CP Plus PCN at Railway Station

Kuly

Thanks coupon mad.

Was wondering if I should just RTS the letters when they start coming in and then they might just stop badgering me sooner?

Or how about sending an appeal without my address, just signed on behalf of my car :-)

Or how about not sending anything and when they send me a notice just reply saying I never received a reply to my appeal within 28 days so I consider this matter closed?

Or how about I just forget it and get on with my life as normal and thank you all for the advice. THANK YOU! Can go shopping for clothes for my 4 year old daughter instead at the weekend to celebrate!

RENEGADE_2

Option 4.

In no circumstance should you write to them at this stage, you'll spoil the fun! Let them run for their daily post only to find that each day brings no fruit, then let them pay for your details from the DVLA and write to you without knowing whether you drove. Write to them now and you've volunteered the role of their target and will have cut out all that hasstle for them.

If you get the chance to appeal through POPLA, follow the steps, that way you can preside over a mandatory CP Plus payment of £32 to POPLA.

Stigy

Sorry to revive an old(ish) thread, but I just wanted to point out that I see no reason why, if they are using Byelaw 14, a PCN and any subsequent court action cant be used for any breach of the Byelaw. It'll be either Byelaw 14(2) or 14(3), whether payment is avoided or not is irelevant, as the offence doesn't rely upon failure to pay for parking to be enforceable, and if it is Byelaw 14(3) being used, it wont be the unpaid PCN that goes to Mags court, but the initial avoided parking charge (a few quid no doubt). This will form the TOC's compensation.

RENEGADE_2

Stigy wrote: »

Sorry to revive an old(ish) thread, but I just wanted to point out that I see no reason why, if they are using Byelaw 14, a PCN and any subsequent court action cant be used for any breach of the Byelaw. It'll be either Byelaw 14(2) or 14(3), whether payment is avoided or not is irelevant, as the offence doesn't rely upon failure to pay for parking to be enforceable, and if it is Byelaw 14(3) being used, it wont be the unpaid PCN that goes to Mags court, but the initial avoided parking charge (a few quid no doubt). This will form the TOC's compensation.

True. I think the issue at hand was though that it is not always the case that railway byelaws are being enforced and therefore ordinary Contract Law legislation applies, such as here.

Stigy

RENEGADE wrote: »

True. I think the issue at hand was though that it is not always the case that railway byelaws are being enforced and therefore ordinary Contract Law legislation applies, such as here.

I agree. It's usually when PPCs are concerned that contract law is used. However, that doesn't mean an otherwise ordinary PPC ticket can't be enforced using byelaws if the correct wording is used, as the PPC could be classed as ''Authorised agents etc.

RENEGADE_2

You make an interesting point but I must make one thing clear. Obviously, yes, for byelaws to be effective there are criteria regarding signage, but, Byelaw 14 cannot suddenly be propelled into force simply because it is a railway car park. For example, it might be a private car park which the TOC uses but otherwise is owned by a separate landowner: in this case, you can place the national rail sign on the entrance. Obviously if byelaws are the legislation, there is little in it for PPCs, they at most play "messenger boy", one such reason many will deliberately invalidate byelaw criteria to turn the situation into a last-minute squalid money-making venture rather like all other private car parks.

Stigy

RENEGADE wrote: »

You make an interesting point but I must make one thing clear. Obviously, yes, for byelaws to be effective there are criteria regarding signage, but, Byelaw 14 cannot suddenly be propelled into force simply because it is a railway car park. For example, it might be a private car park which the TOC uses but otherwise is owned by a separate landowner: in this case, you can place the national rail sign on the entrance. Obviously if byelaws are the legislation, there is little in it for PPCs, they at most play "messenger boy", one such reason many will deliberately invalidate byelaw criteria to turn the situation into a last-minute squalid money-making venture rather like all other private car parks.

True, however I've never known this to be the case. The TOC I work for 'own' their own car parks....or lease them from NWR (as all Railway Stations are anyway) but they are the landowner as far as byelaws are to be implemented. Which TOCs do you know of to have private car parks?

RENEGADE_2

I couldn't tell you Stigy, it would be wrong of me. All I can say is that I am familiar with no station car park where byelaws apply, and I know most for the south of England.

Stigy

RENEGADE wrote: »

I couldn't tell you Stigy, it would be wrong of me. All I can say is that I am familiar with no station car park where byelaws apply, and I know most for the south of England.

That's very interesting, because I work for a TOC that covers a large part of the south of England, and the station car parks are their own (well, Network Rail's, but you get the gist). Obviously that's not to say that they don't use a PPC.

We do have a few stations without any car park at all.

RENEGADE_2

I believe I know one of those: Winchester.

I see the only parking near to the railway is all local authority there.