NCP PCN parking overlaps bay Whittlesford station

Doudoune

I have read the advice for newbies and particularly regarding parking  and also a lot of different threads. This is a very good forum. 

This is the situation: 

The driver parked next to another car on the driver’s side. They needed to leave enough space to get out of the car which meant the left car wheel is just over the line and not within the bay. 

Those bays are very narrow: 2.08m rather than the uk norm of 2.40. BPA mentions that "wider bays aids efficient use of the parking area."  In that car parkthe bays for disabled parking are also narrower than the minimum stated by legislation: 2.29 instead of 2.40. 

A report carried out in 2018 by GCP a government administration describes the quality of the parking as "relatively poor by modern standards with narrow, poorly demarcated bays".
Do you think those are good arguments to use?

The land is owned by Greater Anglia train company. Should the driver write to them too. 

Thank you

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

I'll just address your last sentence...

It is most important that the driver should not be writing to anyone.

This land is almost certainly covered by Railway Byelaws - i.e. under statutory control.
That in turn means that the parking company cannot use the provisions of POFA 2012 to transfer any driver's liability to the keeper.

Do not disclose the driver's identity.

Doudoune

Thanks for the reply. Driver’s identity will not be revealed. From what I have read NCP will most likely reject the keeper’s appeal. Is it therefore only necessary to appeal mentionning PoFA 2012 and the fact that the bays are very narrow and therefore inadequate. The keeper should then prepare for the next stage eg Popla? 

Umkomaas

First, try the blue text initial appeal template from the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, first post. Add the following paragraph to it, then see how they react. Then if they reject, very winnable at POPLA.

As your Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) - railway asset under statutory control (byelaws) and therefore 'not relevant land' - you are, in law, unable to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for the parking charge. I suggest therefore that you contact the driver. As there is no legal requirement placed on the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so.

Doudoune

Thanks. Got that. Trying to help the keeper who is a pensioner. The keeper will then send the appeal on day 25-26 according to the advice. 

Umkomaas

Doudoune said:

Thanks. Got that. Trying to help the keeper who is a pensioner. The keeper will then send the appeal on day 25-26 according to the advice. 

That really applies to a windscreen ticket. A parking charge notice through the post can be appealed at any time - up to the 28 day deadline. No advantage in delaying things. 

Fruitcake

There is no need to help the PPC by saying the bays are too small, because that is tantamount to admitting the driver deliberately and knowingly parked outwith the markings of a bay in breach of the Ts and Cs.

Where the keeper has received a NTK, there is no need to wait until day 25-26 to appeal. That only applies where a NTD was left on the vehicle.

Doudoune

Thank you for your help with the intricacies of the system. Will pass on this latest information. 

Doudoune

PCN cancelled !!! 😊 A BIG thank you. It wouldn’t have happened without you. 
The owner followed your advice and has just received - 10 days later -  the following: " Your appeal has been reviewed and has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered at the time of the contravention. Having considered the content of your letter this notice has been cancelled.“
A good way to end the year. 

Happy New Year to all 

Umkomaas

Well done @Doudoune. Did you add the paragraph I suggested to the initial appeal template. It would good to know if it was used. 

Doudoune

Well I passed on your advice to the owner. Here is the full copy of what the owner wrote:

"I dispute your 'parking charge' as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint to your client landowner.

As your Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (schedule 4) - railway asset under statutory control (byelaws) and therefore 'not relevant land' - you are, in law, unable to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for the parking charge. As there is no legal requirement placed on the registered keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver I will not be doing so.”