Another PCS Parking Invoice

kyebosh

Newbie asking for advice. I have received one of these 'invoices' and having read all other threads it seems that the validity all rests with the signage at the car park, whose name the letter is in, who owns the land, bylaws, etc.

However, I dont fully understand this. So I have taken some photos of the signage and also scanned a copy of the letter. Its all uploaded to dropbox but being a newbie the system wont let me post links, so i hope you can work this out:
https://
www
.dropbox
.com
/sh
/xinn2ugdwjusdvb/ejvbxq98td

Note that on the day in question I did have trouble buying a ticket in the morning (the Ringo network was down) but bought one at the end of the day when I returned. By this time they had identified the problem and recorded the fact that I was parking illegally, so technically they are correct. However, there was nothing stuck to my windscreen so i never knew what had happened. The letter says that I did not respond in time and they have even sent me a picture of the ticket stuck to my car windscreen.

This is so annoying. I hope someone can tell me if i should just pay up or sit it out and ignore them.

Thanks

The_Slithy_Tove

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xinn2ugdwjusdvb/ejvbxq98td

The notice goes on about the PoFA, but also fails to conform to the legislation it claims to be issued under, e.g. no information about appeals, either to PCS or anyone else. So they can't hold the keeper liable, as they have failed to conform.

The standard advice is to ignore. One potential wildcard, though, is the fact it was a station car park, and the notices do mention the byelaws. However, the ticket does not.

peter_the_piper

I don't think this sign has yet been tested, wait for others to reply as I am not sure.

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I don't think this sign has yet been tested, wait for others to reply as I am not sure.

Railway Byelaw 14 has a is quite specific about Penalty / Clamping / Removal etc.
It also is quite specific that an "agent" of the Operator is an authorised person for the purposes of the byelaw.

If the ticket or follow up letter is genuinely a Penalty under Byelaw 14 then it isn't the same as a Parking Charge at all.(IMO)
The only alternative to paying a genuine Byelaw Penalty Charge is to refuse / ignore and run the risk of the Operator commencing proceedings for a breach of Byelaw 14...again just IMO.
Those proceedings would be in a Magistrates Court and would be criminal...not sure that is a risk worth taking, but there again the question remains would the Operator or their agent really have evidence that would satisfy the criminal standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt ".

Byelaws here ..

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

peter_the_piper

That's the way my thoughts were running but is clamping allowed now under 14?

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

That's the way my thoughts were running but is clamping allowed now under 14?

Why wouldn't it be ? A statute that allows for clamping is "lawful authority" surely ...the DfT guidance on POFA specifically mentions byelaws as lawful authority so that is clearly their intention when drafting the legislation ..I can not imagine a good legal arguement that would overturn that ....happy to be proven wrong tho ..:)

PS Dft say :-

"However in a few cases, such as at airports, ports and some railway car parks, byelaws may still give private landholders powers to clamp or tow vehicles."

Interesting they use "may " not will ..so maybe some brave soul has to stick their neck out and test it before a court ...
Still think Railway Byelaw 14 is pretty unambiguous though as it has clear specific provision for clamping and towing .(and Penalty tickets)

peter_the_piper

Seems to be a case of having your cake and eat it. Very unfair, and not intended I'm sure, that a ppc can try to get money off you under POFA or clamp you under Byelaw 14. The first one would be rejected as they are not the landowner and the second because they CAN act for the landowner. Perverse.

Sirdan

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Seems to be a case of having your cake and eat it. Very unfair, and not intended I'm sure, that a ppc can try to get money off you under POFA or clamp you under Byelaw 14. The first one would be rejected as they are not the landowner and the second because they CAN act for the landowner. Perverse.

I don't believe POFA has any relevance to a Penalty issued under byelaw 14 ..POFA allows for the recovery of unpaid "parking charges" .

It defines parking charges as those arising from a relevant contract or a trespass , a Penalty under 14 is neither of those .


B/L 14 clearly allows the agent to act for the Operator, the landowner arguement (VCS vs HMRC) is one of contract law which does not apply .

Also note in B/L 14 it clearly states that the "owner " is liable for the penalty so the Operator or their agent have no need of the keeper liability clause in POFA Schedule 4.

They can proceed on the basis that the keeper is the owner unless the keeper is willing of course to refute this.

I think most Magistrates would hold that the keeper is the owner unless their is evidence to the contary.

The_Slithy_Tove

And how about the impled bribe: if you pay X amount to a private company (PPC or Network Rail), then you can avoid a criminal prosecution. Very perverse.

Sirdan

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

And how about the impled bribe: if you pay X amount to a private company (PPC or Network Rail), then you can avoid a criminal prosecution. Very perverse.

Surely the same could be said of any penalties issued by statutory prosecuting authorities in lieu of proceedings e.g FPNs ?

peter_the_piper

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=74708

Worth a read as its about CPS/Railway.