Penalty Notice NCP Stratford

Hodes101

I am the registered keeper for a vehicle parked at Stratford International on 14/12/24.  The car was parked successfully, and no ticket was left on the windscreen.

A pre-booked ticket was attempted to be brought on NCP's website as it had many times before, but on this occasion, the payment appears to have failed.  An email was received ahead of the 14th of December, but unfortunately, it was misread, and rather than being a booking confirmation, it was a 'pre-book', and payment was to be made.

As the keeper, I didn't know anything was amiss until January when I received a "Penalty Notice to the Vehicle Owner"  On contacting the car park as the registered keeper, I was advised by a gentleman that my booking on the day failed as "the website timed out".

I have no issues as the keeper is making the original payment, but the £60 increase to £100 is ridiculous since it's their fault their website timed out.

I've read and re-read the "newbies" post, and from what I can gather, step one is to appeal the parking charge and use the 'ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL. However, I wanted to double-check my understanding of one point.

If my calculations are correct, the Penalty Notice was sent on 08/01/25, 15 working days after the parking date. 

Reading the "newbie post" If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket. 

 Have I understood this correctly?  Should I cite this in the First Appeal?  Have I got my date calculations correct?

LDast

Are you saying that NCP have issued a Penalty Notice (PN)? Please show us the PN, both sides, only redacting your personal info, the PN number and your VRM. All dates and times must remain visible.

This is the first I have ever heard of NCP issuing a PN. Or... is it a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which is a completely different kettle of fish?

Hopefully "...on contacting the car park..." you didn't blab the drivers identity, inadvertently or otherwise.

ChirpyChicken

No it's a penalty notice 100% I mentioned to @Coupon-mad that ncp issued penalty notices at this station.

Hodes101

Hi.

Yes, they've issued a PN.  Sorry, I'm unsure what VRM means, as it's not on the acronym list.

I can provide the images if needed, but I wanted to check on the acronym first.

LDast

VRM = Vehicle Registration Mark. Numberplate.

Hodes101

Sorry, yes, it's obvious when you point it out. Thank you.

PN below.

Gr1pr

Hodes101 said:

I am the registered keeper for a vehicle parked at Stratford International on 14/12/24.  The car was parked successfully, and no ticket was left on the windscreen.

If my calculations are correct, the Penalty Notice was sent on 08/01/25, 15 working days after the parking date. 

Reading the "newbie post" If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket. 

 Have I understood this correctly?  Should I cite this in the First Appeal?  Have I got my date calculations correct?

Whilst they may invoke pofa on relevant land, railway land is not relevant land,  bylaws apply 

There is no mention of pofa etc on that penalty notice,  simply because it doesn't apply,  they do not allege it , so neither does the 14 days,  there is no keeper liability on railway land topics ( or airports or ports,  or council land etc  )

What actually applies is 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the notice to the keeper , but no keeper liability 

So the latter part of the post as edited above cannot apply at that location,  especially as its a Penalty Notice 

Had it been the NCP car parks in Manchester and Salford near the courts,  it would be different 

LDast

It is not a real Penalty Notice. It is a fake PN and a blatant attempt to extort money unlawfully. PoFA shmofa, is irrelevant here.

In order to prosecute a Penalty Notice for a breach of railway bylaws, NCP can ONLY do so through the magistrates court as a private criminal prosecution. In order to do that, An individual at NCP would have to act as "prosecutor" and "lay information" before the magistrates court. They would have to convince the court that they have a valid case and a good prospect of successfully prosecuting the case beyond any reasonable doubt.

Assuming that they can convince the court that a viable prosecution can take place, the court would need to issue a summons to the Keeper. The Keeper would then have to decide whether to plead guilty or not guilty. If they plead guilty, they would pay the penalty and any added fines which would al go to the public purse, not NCPs company bank account.

If the Keeper pleads not guilty, NCP has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probabilities as in the county court for a civil matter.

NCP have not even stated which byelaw has been breached (14.1, 14.2 or 14.3). They have not invoked byelaw 14.4 to hold the "owner" liable, in which case only the driver can be liable ad they have no idea who that is. Of course, were they to try and invoke byelaw 14.4, I'm sure that they can prove "ownership" beyond a reasonable doubt by referring to the Register of Vehicle Owners... Oh, hang on... there isn't such a thing. Maybe they'll refer to the V5C Registration Document... Oh, hang on... that says on the front in big capital letters "THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP". Errm... can you see where I'm going with this?

This is done under railway bylaw 24(1) which is normally reserved for more serious breaches of the bylaws because minor parking offences were decriminalised back in 1991. The DfT already advised POPLA back in 2018 that they expect breaches of byelaw 14 to be handled outside of byelaw 24(1) which is reserved for more serious criminal matters which means that they expect minor parking offences to be dealt with through the civil process... Parking Charge Notices (PCN), not Penalty Notices.

NCP (and all the other operators that control parking at railway stations such as APCOA and SABA) cannot conflate statutory law and civil law to try and recover into their own private coffers money that should otherwise go to the public purse.

In short, that Penalty Notice is fake. What it can only be is an "offered contract" which is the same as me offering you a contract to pay me £100 and I will promise not to take out a private criminal prosecution for some made up breach of law. It's a contract that no person is bound to accept under any circumstances.

Either ignore it and any follow up reminders and useless debt collector letters or make a formal complaint to NCP asking them to confirm that they have the landowners permission to issue Penalty Notices in their own name and to prove as much by showing the contract.

Nothing will come of this and it will eventually stop.

LDast

Send the following to NCP and let's see their response:

To: National Car Parks Limited

The Bailey

16 Old Bailey

London

EC4M 7EG

By email: customer.service@ncp.co.uk
[Date]

Subject: Formal Challenge Regarding the Legitimacy of Penalty Notice [Reference Number:]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the legitimacy and enforceability of the above-referenced Penalty Notice (PN) issued by NCP. Based on my understanding of the Railway Byelaws 2005, the 2018 Department for Transport (DfT) response to POPLA, and the decriminalisation of parking offences under the Road Traffic Act 1991, it is clear that your PN is not a lawful penalty notice. I contend that this notice is a deliberate misrepresentation of your authority under the byelaws and amounts to an attempt to extort money from motorists into your own private bank account.

1. Misrepresentation of Legal Authority

The PN issued to me purports to be a statutory penalty under the Railway Byelaws 2005, specifically byelaw 14. However, I am fully aware that parking offences were decriminalised under the Road Traffic Act 1991, meaning that minor parking breaches should no longer be treated as criminal offences. Instead, they should be dealt with through civil contract law mechanisms, such as a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), rather than a Penalty Notice (PN) implying statutory authority and criminal liability.

The 2018 DfT response to POPLA further supports this interpretation. The query from POPLA was about their ability to provide an independent appeals service for penalty notices issued at railway station car parks. It is evident that POPLA, as a non-statutory body, cannot adjudicate on criminal matters such as penalty notices issued under the Railway Byelaws. POPLA could, however, adjudicate if the matter were treated as a civil contractual issue, such as a PCN. This distinction highlights that penalty notices issued under the byelaws are inherently criminal in nature and must be dealt with through the appropriate statutory processes.

Your attempt to issue a PN under the guise of enforcing a statutory penalty is a fundamental misapplication of the byelaws. If the alleged contravention is truly a minor parking issue, as stated, it should be managed through civil contract law, not through threats of criminal prosecution.

2. Unlawful Retention of Penalty Payments

Statutory penalties issued under byelaw 14 are intended to be paid into the public purse, not retained by private companies. The payment instructions provided on your PN direct funds to NCP’s bank account, raising serious concerns about the legitimacy of your enforcement practices. There is no lawful basis for NCP to retain funds collected from alleged breaches of railway byelaws. If this were a genuine penalty notice under statutory authority, any payments collected would need to be remitted to the Train Operating Company or the public purse.

Your current practice of directing payments to your own bank account is indicative of a private revenue collection scheme masquerading as statutory enforcement. This misrepresentation is misleading to motorists and may constitute a breach of consumer protection laws.

3. Procedural Flaws in the Use of "Appeals Service"

I note that any appeal is directed to POPLA. This further highlights the flawed and unlawful nature of your process. POPLA is not a statutory body. It is a third-party entity funded by NCP, creating a clear conflict of interest and undermining any claim of impartiality.

If NCP were acting in accordance with the Railway Byelaws, the appropriate recourse would be to refer the matter to the magistrates' court for prosecution. However, as previously stated, minor parking offences should not be subject to criminal prosecution. The use of a privately funded appeals service demonstrates that NCP has no intention of following either the statutory process or the appropriate civil process.

4. Understanding of the Legal Process and the DfT’s Position

I am fully aware that if NCP wishes to pursue this matter as a genuine penalty under the Railway Byelaws, the correct procedure is to lay information before a magistrates' court for a private criminal prosecution. If the information is deemed valid, a summons would be issued for me to attend court. I also understand that the burden of proof in the magistrates' court is much higher than in a civil court. The prosecution must prove the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a significantly higher standard than the balance of probabilities used in civil cases.

However, it is clear from the DfT’s 2018 response that parking offences under byelaw 14 are not intended to be dealt with through byelaw 24(1) criminal prosecutions. Instead, these minor infractions should be handled through civil contract law mechanisms, such as issuing a PCN, rather than a PN. Your failure to follow the appropriate civil enforcement process suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead motorists into believing they are liable for a criminal penalty.

5. Abuse of Process and Potential Extortion

Given the above, I believe that your actions amount to an abuse of process and potentially constitute an attempt to extort money from motorists under the guise of statutory enforcement. Your PN is not a genuine penalty notice under the Railway Byelaws, and your procedures indicate a deliberate effort to mislead motorists into making payments that are not legally owed.

Furthermore, the threat of additional costs and enforcement action if payment is not made reinforces the impression that NCP is attempting to profit from this process without following the correct legal channels. These tactics may amount to unfair commercial practices under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

6. Request for Clarification and Next Steps

I hereby request the following clarifications from NCP:

• Confirmation of the legal authority under which NCP collects payments directly into its own bank account for alleged breaches of railway byelaws.

• An explanation as to why the alleged breach has not been referred to the magistrates' court for prosecution, as required under the railway byelaws, if you believe it constitutes a criminal offence.

• Details of any arrangements between NCP and HS1 Ltd (Stratford International Station owner) regarding the collection and retention of penalty payments.

• Clarification of the role and funding of POPLA, and an explanation of why this body is used instead of a court process or an independent, statutory appeals body.

7. Conclusion

In light of the issues outlined above, I do not recognise this Penalty Notice as valid or enforceable. I will not be making any payment to NCP. Should NCP wish to pursue this matter further, it must be done through the appropriate legal channels by following either the correct statutory prosecution process or, more appropriately, civil contract law procedures. If the latter route is pursued, the correct mechanism would be to issue a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) under civil law, rather than a Penalty Notice.

If NCP continues to pursue this matter without following the proper legal process, I will consider filing formal complaints with the HS1 Ltd, the Office of Rail and Road, and Trading Standards. I will also consider reporting NCP’s practices to the relevant consumer protection authorities for investigation into potential breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

I look forward to your prompt response to this challenge.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

ChirpyChicken

But log it here
https://www.ncp.co.uk/help-centre/pcn-payment-and-appeals/

Coupon-mad

But not yet! Not in January.

The PN is dated 8th January so you want to string the appeal process out to get past the 6 month limitation period by only doing each stage of appeal on the last day.

Read this winning POPLA case outcome:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81235215/#Comment_81235215


Dumb question for regulars:

If the OWNER is liable (as it says, because it is dressed up as a Penalty relying on byelaws) what happens if the owner (the keeper probably) wasn't driving yet they decide to use the option to name the driver?  The PN lets you do that.

Sooo if a person does that, how do the byelaws hold the driver liable? Genuinely, I don't know. Just wondering.