NCP PCN by NCP - Chalfont & Latimer Railway / LU Station

Coupon-mad

Now you are getting it...mixu's version is very good as a base but always amend it to make sense. Do not imply who was driving.

HO87

Autolycus2000 wrote: »

In earlier posts in this thread the OP was saying there was no mention of byelaws on the signage.

But if you look at the first of the signage photos the OP posted via Google (sorry I'm not allowed to include a link) and read section 8 it says byelaws MAY apply - which is the wording NCP seems to use in all railway car park T&Cs.

So is there a sure fire way of knowing if byelaws apply? Can it be taken as read that they apply at all LU station car parks?

And is there an update, please, on how the appeal was decided? I'm about to start a similar appeal myself so would be interested to know if this one worked.

The answer seems to be the list provided above and the following from the TfL Railway Byelaws themselves:

3 INTRODUCTION
The Byelaws apply to trains, track and stations that are part of Transport for London's railway, including the London Underground, London Overground and Docklands Light Railway networks.

The question as to whether the byelaws were referred to on the signage was specifically to do with the applicability or otherwise of the ill-defined "penalty" that a vehicle owner (also not defined) may be liable for should any of the byelaws relating to parking be breached. In order for that to apply then the value of the penalty must be set out on the signage.

In other words unless the penalty is specified on the signage it cannot be enforced. The fact that this particular byelaw is poorly defined and there is no provision as to how the penalty might be enforced means that its entirely debatable as to whether it itself could be enforced.

I would suggest that unless NCP can demonstrate that they have an intention to issue a summons for a breach of byelaws then their use of it as a threat to collect a supposed contractual term is deceptive and amounts to oppressive conduct.

Not that that would be a first for NCP. They surely do not want a repeat of NCP -v- Mayhook

nigelbb

HO87 wrote: »

I would suggest that unless NCP can demonstrate that they have an intention to issue a summons for a breach of byelaws then their use of it as a threat to collect a supposed contractual term is deceptive and amounts to oppressive conduct.

Only TfL can issue a summons for a breach of bylaws so any threat from NCP that they will do so is always a lie.