Train Station "PenaltyCN"

Hockey27

Apologies for the length of it, but I have penned this to send over to SC. Any thoughts before I send it?!


I must thank you for clarifying the timeline for which a prosecution must be launched, but on this point I must ask, why when the incident was over 6 months ago are CP Plus refusing a reasonable request of cancelling the !!!8220;PCN!!!8221;, one which they had no lawful right to give in the first place. Essentially CP Plus are inviting me to pay them a sum of money (for which I have no liability) in order to avoid prosecution, I contest that this is immoral and constitutes;-

Bribery - "If you pay we'll stop this"
Threats - "Pay this or else we!!!8217;ll take you to court"
Fraud - They are asking for a sum that they are not lawfully allowed to charge
Illegal - Surely if a crime has been committed here, namely trespass, then to pay "hush" money is surely tantamount to perverting the course of justice


With regards to the below where you state that CP Plus are merely acting as agents, to me this seems to be at odds with your code of practice, namely section 12.3, for reference;-

12.3 You must use data from the DVLA only to carry out
the parking control and enforcement activity for which
you requested the data. You must not act as an agent
to get data from the DVLA on behalf of a third party
(for example a landowner or agent), unless that third
party becomes a member of the AOS and meets all the
compliance conditions. If you do not keep to the Code
requirement this could lead to your membership of the
AOS and of the BPA being suspended or terminated.


This is just one of what I believe to be a number of breaches that CP Plus are personally guilty of! One I am particularly annoyed about is 22.8 where a 35 day deadline is indicated, at one point there was 99 day delay between contact, and that only happened as they were chased! For reference other clauses I believe they have breached include;-

2.13 - Specifically this states that the code of practice does not cover !!!8220;non relevant land!!!8221;. If there is no code to be followed, should you be allowing members any jurisdiction on said land?
2.15 - Clearly states that Byelaw land is not relevant land, again, why are they operating there?
4.2 - They have broken this agreement numerous times!
7.1 - I contest that this exists, as it has not be presented at any point
14.1 - By claiming this !!!8220;PCN!!!8221; is issued under bylaws, this implies they have the right to do so, an authority they do not have
14.2 - These terms are plastered all over communication from CP Plus
18.2 - Having visited the site in question these signs are non existent, signage or lack thereof/ inadequacy was questioned in the appeal but ignored completely. On this site there are 2 car parks, one short stay and one long stay, these are clear to see, so to suggest that there is no defined entrance if balderdash! Additionally should a claim be made that the signs were not needed due to these factors, I request you send me a copy of your prior authorisation of this as is required.
18.3 - To this day there are still no signs display parking charges on the site. Signs that are present and not !!!8220;conspicuous!!!8221; or !!!8220;legible!!!8221; and are certainly not !!!8220;easy to see, read and understand!!!8221;
19.7 - A fee reduction was offered to the driver however this was below the recommendation. Initial fee - £80, reduction offer - £50, discount - £30 => 37.5%. I trust you would agree this is not !!!8220;at least!!!8221; 40% as prescribed
22.1 - It cannot be disputed that the matter has NOT been dealt with promptly and efficiently. 99 days is the maximum time spent waiting for a reply.
22.2 - At no point has an independent appeals service been offered. It has even been suggested that I contact the TOC. I would imagine you agree with me here that this is hardly !!!8220;independent!!!8221;
22.4 - Only a generic statement was offered, It was not explained why the decision was upheld on appeal, nor did it address concerns of the appeal
22.12b - No such wording is included


I trust with all of the indicated issues above you will without delay investigate CP Plus for their outrageous behaviour and disregard of the codes of conduct, and summarily discipline them in accordance with your guidelines. I would appreciate notification of any outcomes.

Coupon-mad

I would scrap all of that and just quote the section of the Magistrates Court Act that says a case must be laid before Magistrates within 6 months of the event, and ask why Steve Clark felt able to back this notorious AOS member and 'inform' you about (it read as threaten) an impossible (now) £1000 fine.

It's past the six months and cannot be laid before Magistrates now. End of.

That's the point the BPA are ignoring and singing lalalala with their fingers in their ears. Maybe CP Plus want to appear influential to the powers that be (some hope, CP Plus, maybe some other people have their fingers in their ears and are singing lalala behind your back...). The previous dealings with the BPA and reported lies about numbers of court claims (pre-POFA) and their continuous inability to 'self regulate' the bunch of money-grabbers that make up their membership, means I don't think anyone with influence takes any of them seriously any more. Never mind the suits and grovelling.

And the BPA would protest to support the insupportable, because Indigo, who play a similar game of unconscionable and timed-out demands, are also a big [STRIKE]payer[/STRIKE] (oops, player) for the BPA.

Hockey27

Hey Coupon-Mad

Damn! I spent ages writing that ;-) I wrote it more as a fact finding thing, see if I could get information that I can bring back here, I know I'm in the clear now!

But yes, I did think about saying that too, it's very weird to say such a thing, especially in the way he did. Theres plausible deniability in there but I'm sure that others read it as I did, that it felt like he was on their side, trying to help his member!

Back to my email, would you think adding what you have said to it might help, make him defend his position. As I said, trying to get information to help others.

Hockey27

So I sent a few more emails back and forth to Steve Clark who has now confirmed to me that the ticket has been cancelled as it is over 6 months old, just waiting for conformation from the PPC.

I did indicate to him about the breaches of the BPA CoP but he didn't seem to want to answer them. He did get a little annoyed as I hadn't immediately said about it being over 6 months and did reference that he had read this thread. Obviously nothing is personal and it cant be a good position he is put in at times so hopefully I didn't cause him any offence there!

Anyway, as many have mentioned, Train/ byelaw tickets will time out after 6 months, simple answer. Thank you all for your help in making this go away, I don't want to name personally incase I miss anybody, I will keep hold of the knowledge I have and will look to keep updated in case I can be of assistance to anyone else.

Redx

Hockey27 wrote: »

Anyway, as many have mentioned, Train/ byelaw tickets will time out after 6 months, simple answer.

which we have been telling people for several years and which Umkomaas mentioned back on page 1 in post #2

PORTS , AIRPORTS and TRAIN STATIONS , all bylaws, so always the same simple message

the rest is just people sticking their heads in the sand and fingers in their ears, so until the government change these matters it remains the same

string it out past 6 months , job done , be it APCOA , INDIGO or anyone else

Umkomaas

So I sent a few more emails back and forth to Steve Clark who has now confirmed to me that the ticket has been cancelled as it is over 6 months old, just waiting for conformation from the PPC.

Nice result Hockey, eventually. But you could so easily have been duped into paying this. What are the BPA doing to avoid people being unnecessarily duped in this distortion of byelaws and contract laws in pursuit of greed and profit? Through this kind of proactivity in the interest of fairness is where they would start to find an escape from the Gobi desert!

I will keep hold of the knowledge I have and will look to keep updated in case I can be of assistance to anyone else.

You do realise that you now have more first-hand knowledge of this railway byelaws stuff than any forum regular (as far as I know, none of them has had such a ticket of his/her own). So why not stay connected with the forum and join us in helping people, even if only in the area of railway byelaws/contract law cases.

Develop your profile here, and CP Plus (and Indigo) will lose far more than the £100 they missed out from you. They will hate you. Serve up that revenge - big time!

Coupon-mad

So glad it was cancelled at last!

It was never a valid PCN, this is all part of an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18) supported by the BPA who should know better than to hide behind pretending that they 'seek clarity' for everything. So bored with their tedious soundbites and inaction, except to tip the balance with these ''let's not bother with POPLA as poor old Indigo kept losing'' now tipped solidly against the motorists they pretended were 'at the heart of our thinking'.

They are not 'seeking clarity' at all.

No, their members seek money. And their members/the entire industry needs banning, are completely out of control.

Wonder if Sir Greg Knight has been told about the current alleged UKCPS fake bailiff scam? That one will go down like a lead balloon in Parliament!

I know yours was CP Plus pretending they could issue 'penalties' but the main perpetrator is Indigo. What really irks me about Indigo - apart from them dragging nurses to court in a country where Hospital parking fees are actually banned - are the cases where (reportedly) ZZPS have duped registered keepers/fleet owners into paying older Indigo Railway cases that are actually on hold at POPLA, with KNOWN/ADMITTED drivers, and/or already timed out by the 6 month limit.

What are the BPA going to do to make Indigo/ZZPS repay those ones, surely IMHO it is money obtained under false pretences (could even be called deception of registered keepers about their 'liability').

I personally seek some 'clarity' about what will happen, when are refunds being sent out for all the ill gotten gains from the POPLA on hold cases that ZZPS/Indigo appear to have 'lost' the POPLA data about and (allegedly) decided to just chase keepers again. When will sanctions fall upon Indigo, regarding that VERY serious DPA and BPA breach?

Anyway I am glad your PCN was cancelled - and respect to Steve Clark (even though I rant!).

Hockey27

@ Umkomaas - Happy to stay around and help if I can/ people want the help. whats the best way forward? I do keep an eye out for train/ byelaw related threads, is there are way people could connect with me directly if needed/ wanted?

@ Coupon-mad - As you and others continually say, its not a fair system but there to punish, it would be nice to feel as if there was more parity and fairness, and as you say I don't envy Mr Clarks position at all. I do have some more info I could share with you offline but would rather keep this private?

Umkomaas

@ Umkomaas - Happy to stay around and help if I can/ people want the help. whats the best way forward? I do keep an eye out for train/ byelaw related threads, is there are way people could connect with me directly if needed/ wanted?

Just keeps an eye on the forum and pitch in with your experience and advice where you feel you can contribute. Regulars will give you support and encouragement as you get into this - then you're up and running; it's very satisfying when you can help those who are clearly being ripped off.

Coupon-mad

Hockey27 wrote: »

@ Coupon-mad - I do have some more info I could share with you offline but would rather keep this private?

Send me a pm; I've just added you to my very limited 'pm allowed list'.