Unsigned/initialed PCN

skwerl

If a windscreen PCN is not signed/initialed where it clearly indicates "Signature/initials" does this have any bearing on its legitimacy?

KeithP

skwerl said:

If a windscreen PCN is not signed/initialed where it clearly indicates "Signature/initials" does this have any bearing on its legitimacy?

No.

Tell us more if you are looking for help.

skwerl

A friend had a PCN left on their car window, for partially parking outside a marked bay at the station car park, controlled by Apcoa.  There is a small area of tarmac at the end of the row of bays, so they assumed that overlapping that side of the bay would have no impact to anyone using the car park or to the operator's revenue, as they weren't blocking an otherwise usable bay.  It's quite a tight car park so leaving more space for others to manoeuvre is handy for everyone. The PCN quotes the Ts&Cs require parking within a bay etc.  They're not the registered keep or owner of the car so I advised them to wait until Apcoa send a notice to the registered keeper, per the info in your newbies section

Coupon-mad

As long as that keeper is a family member not a company, yes.  Then the keeper appeals and wins.

KeithP

Which station car park was this?

skwerl

yes, family member. not a lease/company car. I did some digging their behalf and see similar, recent posts relating to Apcoa and station car parks.
One thing I couldn't find any advice on is whether there is a requirement for the owner/operator to prove damages. ie if parking outside a bay blocks access/use of the car park or takes another space out of use, and therefore results in loss of revenue, I can understand there's a claim for damages. In the case that parking over one side of bay, in a manner that has no impact per any of above, surely there is no claim for damages. Apcoa merely claim that the Ts&Cs have been breached but is that enough to levy a fine?  The friend paid for parking BTW

Umkomaas

One thing I couldn't find any advice on is whether there is a requirement for the owner/operator to prove damages. ie if parking outside a bay blocks access/use of the car park or takes another space out of use, and therefore results in loss of revenue, I can understand there's a claim for damages. 

Kicked into touch by The Supreme Court (the highest court in the land) in the ParkingEye v Beavis case. No longer any mileage in it.

skwerl

Whyteleafe South station Car was parked where this Polo is in the picture but over the line so that the wheels were in line with where the join in the tarmac is

skwerl

Umkomaas said:

One thing I couldn't find any advice on is whether there is a requirement for the owner/operator to prove damages. ie if parking outside a bay blocks access/use of the car park or takes another space out of use, and therefore results in loss of revenue, I can understand there's a claim for damages. 

Kicked into touch by The Supreme Court (the highest court in the land) in the ParkingEye v Beavis case. No longer any mileage in it.

I read that case but the decision focussed on the initial parking period being free.  A similar case went the other way:

"Crucially, the facts in the Cargius case were different to that in Beavis. Whereas Mr Beavis enjoyed free parking for two hours, Mr Cargius had actually paid to park in the car park and simply overstayed. The judge stated that in this case, where payment was made, ParkingEye’s charge of £100 was disproportionate to its loss."

KeithP

skwerl said:

Whyteleafe South station Car was parked where this Polo is in the picture but over the line so that the wheels were in line with where the join in the tarmac is

That looks to be railway property and therefore railway byelaws apply.

skwerl

KeithP said:

skwerl said:

Whyteleafe South station Car was parked where this Polo is in the picture but over the line so that the wheels were in line with where the join in the tarmac is

That looks to be railway property and therefore railway byelaws apply.

Yes. Railway car park. Signs state that railway bylaws apply