Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • alfa145
    • By alfa145 26th Jan 16, 9:21 PM
    • 35Posts
    • 29Thanks
    alfa145
    NCP PCN by NCP - Chalfont & Latimer Railway / LU Station
    • #1
    • 26th Jan 16, 9:21 PM
    NCP PCN by NCP - Chalfont & Latimer Railway / LU Station 26th Jan 16 at 9:21 PM
    I received a PCN issued by NCP in Chalfont railway car park for no ticket displayed. This is correct, I might have forgotten to put a ticket on the car that day.

    I received the PCN In January offering reduced payment of £60 if paid in 14 days or £100 thereafter, nothing in the post yet. It seems a lot for a £4 parking loss. Do I still have grounds to appeal?

    I read the newbie thread and it looks like the best course of action is to send a template letter within 28 days (as stated on the ticket), but this concentrates on sign-age - I can't remember if the sign-age is adequate or not.

    Would really appreciate some advice - many thanks
    Last edited by alfa145; 29-02-2016 at 9:58 AM.
Page 3
    • THEPUMA
    • By THEPUMA 11th Oct 16, 8:13 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    THEPUMA
    Very good point. I think I can make a similar point under frustration of contract but it needs rewording.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Oct 16, 8:22 PM
    • 40,580 Posts
    • 52,470 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Now you are getting it...mixu's version is very good as a base but always amend it to make sense. Do not imply who was driving.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • HO87
    • By HO87 11th Oct 16, 11:41 PM
    • 4,126 Posts
    • 7,314 Thanks
    HO87
    In earlier posts in this thread the OP was saying there was no mention of byelaws on the signage.

    But if you look at the first of the signage photos the OP posted via Google (sorry I'm not allowed to include a link) and read section 8 it says byelaws MAY apply - which is the wording NCP seems to use in all railway car park T&Cs.

    So is there a sure fire way of knowing if byelaws apply? Can it be taken as read that they apply at all LU station car parks?

    And is there an update, please, on how the appeal was decided? I'm about to start a similar appeal myself so would be interested to know if this one worked.
    Originally posted by Autolycus2000
    The answer seems to be the list provided above and the following from the TfL Railway Byelaws themselves:

    3 INTRODUCTION
    The Byelaws apply to trains, track and stations that are part of Transport for London's railway, including the London Underground, London Overground and Docklands Light Railway networks.
    The question as to whether the byelaws were referred to on the signage was specifically to do with the applicability or otherwise of the ill-defined "penalty" that a vehicle owner (also not defined) may be liable for should any of the byelaws relating to parking be breached. In order for that to apply then the value of the penalty must be set out on the signage.

    In other words unless the penalty is specified on the signage it cannot be enforced. The fact that this particular byelaw is poorly defined and there is no provision as to how the penalty might be enforced means that its entirely debatable as to whether it itself could be enforced.

    I would suggest that unless NCP can demonstrate that they have an intention to issue a summons for a breach of byelaws then their use of it as a threat to collect a supposed contractual term is deceptive and amounts to oppressive conduct.

    Not that that would be a first for NCP. They surely do not want a repeat of NCP -v- Mayhook
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016).

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 12th Oct 16, 7:11 AM
    • 1,844 Posts
    • 2,513 Thanks
    nigelbb
    I would suggest that unless NCP can demonstrate that they have an intention to issue a summons for a breach of byelaws then their use of it as a threat to collect a supposed contractual term is deceptive and amounts to oppressive conduct.
    Originally posted by HO87
    Only TfL can issue a summons for a breach of bylaws so any threat from NCP that they will do so is always a lie.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

312Posts Today

2,001Users online

Martin's Twitter