Leeds Station - No stopping (UKCPS/Moorside) - discontinued!!

Coupon-mad

Well done again!

Did you read the Parking in the News / Media thread yesterday and sat down to digest the CMA's 'clue-bats of clout' applied with a resounding whack at the sector?

I'm convinced more investigations will follow.

tbu271

I absolutely did, read the whole thing!

Of particular interest was the swipe at the operator appeals process, which so far seems to have evaded any scrutiny whatsoever. Of course POPLA/IAS needs reform, but most cases shouldn't even need to get to that point if internal appeals actually worked, and considered appeal points fairly (or even at all).

walketalke

Excellent defence text. Im in a similar position. I await a claim despite the photo evidence clearly showing an involuntary stop due to car in front and congestion. The fact a pessenger exited the vehicle has been used to claim the vehicle was parked to drop off despite the foot brake rear light being iluminated. Ive written to network rail, and mp. MP has been very good and wrote to the minister for transport. Network rail dont seem interested that there contractor is aggressively targeting station users. Minister for rail confirmed in writing involuntary stops should not be subject to enforcement action. Ill be making a submission to the rail regulator soon.There must be tens of thousands of station users who've just paid when they should not have been. This whole parking operation is a scandle on the scale of the post office one.

And Ive also made a submission to the CMA asking the investigation to be broadened to include UKCPS.

Car1980

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82072943#Comment_82072943

Yeah, but there can never be any genuine internal appeals process. It's an paradox.

It would be interesting if they were all forced to publish their internal appeals figures, independently audited.

Seeing all those 90 - 99.9% appeals refused figures would be very amusing.

Coupon-mad

"MP has been very good and wrote to the minister for transport."

Your MP wrote to the wrong Minister at the wrong ministry! Private land parking is overseen by the MHCLG, not the DFT. They should know this, look:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8736/

Ask your MP to write to Angela Rayner or use the MHCLG's parking@ email.

"Minister for rail confirmed in writing involuntary stops should not be subject to enforcement action."

Can you show us that, please?

"I'll be making a submission to the rail regulator soon.There must be tens of thousands of station users who've just paid when they should not have been. This whole parking operation is a scandal on the scale of the post office one."

Yep. Agreed.

"And Ive also made a submission to the CMA asking the investigation to be broadened to include UKCPS."

Brilliant news! The CMA has teeth to fine them.

walketalke

Here’s a text extract from the letter. Im continuing to press on this because I cant see that the contractor is being properly monitored as

a) notices were being issued when the land was regulated by railway bylaws and b) If any reviews of footage are taking place they clearly take no account of involuntary stops where a passenger later decides to exit the vehicle due to the congestion.

“Leeds City Station is owned and managed by Network Rail. As an arm's-

length body, Network Rail is responsible for the day-to-day management of its

estate, including arrangements for traffic management and parking

enforcement. Where Network Rail contracts with private parking operators, it

is responsible for ensuring that those arrangements are managed

appropriately and that contractors operate in accordance with applicable

legislation, contractual requirements and relevant industry standards.

The Government expects parking enforcement arrangements on railway

property to be fair, proportionate and transparent. Network Rail has advised

that the restrictions in place at Leeds City Station are intended to address

operational and safety challenges on the station approach roads and to

support the safe and efficient movement of passengers and vehicles. It has

also advised that vehicles delayed solely as a result of unavoidable

congestion would not normally be subject to enforcement action, and that

designated pick-up and drop-off facilities are provided for station users.

Network Rail’s enforcement action is based on fair, proportionate and clearly

evidenced contraventions of parking restrictions. All parking conditions are

transparently communicated, and adherence to these is fundamental to

ensuring fairness for all station users.The Department has not undertaken a specific review of automated "no

stopping" enforcement on station approach roads across the rail network.

However, we continue to engage with the rail industry on customer

experience and station management matters, and we expect infrastructure

managers and operators to keep their arrangements under review to ensure

they remain effective, proportionate and responsive to passenger and

stakeholder feedback.

While it is accepted that vehicles can occasionally become stationary due to

unavoidable congestion and that in such cases, enforcement would not be

pursued. However, if a vehicle is stopped in a no stopping zone due to a

passenger boarding or alighting, and this is supported by evidence,

enforcement action may be considered.

Disputes regarding liability are handled with due care to ensure enforcement

actions are justified and compliant with fair consumer practice. Under

Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a private parking operator

may pursue the registered keeper for unpaid charges if the driver is not

identified, provided that the operator is a member of a DVLA accredited trade

association and complies with all relevant conditions.

The debt recovery fee is intended to cover the administrative costs

associated with pursuing unpaid parking charges. It is transparently disclosed

in signage and terms, ensuring motorists are aware of potential charges. The

charge has been assessed as reasonable and compliant with relevant

legislation and industry standards. It is not intended to be punitive but to

recover legitimate costs incurred during the enforcement process.

The operator’s procedures are designed to be compliant with the Private

Parking Code of Practice, and the number of complaints relative to the overall

volume of users does not suggest widespread concerns.”

Coupon-mad

That is useless. They even say the added extortion (double recovery fee) is legal.

In fact it is unlawful. Effectively banned by the Beavis case law and the POFA too

walketalke

Might not be useful in a parking claim but on the bigger picture of why are the contractors not being monitored properly it forms a crucial piece of evidence of how everyone in the chain relies on what the contractor informs them rather than challenging. Have a look at the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practise. Numerous failures to follow and interestingly when the contract to run the scheme was awarded Network Rail should have signed to acknowledge what the parking scheme operated was.