Meteor / Southeastern Parking

geordieracer

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Isn't it because car parks have generally stayed the same size for years whereas certain train services have become much busier? Add to that the fact that more people drive than was the case years ago, and may not live very close to the station.

Too many cars for too few spaces.

I feel sorry for the commuters personally, rushing to catch a train then finding no bays, possibly then spotting a clear edge in a corner of the car park which would not cause an obstruction. Desperately leave their car only to find a pseudo-PCN on their return from their expensive train journey. Especially annoying when you see some station car parks with plenty more space possible if only some more bays were created out of the adjoining scrubland.

On the subject of station car park lack of spaces, do you reckon 'your' car parks have enough disabled spaces to comply with the new law then?!

But the scrubland does not belong to the TOC so they cant do anything with it. Though they could be ingenious like Chiltern have been over the last few years and built double and even triple decks to fit more people and their cars in.


Again you mention this about how many 'The law' says i should have but you havent come up with any sort of number - why is that?

I dont work on stations any more but i shouldnt think the majority of stations have sufficient over the country though - because if not then your 'Law' would have got them in trouble wouldnt it.

Coupon-mad

It's not 'my law' of course and I cheerfully admit that I don't know what figure is the norm for private disabled bays. In my years in Disability Advice it was the DDA and no figures were mentioned at the time. I did read a post on CAG or pepipoo forums recently where Supermarkets were said to adhere to a standard % (maybe someone can find that post?).

I suspect not many services are up to speed with the Equality Act yet - many took years to get the DDA into their heads after all. As for services getting into trouble over the new law, time will tell because AFAIK it only came into being in September.

jlsmith_2

geordieracer wrote: »

BTW OP can i just ask how you have 3 of these tickets now? Did you forget to pay to go into the car park or what?

One time I stayed over in London and didn't realise the ticket had expired the next morning. The second occasion I didn't get any ticket - just a letter saying I hadn't paid. The third occasion I paid & displayed and got a ticket anyway - must have been error.

geordieracer

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's not 'my law' of course and I cheerfully admit that I don't know what figure is the norm for private disabled bays. In my years in Disability Advice it was the DDA and no figures were mentioned at the time. I did read a post on CAG or pepipoo forums recently where Supermarkets were said to adhere to a standard % (maybe someone can find that post?).

I suspect not many services are up to speed with the Equality Act yet - many took years to get the DDA into their heads after all. As for services getting into trouble over the new law, time will tell because AFAIK it only came into being in September.

Im sure i replied to this too - mustve forgot to press post again :mad:

jlsmith wrote: »

One time I stayed over in London and didn't realise the ticket had expired the next morning. The second occasion I didn't get any ticket - just a letter saying I hadn't paid. The third occasion I paid & displayed and got a ticket anyway - must have been error.

so in two instances you basically didnt do what you shouldve done and the third one i cant comment as i dont know what time you entered if it was different to the time on your ticket and such like.

jlsmith_2

geordieracer wrote: »

so in two instances you basically didnt do what you shouldve done and the third one i cant comment as i dont know what time you entered if it was different to the time on your ticket and such like.

Not quite. In the first instance I was stuck overnight in London (working until 2am) so was unable to get home, and even if I'd realised my ticket was expiring I couldn't have done anything about it. This is a relevant point when claiming against unfair civil 'penalties' as there was nothing I could have reasonably done to avoid a contractual breach and I have therefore admittedly a contractual liability and offered to refund them the income they lost (£5) due to the breach (which they have declined to accept).

In the second instance, I should clarify that I did purchase a ticket but never got a 'parking' ticket (or fine, or charge, whatever you want to call it). I simply got a threatening letter from the debt collection service claiming that I had been issued one, which wasn't the case.

On the third occasion my ticket was a weekly ticket and I was within the valid times of the ticket while I was parked.

geordieracer

jlsmith wrote: »

Not quite. In the first instance I was stuck overnight in London (working until 2am) so was unable to get home, and even if I'd realised my ticket was expiring I couldn't have done anything about it. This is a relevant point when claiming against unfair civil 'penalties' as there was nothing I could have reasonably done to avoid a contractual breach and I have therefore admittedly a contractual liability and offered to refund them the income they lost (£5) due to the breach (which they have declined to accept).Thats fair enough - though again if they decide to prosecute under the byelaw then you may come unstuck with your £5 arrangement

In the second instance, I should clarify that I did purchase a ticket but never got a 'parking' ticket (or fine, or charge, whatever you want to call it). I simply got a threatening letter from the debt collection service claiming that I had been issued one, which wasn't the case. Did you prove to them you had a ticket to park though - I couldnt find this out in your OP

On the third occasion my ticket was a weekly ticket and I was within the valid times of the ticket while I was parked.

Thats fine for your third one too if it was a weekly as mostly these are all recorded on the database that the TOC will hold anyway but again if you didnt have it presented then maybe this is why they are on at you.


Im not trying to have a go at you in anyway, just trying to understand the situation a bit better for you to receive the right sort of advice because again - whilst most people on here will just offer up the 'Ignore at all costs' mantra it becomes very cloudy on the railway and moreso as i outlined above with TOCs now taking a more proactive interest in prosecution for the byelaw offences committed and people should know about this.

Stigy

Coblcris wrote: »

They will lose more by going the statutory route in my opinion.
Empirically speaking they would all be using the byelaws properly now of there was money it it for them.
One does not need to break down the business model of enforcing the byelaws through the courts too much but a little thought on that matter is enough.

It's far easier to have a PPC do all the work and rake in a percentage of what they issue. PPCs generally don't charge for their service at Railway Stations, but take the majority of the funds from their tickets. For a TOC to solely deal with the issue, they'd have to have the staff to issue the PCNs, as well as extra workloads for the office staff who have to write letters/set court dates and generally do all the leg work when people don't pay.

At court they'd only receive their costs back, plus the cost of the day's parking is applicable, so financially, they might not be as well off as if they use a PPC.

I think it's as Geordieracer says, it's about flexing theirm muscles so to speak, and using the Byelaws as they were designed to be used, showing customers that they can and will be prosecuted if they abuse the system. A lot of people respect the railway byelaws much more than they do a PPC (after getting advice from forums such as this one). I think if TOCs started using their own penalties and the Byelaws to bring offenders to justice, there'd be a drop in illegal parking at stations.

jlsmith_2

Geordieracer,

No problem, happy to clarify. On the second instance I haven't been able to prove I had a ticket to park as I only received a letter from them about three months after the alleged offence. I generally throw my used tickets into the side ducket and then clear them out. I have no way of proving it but my point is that without an initial PCN it is impossible for me to be in a position to respond either way therefore I have refused to pay.

For the third instance I sent them all that I had, which was a credit card receipt from the machine covering the period in question. I had lost/thrown out the ticket.

My other point of contention is that for the first & third 'offences' I have had a Parking (not Penalty) Charge Notice notice issued by Meteor for a 'breach of terms and conditions' for failing to display a ticket. To the best of my knowledge this isn't an offence under Railway byelaws, nor are byelaws referenced anywhere on the ticket. The ticket talks about 'suing' for collection of sums in the charge notice if I don't pay. I've asked them when they think they issued a 'Penalty' charge notice which informed me of a breach of railway byelaw. Meteor have written back to me saying its nothing to do with them, and I'm still waiting for an answer from Debt Recovery & Prosecution Services. Personally I think there are too many holes in their case. You can't issue a civil ticket and try to enforce it with criminal penalties, which is what they are trying to do.

Thanks for the interest - I will keep you updated when I hear something.

Coblcris

Liability can be statutory, civil or tort.
They cannot mix and match.
I suspect that your answer will be a long time coming and that when or if it arrives it will be, shall we say, something between two stools.

geordieracer

jlsmith wrote: »

Geordieracer,



My other point of contention is that for the first & third 'offences' I have had a Parking (not Penalty) Charge Notice notice issued by Meteor for a 'breach of terms and conditions' for failing to display a ticket. To the best of my knowledge this isn't an offence under Railway byelaws, nor are byelaws referenced anywhere on the ticket.

To reference the byelaws of most things in life whether they are on the railway or your normal local council one would take up far bigger tickets so thats a rather silly thing to say. They do have signs(or should have anyway) telling you as you enter the station or dotted around the car park.

Now you mention that failure to display a ticket is not an offence under the byelaws - your quite right in essence - that in itself is not BUT please take note

Section 14 (2) states "No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway:

(i) in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or

(ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person.

Section 14 (4) (i) says: "The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Bye-law 14 (1) to 14

(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

And the instructions for parking in the car park clearly state that you MUST pay and you MUST display your ticket, this forms the terms and conditions of use of the car park, therefore falls under the byelaw as outlined above.


Whether or nt anything will come of it im not sure as I dont work for Govia but to state that the T&Cs dont come under the byelaws is quite wrong.