Meteor Railway parking ticket

bazster

louloukoi16 wrote: »

I spoke to trading standards institute on the phone who said it would be passed to the correct trading standards team. I email trading standards to say what's going on? And they emailed back saying they have no info about this case and reference is not the same.

:wall: So you start again, but start with your local T.S. not the Trading Standards Institute. It's part of your council.

As for DRPS, the letter you should've sent in the first place:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=65648441&postcount=53

louloukoi16

Baz that is the letter I sent

louloukoi16

The plot thickens! How's is this even legal!

A request for your information was made by SouthEastern, Debt Recovery and Prosecution on the 1st May 2014. The keeper details for the vehicle in question was for the alleged contravention of the terms and conditions of parking on SouthEastern land, which they claim is railway land and usually covered by railway bylaw. If you believe this not to be the case or that your information was obtained illegally, please provide any evidence, such as any letters sent you or parking charge notices.

Meteor act as parking operator on the land on behalf of SouthEastern and there is no record of any data being released to Meteor by the DVLA. If you believe your information has been passed to Meteor or any other third party by SouthEastern, please provide the evidence requested in my previous two emails.

As SouthEastern, Debt Recovery and Prosecution have requested your details in respect of an unpaid debt they are not required to be a member of either the British Parking Association (BPA) or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), however, the company managing the car park, and who original issued the parking charge, are required to be a member of either the BPA or the IPC, which Meteor are.

If you feel that any of the actions that Meteor have taken in this particular case contravene the code of practice, you should contact the BPA at Stuart House, 41-43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, RH16 3BN providing full details and evidence that the Code of Practice was breached. If a company fails to comply with the code of practice, it can be expelled from the scheme meaning no further data will be provided to it by the DVLA. Unfortunately, you have not provided anything to suggest that this is the case and it would be inappropriate for the DVLA to investigate further.

The DVLA is obliged to release keeper details under Regulation 27.1(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, where we are satisfied that there is reasonable cause demonstrated. The manual request received by SouthEastern satisfied that requirement. Drivers choosing to park a vehicle on private land do so subject to the terms and conditions set out on signage in the car park. The need to contact individuals who may not have complied with these conditions is, in most circumstances, considered to be a reasonable cause.

You have the right to request the information held about you by the DVLA and any requests made for information from the vehicle record, however, this must be made in writing providing full name and address and details of the vehicle registration mark(s). The fee for this service is £5.00. Requests should be sent with any necessary documents to: Vehicles Fee Paying Enquiry Section, DVLA, Swansea, SA99 1AJ.

If you believe that DVLA or any other party mishandled your data you should provide full details to the Information Commissioner; details can be found at the following web address: http://ico.org.uk/concerns/handling.

You can also find full details of the DVLA complaints process at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/driver-and-vehicle-licensing-agency/about/complaints-procedure.

Regards

Coupon-mad

What is wrong here is the PCN, which wasn't a PCN in the way SouthEastern think it was. That's the simple way you need to explain this in your complaints.

So, just to explain (sorry if it's obvious) if the TOC had actually issued a real PENALTY Charge Notice in March then yes, these latest letters would be a valid follow up for a TOC. And yes, they could take any byelaws breach (failure to pay a P&D ticket) to Magistrates Court as long as they do that within 6 months. After that they are stuffed (by Sept, only a few weeks of faffing about and it's over, so engage them in further letters!).

But this comes back to the fact that no Penalty Charge Notice was ever issued.

What was put on the car was a 'Parking Charge Notice' a private document which has a whole different legal meaning and set of procedures to follow than a PENALTY CHARGE. The former MUST involve a certain procedure under the BPA Code of Practice, MUST have been followed by its sister document, a 'Notice to Keeper' not earlier than 29 days after the Parking Charge Notice, and MUST offer POPLA or IAS appeal to the keeper and the driver.

As the car was issued with a Parking Charge Notice and not a Penalty Charge, the recipient was entitled to expect the BPA code of practice to be followed. The registered keeper was entitled to only act once they received a compliant Notice to Keeper. This of course never arrived because the TOC has 'assumed' that a Meteor PCN is some sort of hybrid 'penalty' anyway just because it uses the same acronym. IT IS NO SUCH THING.

Meteor and the TOC cannot muddy the waters, change the process half way through and change the person liable (in fact leave the liability unexplained, which is even worse - is it the keeper, the owner or the driver?!). And to threaten Magistrates Court over an invoice which was never a penalty and does not have the 'penalty' pathway to Magistrates Court open to it is wholly misleading. The letter is not a 'normal' debt collector letter BTW. It's a real TOC prosecution letter, applied wrongly, which is why you need to complain and not ignore it.

This is a serious breach of the BPA Code of Practice which sets out the pathway Meteor should have followed for any 'parking charge notice', all of which has gone out of the window.

Explain the above to the BPA.

Explain the above to SouthEastern.

Explain the above to the DVLA.

Copy in Trading Standards, your MP and Passenger Focus.

You do need to explain it simply as I don't think for one minute the recipients of your complaints have got a handle on what's wrong here.

It's almost easier to explain it as a simple riddle - Q: when is a PCN not a PCN? A: When it's a parking charge notice. The BPA and DVLA should be cancelling these as two different documents have been muddled, perhaps not deliberately but it's so misleading as to be unrecoverable. As long as you can show that clearly.

bazster

So, at long last, DVLA has 'fessed up who actually requested the details.

The TOC doesn't need to be a member of an ATA because it is the landowner.

But in my opinion they are still in breach of the DPA because of the improper way they have used the details they requested.

As C-M says, the issues need to be spelled out in words of one syllable.

louloukoi16

ok, I know i should really explain it in simple terms but how can i because now it looks very unclear to me that the situation my mum stands in. And obviously dont want her to get in trouble via mags!

Coupon-mad

how can i because now it looks very unclear to me that the situation my mum stands in.

That's exactly why you should and can complain - things like this are not allowed to be this unclear! I thought you could just copy & paste what I typed in the main part of my reply which is why I spelt it out for you to copy, so you'd end up with one letter to send them all, like this (mostly copy & paste except the first paragraph needs to be in the first person of course):


Start by saying that this has utterly confused you (or your Mum if she's the recipient) as to why no POPLA code was forthcoming and why SouthEastern think a Penalty Charge was ever issued, when it wasn't. Further, it's not even clear who they consider liable which is shocking; not to make that clear is unacceptable. This is not in accordance with the principles of fairness and transparency under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 which is why Trading Standards have become involved.

To spell it out - this comes back to the fact that no Penalty Charge Notice was ever issued. What was put on the car was a 'Parking Charge Notice' which has a particular legal meaning under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and under the BPA Code of Practice.

A 'parking charge notice' is a document which has a wholly different meaning and set of strict procedures to follow than a PENALTY Charge Notice. The former MUST follow the prescribed procedure under the BPA Code of Practice, MUST have been followed by its sister document, a 'Notice to Keeper' not earlier than 29 days after the Parking Charge Notice, and MUST offer 'Parking on Private Land Appeals' (POPLA) to the keeper and the driver. There is no other procedure for an AOS member like Meteor to follow when they choose to issue a Parking Charge Notice.

Not only that, a parking charge notice is not allowed to be punitive - that is clearly stated in the BPA Code of Practice - so cannot possibly be described in later letters as if it were a penalty charge, by any stretch of the imagination. These are some of the terms of the Code for Meteor to follow when issuing a document they have chosen to call a 'parking charge notice':

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_-_V4,_Feb_2014.pdf

'14.1 - You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority.'
'14.3 - unless you have previously defined a PCN as a ‘parking charge notice’ on your signs and notices, you must avoid using the term ‘PCN’ to avoid confusing drivers about the nature of your parking enforcement.'
'19.6 - If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive...'
'34.5 - You must not try to impose a ‘penalty’. You must not call a parking charge a ‘penalty charge’ on any document (electronic or paper) that refers to parking charges...'

Moreover, the BPA's stated aim in heir latest 'Master Plan for Parking' is to 'encourage fairness':

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/BPA_English_MP_2014_AWweb.pdf

Does anyone reading my heartfelt complaint think that what has been sent since the 'parking charge notice' is fair? As a normal, law-abiding family, we certainly don't. We are completely confused and upset about this turn of events whereby the TOC seems to think a penalty was issued when it was not. Obviously the general public are aware that a train operator can issue certain penalties for certain bylaw offences but that is not what has happened, hence the complaint.

This must be happening to people every week and people are no doubt paying because they are being misled by the name and nature of the 'PCN' then get a nasty surprise later on, instead of a right to appeal to POPLA. Keepers of cars receiving these 'PCNs' from Meteor are being lulled into a false sense of security that they know what they are dealing with and that they will be allowed to appeal; these facts were researched in detail by my family in readiness for the 'Notice to Keeper' but this never arrived. This is utterly unfair and the result is a great deal of upset and lack of clarity about where we stand. The recipient was entitled to expect the BPA Code of Practice to be followed. Just like with Council tickets where the owner can wait for formal appeal stage when Notice to Owner arrives, with a parking charge notice a keeper is entitled to wait for the Notice to Keeper. This of course never arrived because SouthEastern seems to have 'assumed' that a Meteor 'PCN' (a handy acronym) is some sort of hybrid 'penalty' anyway just because it uses the same initials. IT IS NO SUCH THING.

Meteor and the TOC cannot muddy the waters, change the process half way through, from a civil matter to Magistrates Court level and change the person 'liable'. In fact they have left the liability unexplained, which is even worse - is it the keeper, the owner or the driver and why/how can that have changed so it is now different from the meaning within the parking charge notice? And to threaten Magistrates Court over an invoice which was never a penalty and does not have the 'penalty' pathway to Magistrates Court open to it, is wholly misleading and intimidating. We are so frightened by this we almost just gave up and paid despite the unfairness, just to make it go away. Is this how SouthEastern wants the travelling public (its customers) to feel?

This is surely a major breach of the BPA Code of Practice which sets out the pathway Meteor 'must' have followed for any 'parking charge notice'. It also appears to breach the UTCCRs so warrants a formal investigation of how this has been allowed to happen. The ticket should be cancelled under the circumstances and the whole operation needs to be reviewed. I would go as far as to ask the DVLA and Trading Standards to consider a conclusion that any paid tickets like this should be refunded and all others need to be cancelled, until such time as the TOC can address the ambiguity and the breach of the UTCCRs. I look forward to hearing the results of your formal investigations between the various recipients and if the ticket is not cancelled I require information about SouthEastern's escalated complaints procedure.

yours faithfully,


xxxxxxx (name of recipient of that debt letter)


cc
cc
cc
cc
cc

(above beside each 'cc' make sure you show each recipient who has been copied in, so they can see who else has got the letter and can fight it out among themselves!)

(I have mentioned above who to send this to; get it sent this weekend to them all!).

louloukoi16

Hi everyone

Im back from holiday was away for 2 weeks. Just a updated to the thread and everyone, i received a email only from SouthEastern and no one else so far.

Southeastern Customer Relations, PO Box 63428, London, SE1P 5FD

Tel: 0845 000 2222 or 01732 378751




Ref: xxxx




Dear xxxx




Thank you for your email dated x July 2014, which you sent to several people including our Managing Director, Charles Horton. Mr Horton has asked me to look into your comments on his behalf and reply to you as he’s not able to personally respond to all those who email and write to him directly.




I understand you're contacting us about a Parking Charge Notice you received at xxxx Station. As xxxx Station is managed by Southern, we are unable to comment. However, to save you any further inconvenience, I've forwarded your email to the correct company.




The contact details for Southern are below and I'm sure they'll be in touch with you soon.




Southern

PO Box 10240
ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH
LE65 9EB




comments@southernrailway.com




03451 27 29 20




If I have misunderstood, and your complaint concerns Southeastern, then please do get back in touch and I'll be happy to help you.




Yours sincerely








Customer Relations Team Leader

Southeastern

bazster

This is bonkers. You have any number of letters from "London and South Eastern Railway Limited trading as Debt Recovery and Prosecution Services".

But what none of us has noticed previously is that your original windscreen ticket clearly states "Southern":

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2w2fxc2&s=8#.U3VLDU3Qepo

And if you look at the signage you posted, it clearly states "the Company" means Southern Railway Ltd.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=53oe3c&s=8#.U3VKtk3Qepo

Either there are two tickets in play, or Meteor/Southern/South-Eastern have completely got their knickers in a twist.

I would reply to the twonk at South-Eastern:

Thank you for confirming that XXXX Station is managed by Southern Railway and not London and South Eastern Railway. I take this as your confirmation that all the letters I have received in this matter from "London and South Eastern Railway Limited trading as Debt Recovery and Prosecution Services" (see enclosed) were sent in error and that London and South Eastern Railway Limited has no claim against me. Accordingly I would be grateful to receive London and South Eastern Railway Limited's apology for the trouble and distress your misleading and erroneous letters have caused to me. I reserve the right to seek compensation should I see fit.

As for Southern, I'd do nothing for now unless and until you hear from them directly. But I would contact Trading Standards again and point out this latest development i.e. the two companies don't even seem to be able to make up their minds which of them is behaving unlawfully. Perhaps they both are.

This should also be the subject of the strongest possible complaint to DVLA. DVLA has confirmed to you that your details were requested by "SouthEastern, Debt Recovery and Prosecution", and yet you've now got South-Eastern telling you it's nothing to do with them, it's a different company entirely! So why did they request your details? A clearer breach of the Data Protection Act it is hard to envisage.

DollyDee_2

I was on the verge of posting (a much shorter version) of this regarding the "ticket" being issued by Southern but Bazster beat me to it and made a much better job.

The first ticket louloukoi16 posted a linky to wasn't hers/her Mom's but she said it was the same, however, it was an example of a South Eastern ticket . Post #15.

Possibly where some of the confusion arose.

Southern Railway Ltd is Company No. 06574965.

South Eastern (in full) is London & South Eastern Ltd, Company No. 04860660 which is also the number at the bottom of the debt collector's letter.