Great Western Coffee Shop

Having parked briefly at Twyford Station yesterday (approx 2 hours) I came back to find a notice slapped on my windscreen from Apcoa stating that they had reasonable cause to believe that the following parking contravention had occurred:
05- Parked over two bays

I had parked on an invisible line ie just small boxes at the back of the space, none in the front  when driving in.  There were plenty of spaces around me and I was not causing an obstruction.

I have searched the web and  found a number of people have been advised not to respond.  Can anyone clarify that this the right thing to do.
thanks

If you've received a 'Parking Charge Notice' or something similarly worded then that will likely be nothing more than a speculative invoice.

Parking otherwise than in accordance with clearly signed rules is possibly a Railway Byelaw offence, but it would need to made clear on the notice that the 'offence' committed was contrary to Byelaw 14. Also if money is being asked for, paid direct to APCOA, then it can't be a Byelaw offence as any penalty for breach of Railway Byelaws can only be imposed by a Magistrates Court.

Without more details about the notice you've received I couldn't say for definite that you should ignore it, but the likelihood is that it is a private parking ticket which would not be legally enforceable in a criminal court. APCOA could only pursue a private parking ticket/charge/invoice in the County Court but then only for the actual amount 'lost'. That would be the cost of one parking space.

Private parking companies don't 'do' civil claims in court because they know they're on a hiding to nothing. Instead preferring to issue speculative invoices masquerading as penalty charges in the hope that people will not check the legal position and just pay up. If you do ignore though, expect a series of letters from 'solicitors' and 'collection agencies'. These too can be ignored, or you can counter with a claim for harassment if they continue demanding money.

A scan (redacted of personal information) or a transcript of the wording relating to the 'offence' committed (and whether a payment is being asked for) from the ticket would be helpful for further advice.

Edited to add more information and the disclaimer - I am not a lawyer.  ;)

Meanwhile: welcome to the Coffee Shop forum, jacquio.  :)

Don't respond. I got an identical "parking over 2 spaces" invoice 3 years ago. The following will happen:

A letter from APCOA- they'll get your address from the DVLA.

Ignore it.

Then a letter will come from "Roxburghe Debt Collectors" with red writing on.

Ignore it.

Then you'll get another "Roxburghe" letter stating that legal action may start

Ignore it.

Then you'll get a letter from "Graham White Solicitors". This is just in fact another desk at Roxburge

Ignore it.

Then that's it. 3 years later and I've heard nothing more. Remember, they can't send bailiffs round, they can't harm your credit rating. They may use pseudo legalese to suggest this, but they can't. As Bignosemac said, the only people who can issue railway byelaw fines are magistrates' courts.

Under no circumstances make contact with them.

Quite frankly I'm surprised they're still at this one after the negative publicity in the Wokingham Times.

Do a search for APCOA/Roxburge/Graham White at moneysavingexpert.com

Drop me a PM if you'd like to see copies of the letters you'll get. They're quite entertaining  ;D

Jacquio

I agree with everything that has been said (Disclaimer: I also am not a lawyer)

Ignore the notice, do not appeal or respond in any way. I had exactly the same situation last year again at Twyford. 

You will receive a series of letters from Roxburge and Graham White (the same organisation) and they will look exactly like the ones adc82140 has.  They look frightening but they eventually give up and (certainly in my experience one year on) no action will be taken.  When you receive them, treat them as a joke and re-read the numerous threads on here and the ones at Moneysavingexpert.  You are not alone.

In my case I even received a phone call about "the debt you owe".  If this happens try not to engage in conversation just state you do not owe anything and end the call. 

How they have the nerve to do this, after charging ^5.50 a day (more if you pay at the machine) for parking on an unsupervised piece of wasteland is beyond me.

Without wishing to go off topic, a couple of thoughts:

Does any know how APCOA/Roxburge/Graham White are able to get address details?  Can anyone apply to DVLA to get the address of the registered keeper of a vehicle.  Doesn't sound right to me.

Also, we all state "I am not a lawyer" - are there there no lawyers in this forum who are prepared to give some background or confirm why Graham White are allowed to continue in, what might be considered, "demanding money with menaces"?

Just saying...

thanks everyone.  will take on board what everone has said and won't be doing anthing :) :) :)

I'm glad we were able to help with your query, jacquio.  ;)

However, purely to satisfy our curiosity here: would you mind just letting us know what happens, in due course?

Thanks, Chris.  :)

I'd have thought that it would potentially be a DPA breach for the DVLA to supply the information. The only parking fines that have legal standings are those issued by the council.

DVLA state that you must have 'reasonable cause (http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_193598.pdf#page=23)' to request registered keeper details. Private Parking Companies (PPC) are one of the enquirers who DVLA will furnish with name and address details of registered keepers if a breach of  the 'rules' governing the use of the car park is alleged. At ^2.50 a pop it's a nice earner for the DVLA to give out these details to the PPCs.

Never received a letter from apcoa parking but have just received a letter from roxburgh debt collectors and am going to ignore it. I find it very intimidating though that the have managed to get my address and they now want to charge me ^128.00!

Ignore this and subsequent letters is indeed the best policy.

An alternative, if you do feel threatened, is to reply alleging harassment and stating that you will take legal action if the letters do not cease.

To be honest writing to them will serve little purpose.

Firstly, it confirms that you "exist". As far as they're concerned, they're sending a speculative letter to an address that may or may not house the correct person.

Secondly, Roxburghe/Graham White do not do correspondence. It's a waste of time & postage.

Sit tight, don't panic and remember the threats are empty.

I wrote to them, venting my spleen- I got a friend who is more au-fait with legalisms (though not a solicitor) to draft me a letter. Complete waste of time. I got the second Roxburghe letter (the fee will have ballooned) and the "Graham White" letter, then all went silent.

However I wonder if writing to Mark Hopwood stating that one of his agents was harrassing you could work. Never tried that approach.

Just beware, the law is changing in this area has changed. Anybody is now able to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle, only councils can do this at the moment. The laws haven't been tested in the courts yet but any reasonable parking charges should probably be paid now. The letters threatening court action may now have some substance.

Point taken Southern Stag, but this thread was dealing with an alleged 'offence' that took place before the new laws were enacted on 1st October 2012. The new legislation is not retrospective.

Whilst the new laws are yet to be tested, the only additional power granted to Private Parking Companies (PPCs) is the right to pursue the registered keeper for any debt incurred following contravention of a car park's rules. An important power PPCs have had to give up in exchange for the right to pursue the registered keeper is the right to clamp or tow away a vehicle. Clamping and towing away on private land is now illegal.

It's an interesting piece of legislation seeing as it does away with centuries of contract law. For the first time the courts may be able to enforce a debt on someone who didn't incur that debt or even enter into the contract. I await with interest the first court cases under this new legislation. That is of course if the PPC resorts to court. Nothing else has changed regarding the legal position of enforceability of these 'Parking Charge' notices/speculative invoices. And the new legislation doesn't force you to name the driver if it wasn't you. The PPC can only 'invite' you to name the driver.

And to correct one small point, it isn't 'anybody' who is now able to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper. Only parking enforcement companies who are members of the British Parking Association^s (BPA) approved operator scheme (AOS) are now allowed to obtain vehicle keepers^ details from the DVLA.

A final point in regard to the new legislation. It may actually be worth appealing these charges now, at least initially. First, appeal to the PPC, if that is turned down you will then have a right to appeal to a new independent appeals service, POPLA (Parking On Private Land Appeals). Each appeal to POPLA will cost the PPC ^27+VAT. Advice I've seen elsewhere, including legal opinion, is that if both appeals are unsuccessful then you can continue as was the case before the new legislation and ignore any demands for payment from the PPC.

I remain, as always, most definitely not a lawyer. Anyone receiving a 'parking charge' from a PPC is still advised to seek legal advice before deciding on a course of action (or inaction!)

a reasonable charge in law can not be anything more than costs incurred by ticket issuer. It has to be the cost it physically cost the company to issue that ticket, plus the original ticket price.
e.g. parking pay and display ticket price, 10 mins of car park attendant hourly rate to issue the ticket (if that), and the cost of the ticket stock that it was issued on.

I would be careful nowadays.  There was a case (from the Portsmouth County Court) which I stumbled upon whilst looking for something completely different where the PPC took someone to court and won.  They were also awarded costs.  Total awarded ^399.76 for a ^135.00 "parking fee".

Here is the judgement: http://www.combinedparkingsolutions.com/downloads/dorrington.PDF

Basically, completely the reverse of what consumer websites tell you will happen.

Important to note in that judgement though that this was a case of someone not paying the fee to park, which is a clear breach of (implied) contract, rather than someone receiving a 'parking charge' notice for contravention of car park 'rules'.

Indeed, I was posting more as a general warning that ignoring these types of tickets may no longer be advisable. I too await the first case on this law, but it will probably be a while yet before one reaches court.

I'm not aware of any cases which have tested what can and can't be claimed, but if you have genuinely breached the car parking rules and the company are not asking for a grossly disproportionate sum it may be best to pay up. Of course parking companies still might not wish to go to the expense of brining these matters to court, there is no guarantee they'll win and it could bring to light some of their practices.

 
Exactly. I really don't think that Roxburghe/Graham White would want their allegedly suspect practices to go before the courts. If they're still making money just by issuing threats, why would they want to change?

If APCOA started using proper debt agencies and solicitors, that would be the time to start seeking advice.

Now have received a letter from Graham White with a facsimile signature.  Am going to ignore this as well!

Yet again I have received a parking offence notice stating that I parked in a restricted area. Nothing to say that it was restricted. Paired my parking ticket for the day. Have now ignored two notices from Apocoa. What do you think I should do. Carry on ignoring them?

Have you seen the BBC1 programmes on parking? There were eseveral cases where people did not/could not see the restriction signs and they appealed and the adjudicator seemed to usually cancel the ticket. I am not sure what the arrangements are for APCOA but I would be inclined to write APCOA pointing this out.

Which part were you in? The bit at the front of the station is restricted to permit holders, as is the bit near the taxi office. There is signage that says a permit is required.

If you are using a normal daily ticket, then the only car park for use would be the biggest car park which you access by driving under the railway bridge.

Remember that the rules are slightly different for parking on railway land as byelaw 14 can apply.
Have a wander over to http://forums.pepipoo.com/ and do a search for APCOA or Rail and read the 'advice'.

Chances are, if APCOA are asking for a payment for breaching terms and conditions laid out on signage, that this will be a speculative invoice which can be easily beaten by going through the Private Parking industry's appeals process. That first means appealing to the Private Parking Company who have issued the 'ticket'. Appeal on the basis that their charge doesn't represent a true estimate of the loss they have have incurred. Then, when they have inevitably turned down that appeal, they are obliged to point you toward an independent appeals service called Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA). There it is almost guaranteed you will win an appeal based on the charge not being a true estimate of the losses suffered by either the parking company or the landowner.

However, as SDS has said, railway station car parks can be covered by Railway Byelaw 14. APCOA rarely use this legislation as it is more beneficial to them to send out speculative invoices. From which they get 100% of the charge if the motorist pays up. If they use Byelaw 14 (which has to be with agreement from the principal (i.e the landholder)), then that is a matter for a magistrate to rule on. They might well win in court but are unlikely to get as much as they would from a speculative invoice.

Either way, don't ignore. If APCOA are not using Byelaw 14 then appeal the charge to them and then POPLA. You can do this with the help of http://forums.pepipoo.com/. If they are using Byelaw 14 then then they have to ensure they've dotted the I's and crossed the T's. Again though, seek advice from http://forums.pepipoo.com/.

re "There is signage that says a permit is required." above.
What is a permit? At Hanborough our old small car park in front of the platform has several differenct sections. Pay and Display, Residents Parking (for the homes near the station where parking is restricted now since charges were introduced, 12 clearly marked Disabled spaces, and 7 or 8 spaces along side the platform each marked "Permit Holders Only". I have asked FGW management what "Permit Holders Only" means and had no response. There are no signs to explain what this means to rail users. Most people do not use them as they are afaid that they might get a ticket even if they have purchased a Pay & Display ticket but some do. The arguement is that having purchased a Pay and Display ticket, that is a parking permit.
Can anyone explain this rule as FGW does not seem able to do so. The car park is also prominently signed on the main road outside as Disabled and Pick-up and Set-Down only. However there are no spaces in the car park designated for Set-down and Pick-up vehicles so such vehicles are parked in the turning area or in the very under-used disabled spaces. Altogether poor management that has just has not been thought through by those responsible for its implementation.

I agree Andrew 1939 - same as the "authorised persons only beyond this point" signs.......what the h**l is that supposed to mean??!!  ??? >:(

Think it either says permit holder or season tickets, I will check when I go through later and get a pic of the signage for you. This is of course speculating as the original poster hasn't replied to confirm where they were parked.

Thanks for posting that latest update on your parking experiences, jacquio!  ::)

Purely in the interests of continuity, I've now merged a previous topic into this one - just so that we can all see what appears to be an ongoing saga developing. That's in no way any criticism - I merely want to provide our readers with a concise story here!  ;)

I'd also like to thank Ollie for his help with this one - I've got into the habit of referring to him as 'the excellent Ollie' for a very good reason.  :-X

A few pics for your viewing pleasure :)

In the pic with the Henley train in background, you will notice a sign attached to the fence. There are several of these types of sign along the length of the fence to the taxi office.

I parked in the big car park at the back. Where I parked there was no indication that it was restricted.

Ooh they cant use railway byelaw 14 on you neither as its not stated on any of the attached photos.

It would appear that the use of the ambiguous term "parking permit holders only" is widely used by APCOA. The scecond photo down does show one sign as parking for season ticket holders only and that in my view is clear but, what does "parking permit holders only" mean? It is surprising that this question has not arisen before.

To enforce a Byelaw, you only need to state it in "general terms". For example, I have never seen a No Smoking sign followed by a warning that to do so is a breach of Byelaw 3.

The exception with Byelaw 14 is that you must mention the Byelaw itself for the purpose of clamping or removal. Now as far as I know, nobody is saying their car has been clamped or towed away at Twyford.

I think you do need to mention somewhere in the terms and conditions that the area is covered by Byelaw 14. EastCoast have spent a lot of money putting up "This area is covered by Byelaw 14" all over Peterborough Station, why would they waste money if that if they didn't need to?

Well if East Coast want to have the option of clamping or removing cars then they have to warn of Byelaw 14. Let's be thankful that FGW and Apcoa are happy issuing just tickets rather than towing away vehicles.

But isnt clamping on private land now illegal?

Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 bans the use of clamps on private land. However:-

Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is excluded from POFA 2012.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf