APCOA CPN - Swindon Railway Station

trisontana

Alicemann wrote: »

The latest threat says:
"We are fully aware of anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various website and you may well feel this guidance is worth following. We strongly urge you to seek independent legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would respectively suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure Rules part 31 and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17

To be polite to them, they are being "economical with the truth". What they fail to mention is that "Civil Procedure Rules part 31 and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17" do not apply to the small-claims track.

Alicemann

Just to up date anyone who reads this. I never heard from them again so it was only 3 letters in total including one from the solicitor. :beer:

trisontana

Thanks for getting back to us. Your post is a great reassurance for those people who are uncertain that the "ignore" route is the best plan.

RENEGADE_2

I never saw this thread before now. The images uploaded with "civil penalty" are more than likely out of date. Much has changed in only the past year.

Where I got my APCOA (I think the threats have stopped now) in late May, the signage uses "parking" and not "penalty" - however, the word "parking" appears in identical print to the whole text but is on a pad welded onto the board clearly covering a word that has existed before it.

Now can anyone guess what that word is?

I'll tell you this much, if they did take it to court I would use that as my defence - get them to uncover the original word which will tell you what they once stated that it was, and even of they don't now, I'd ask them to explain to the court why they changed it and what is different between then and now.

RENEGADE_2

On second thoughts, I already know the difference. When it was a "penalty" it used to be cheaper, now its "legal modification" (the charge) is more expensive! The prices have been written over as well.

jlsmith_2

Just an update on a point made earlier in this thread. Even if the follow up letters suggest they are operating under Railway Byelaws there are almost certainly not. In all my searching I have never found an example of a genuinely issued Railway Byelaw parking ticket.

Usually PPC companies use this as a threat for car parks they manage at railway sites, but the railway byelaw requires that any penalty payable be displayed at the car park. This is usually not the case as they prefer to proceed down the PPC route to extract greater amounts of cash - and this precludes the use of the word 'penalty' on any documentation or signage.

I have a thread ongoing entitled Meteor / Southeastern and you will see there that despite the threat of magistrates court, the preceding documentation was all on the PPC track, and by the time I ignored / spun it out the 6 month time limit to lay an information at the magistrates has passed.