach or what? Beach of a parking contract? If the latter, then they only suffer a loss if you fail to pay. Also the amount claimed does not represent a genuine pre estimate of loss. The 2015 Beavis ruling may not apply, because this is a station car park and the PPC is paid to manage it by the TOC. No shops hence no commercial justification for contract breach damage claims in excess of a GPEOL.

This post has been edited by Gary Bloke: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 06:50

[Leagrave]

Thanks Gary.

Is the advice to ignore the debt letters?

[Leagrave]

This was the response I received


Thank you for your email.

Please note that this case relates to a Penalty Notice issued on railway assets for the offence of failing to obtain a valid ticket or voucher. This is not a Parking Charge Notice.

We are not a Car Park Operator and so we do not have a contract with the landowner; we are a notice processing company specialising in the recovery of outstanding Parking Charge/Penalty Notices on behalf of car park operators. Our contract is with the operator and would not be provided at this stage.

A copy of our BPA certificate will not be provided, we are listed on the BPA’s website and this is available for you to view.

As we are not the operators, we do not have a copy of their protocol which their enforcement and CCTV operators are required to follow.

Please note that we are not aware of who the landowner is and so would not be able to provide this information.

This site is approved for compliance by our client's accredited trade association, this includes signage compliance. This site has been determined to have comprehensive and sufficient signage in and around the site to form a contract with the driver of the vehicle. It is the view of our client's accredited trade association that the signage is compliant and adequate to enforce parking restrictions on this site.

Pre-estimate of loss in an outdated notion. During the Parking Eye Limited V Beavis case, it was determined that pre-estimate of loss is an outdated notion and that the value of a breach in the terms and conditions of a parking contract must be commercially justifiable. The value of this case does fall in line with the guidelines set out by our client's accredited trade association and therefore deemed as commercially justifiable.

Upon reviewing the photographic evidence to confirm the vehicle registration, it is clear that a payment was made 45 minutes after arrival. The Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system correctly identified the breach of the site terms and conditions and issued a PN. As this site is private land the driver must adhere to the terms and conditions of the site if there is an intention to utilise the facility. These terms include that it is the driver's responsibility to obtain a valid payment for the parking duration as there is no entitlement to park for the public. Although It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they comply with the site terms and conditions, the liability of this PN lies with you as the owner of the vehicle.

Please note that you are unable to appeal with POPLA as they do not adjudicate on Penalty Notices issued by Saba Parking Solutions UK Ltd.

Please note that the accounts we have for this vehicle registration have progressed correctly.

[The Slithy Tove]

As they are insisting it's a Penalty Charge for Byelaws breach, it's time to slow things down. You need to string it out for 6 months from the dates of the notices to avoid prosecution. So, delay any response/further communication to the maximum you can get away with.
The idea is to play ping-pong with you asking for clarification on this, that and the other, questioning anything you can, and so on for as long as possible.

This post has been edited by The Slithy Tove: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 11:54

[Leagrave]

Thanks. Will leave 28 days before replying to the emails

[Gary Bloke]

You didn't fail to obtain a ticket or voucher - you paid 45 minutes after arriving. There was no breach of Byelaws.

They cannot issue a Penalty Notice for a breach of a civil parking contract. Penalties are only possible under criminal law, because this deals with punishment. Civil contract law only deals with compensation. Since there was no breach of Byelaws, they can only claim for damages for breach of a contract - which requires a Parking Charge Notice (= a claim for compensation) rather than a Penalty (= a punishment).
Since penalties relate to criminal offences they can only be legally imposed by a Magistrate's Court.
Parking operators cannot use Byelaws and contract law at the same time. They must choose one or the other and make this clear to motorists which one they are using. In this case they are trying to use both Byelaws and contract law at the same time, it would appear. If the signs say that Byelaws are in force, then that is the only means of enforcement that can be used.

Irrespective of whether the parking operator chooses to use Byelaws or contract law, there is no keeper liability on this type of land, because Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 does not apply at station car parks where Byelaws are defined (irrespective of whether they are being used). Therefore, only the driver could possibly be liable, not the keeper not the owner. You are under no legal obligation to divulge the driver's identity.

Does ZZPS have written authority of the landowner to issue "penalties"? No they don't. Only the parking operator would normally have this authorisation and there are good reasons to believe that Indigo / SABA Park Solutions UK Ltd do not even have this for any of the car parks they supposedly manage. Did you get an initial NTO letter from Indigo / SABA or was the first communication from ZZPS?

Commercial justification in the Beavis case related to a free car park which served a shopping centre. This situation relates to paid-for parking and the car park does not serve any shops. It is a totally different situation. Note that the judges in the Beavis case made clear that their decision only applied to the specific situation they considered. The judgement cannot be blindly applied to different situations, even though the parking operators would like you to believe that.

[Leagrave]

Many thanks for the above. Very useful !

Initial contact was a letter sent by PCN Admin centre. It starts off by stating "all vehicles parked are subject to the railway byelaws"

Apparently I am in breach of bye law 14 ?

[Gary Bloke]

Only a Magistrate's Court would be able to decide if you had breached any of the Byelaws. That decision is not up to Indigo or ZZPS or anyone else.

[Leagrave]

thanks.

I guess if this goes to the Magistrates, then the worse case is I have to pay the sums demanded?

Here is a copy of one of the initial letters received.

[The Rookie]

No, the magistrates would convict and fine you for the breach of the byelaws, they may then make an award to the TOC on top of that, but usually that would be for no more than the original parking fee allegedly owed.

DO NOT ask all the questions on the first reply, the logical first question is 'which Byelaw was breached by "failing to obtain a valid ticket or voucher"', a simple reading of the Byelaws tells you there is no such Byelaw offence. Once they claim it's failing to pay they 'actually really meant, honest' you can point out you paid and hence there was, by their own admission, no breach of Bylaws!

[Gary Bloke]

It's very unlikely to go to a Mag's Court because any fines would be paid to the Government. The PPC and the TOC would not get anything, so no incentive for them to prosecute.
You first need to appeal to SABA on the grounds that you did pay. They will reject the appeal.
You then appeal to ITAL - the so called independent appeals service for SABA Byelaws tickets. Actually they are paid by SABA so draw your own conclusions regarding their independence.
All appeals should be left to the last possible moment so that you get closer to the 6 month prosecution expiry deadline.
ITAL will probably reject your appeal. You will get a couple of threatening letters from ZZPS and then a couple more from QDR Solicitors. You can ignore all these unless you get a real court summons. After 6 months, the letters should stop.

[Leagrave]

Thankyou for the above advice. I will email saba and get the ball rolling

Thankyou for the above advice. I will email saba and get the ball rolling

[ManxRed]

Respond as late as you can without going over any stated deadlines. Remember, you're trying to timeout a 6 month deadline for prosecution. You need to string it out as long as possible.