Parking Contract

Mr_Simmons

Hello,

I've managed to gain a couple of parking charges for unpaid parking tickers in an NCP car park at Newbury Park Underground station.

The case is now being passed to NCPs solicitors but I did query with NCP if the car park is governed by Railway Byelaw and they've responded saying that it's governed by contract law.

I feel that this isn't true so do any members have any thoughts on this please?

Redx

this thread should help you as it has good information in it


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5870019/pcn-brentwood-station-full-payment-made-before-noticing-i-had-a-ticket

KeithP

Newbury Park Underground Station car park is covered by byelaws - as are all other LUL station car parks.

There is a FOI answer confirming this:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tube_station_car_parks

The_Deep

I would report the solicitors to the SRA for lying.

https://sra.org.uk/home/home.page

and to your MP as it is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Handbags-at-dawn

This is a more recent FOIR giving a list of LUL’s car parks managed by NCP ( and subject to the Byelaws):
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tube_station_car_parks_2#outgoing-843442

Mr_Simmons

You know what, I wrote to TFL and they had the temerity to tell me that the Newbury Park car park that they own falls under contract law and not railway Byelaw. It seems that they are all in this together.

Redx

we get a similat problem up here with METROLINK and its various contractors, the way these companies bandy words about that they do not understand the legal meaning of , is unbelievable, yet its clear they believe what they are saying, even when facts prove them wrong

I have no doubt that TfL have no idea about bylaws beating contract law and that they have no idea what is in place or why, nor what the contract says, yet the FOI above clearly state the position by LUL

BrownTrout

Redx wrote: »

we get a similat problem up here with METROLINK and its various contractors, the way these companies bandy words about that they do not understand the legal meaning of , is unbelievable, yet its clear they believe what they are saying, even when facts prove them wrong

I have no doubt that TfL have no idea about bylaws beating contract law and that they have no idea what is in place or why, nor what the contract says, yet the FOI above clearly state the position by LUL

Isnt the majority of MetroLink Care Parking?

Redx

yes, but they are contracted by KeolisAmey for TfGM (or vice versa) on behalf of the METROLINK system

its a complicated contractual model, running on network rail tracks and stations in some cases, with private non-NW RAIL tracks and stations in other locations, so a mish mash and where bylaws may apply in many areas

CARE Parking cannot issue penalty notices so issue parking charge notices but purport to be penalty notices, even the CEO of either TfGM or KA talk about the parking charge notices being penalty notices and "fines"

CARE always lose to a well crafted popla appeal due to their own failings and the contractual issues , so I am not surprised that the same applies to this LUL versus TfL mish mash of words and documents


KA have just announced a "fines" or penalty system for up to £1000 under the bylaws for vaping , being drunk , swearing and other issues on the Metrolink system , so they like to use the bylaws where it suits them


these railways and London Underground etc were all created by acts of parliament and bylaws have always applied so until those are changed by the secretary of state for transport these people cannot just chuck them in the bin and pretend that contract law prevails

Mr_Simmons

Redx wrote: »

we get a similat problem up here with METROLINK and its various contractors, the way these companies bandy words about that they do not understand the legal meaning of , is unbelievable, yet its clear they believe what they are saying, even when facts prove them wrong

I have no doubt that TfL have no idea about bylaws beating contract law and that they have no idea what is in place or why, nor what the contract says, yet the FOI above clearly state the position by LUL

Well I wrote to TFL and referenced the FOI on this and this is what I got back
_____________

Thank you for your further email of 16 January about Newbury Park station.

I referred your enquiry to the manager who liaises with NCP. It has been confirmed that Railway Byelaws do not apply to station car parks. Unfortunately, the FOI response which you provided was factually inaccurate.

Thanks again for contacting us. If there is anything else we can help you with, please reply to this email. Alternatively, you can call us on 0343 222 1234 and we'll be happy to help you.

Kind regards

waamo

Contact TfL and see what they say about the response you've had. Reference the FOI request and ask if they have provided inaccurate information and if so why?

It could turn into a bit of a spat between the two organisations, especially if you lodge a complaint that TfL have told fibs in an FOI.

Personally I don't think it's TfL that are telling porkies.