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
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Sep 17, 7:17 PM
    • 7,379Posts
    • 6,423Thanks
    The Deep
    Scheduled land -A trading Standards Officer's View
    • #1
    • 12th Sep 17, 7:17 PM
    Scheduled land -A trading Standards Officer's View 12th Sep 17 at 7:17 PM
    I have now received a reply to my letter of complaint re Apcoa on Railway Land.

    I am unable to deal with it at the moment as I refurbishing two of my flats and moving house, but if any one has any comments I will pass them on, the writer is legally qualified.

    My MP has also expressed an interest;


    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    1) The area of law appears initially complex, and I have read a number of apparently well-informed forums regarding the matter of the civil/ criminal sanctions at play in this situation.

    2) On researching railway byelaws in general, it is evident that they are intended to criminalise certain activities in relation to railways, such as smoking, to act as a deterrent to potential transgressors, where that conduct would not normally cause the transgressor to commit a criminal offence. So, taking the example of queuing, what would not normally be a criminal act of not joining the queue at the back (queue jumping), is, in effect criminalised by byelaw 1(2).

    3) Article 14 of the byelaws criminalise parking transgressions that would not normally amount to a crime in other car parks. What it does not do though is exclude civil/ contractual sanctions; they simply run in parallel, as the criminal and civil law does in most areas of law. So you could end up with a criminal conviction or be sued for breach of contract for parking transgressions.

    4) When a motorist parks, pays for a pay and display ticket etc, they are forming a contract by conduct and accept the terms and conditions of parking in doing so. That is contractual/ civil law and will always remain so but in the case of railway car parks, there could also be a criminal offence attached to certain conduct.

    5) The terms and conditions of the contract are provided at the entrance to Tilehurst railway station car park and also at the pay point and there are other signs drawing attention to their existence. I would suggest that it would be difficult for a consumer to argue that they hadn’t seen the signs around the conditions of parking.

    6) The fact that parking transgressions are criminalised by the byelaws does not prevent action for breach of contract if the consumer has not met the terms, such as not parking within a bay.

    7) APCOA, evidently duly appointed by FGW, has elected to take civil/ contractual sanctions, rather than pursue criminal sanctions against motorists who transgress in the car park. I cannot see anything in law to prevent them from taking this approach.

    8) If the complaint is right and followed through to a natural conclusion, that is to say that the relationship in railway car parks one of a (potentially) criminal nature and not a civil one, it would also mean that you couldn’t sue them for anything (say damage to a car from a falling sign). Being that it is a contract, both parties can sue and be sued and those rights cannot be restricted.

    9) Clearly, there is an element of persistence in their pursuit of motorists that they believe have breached the contract of parking and there is the question of whether they would actually pursue a motorist to court to claim a debt but, on the face of it, as appointed car park management agents, that is what they are entitled to do.

    10) As to the identity of the transgressor, being the owner/ driver but not the registered keeper, I don’t think I have read Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in the same way as Mr Scott as I cannot see why it wouldn’t apply to the registered keeper, providing the conditions, as stated, are met. It would seem to me that “relevant land” has to be defined in the notice (of the transgression) when it isn’t subject to statutory control, but if it is subject to statutory control, that isn’t required. I am assuming that the mischief being dealt with by the Schedule in this regard is where someone may have parked on what might appear to be wasteland but turns out to be a car park. Schedule 4 is not an easy read though and I may have missed something on this part of the complaint, so you may need to draw my attention specifically to the part from which you have made your allegation.

    11) Schedule 4 does regulate private parking companies and it was put in place to provide a balance for car parks who were previously clamping and removing vehicles (made illegal in Chapter 2 of the Act) but still needed some tools to try to tackle parking problems. It sets out the conditions in which motorists can be pursued for transgressing parking terms and as long as the operators are complying with the controls in Schedule 4, they are acting legitimately.

    12) Based on the conclusions above, I have not be able establish any trading standards criminal offences from the conduct of APCOA and as such, I regret that we cannot take the matter further forward. Having said that, if you can expand on the Schedule 4 issue, or need further clarification, please let me know.
    Last edited by The Deep; 12-09-2017 at 7:24 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
Page 1
    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 12th Sep 17, 10:50 PM
    • 141 Posts
    • 43 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:50 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Sep 17, 10:50 PM
    Why do you want people who parked at railway car parks to potentially get criminal records rather than a fake invoice?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Sep 17, 12:10 AM
    • 51,537 Posts
    • 65,144 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 13th Sep 17, 12:10 AM
    • #3
    • 13th Sep 17, 12:10 AM
    Smart Parking not that busy these days?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 13th Sep 17, 7:49 AM
    • 6,348 Posts
    • 8,155 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #4
    • 13th Sep 17, 7:49 AM
    • #4
    • 13th Sep 17, 7:49 AM
    Why do you want people who parked at railway car parks to potentially get criminal records rather than a fake invoice?
    Originally posted by Ryandavis1959
    2+2 = 5 ???

    oh dear
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
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

868Posts Today

6,572Users online

Martin's Twitter