Fines of ^100 at West Midlands railway car parks

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Fines of ^100 at West Midlands railway car parks


Full car parks was leading to parking on pavements, Centro said

Centro bosses are hoping new ^100 fines will stop nuisance parking at railway stations across the West Midlands.

The transport authority said it recorded 80 complaints last year about incorrectly parked vehicles.

The fines will target cars obstructing others or not in bays and vehicles wrongly using disabled parking bays.

Centro said on one occasion at Cradley Heath, 170 vehicles were blocked in for three hours by cars parked outside bays.

Coventry city councillor, John McNicholas who is also the chairman of Centro, said it had become a real problem in some areas, especially as there was only "limited space" available.

The fines will also apply to Midland Metro car parks.


A rail replacement coach could not manoeuvre because of incorrectly parked cars earlier this month, said Centro

Centro said park and ride sites were popular, with many full by 08:00 on weekdays, which has led to parking on grass verges, pavements and double yellow lines.

It said it had been working to increase the number of spaces, and current projects include providing a total of 713 spaces at four stations.

[LiskeardRich]

They are pushing their luck with POPLA implying ^100 fines.

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 protects the motorist against disproportionately high private parking ticket charges. Such a fine can only be equal to loss of income as a result of the parking plus admin costs. ^60-^80 is deemed acceptable within the industry, dependent of the hourly rate of the car park. Also must be reduced by at least 40% if paid within 14 days.

[JayMac]

First off, these are not fines. Only a court can impose a fine, not a transport body and certainly not a Private Parking Company (PPC).

Centro are using a Private Parking Company (VCS - Vehicle Control Services Ltd) to enforce the car park 'regulations' and VCS are members of the Accredited Trade Association (ATA) the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), not the British Parking Association (BPA).

Therefore, second stage appeals are dealt with by IPCs Independent Appeals Service (IAS), rather than the BPAs Parking on Private Appeals (POPLA).

https://www.centro.org.uk/transport/park-and-ride/considerate-parking-scheme/

This is where it gets interesting though. Many, if not all of these Centro car parks will be on Railway or Midland Metro land and therefore subject to statutory control in the form of byelaws. Where land is subject to byelaws the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) does not apply. It is PoFA that covers the rights of PPCs to pursue Registered Keepers (RK) of vehicles for Parking Charge Notices (PCN) issued on private land. And it is PoFA that requires an independent ATA to which second stage appeals can be made. If PoFA doesn't apply, as the land is subject to byelaws, then the PPC has no right to pursue the RK, and has no reasonable cause to request RK details from the DVLA^▸ (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency). That's not to say that the DVLA won't release those details though as they get a fee for every request made.

Next is the issue as to whether Centro can even, legally, enforce the PCNs at the railway car parks. It is they who have engaged VCS as agents to manage the car parks. But Cento are likely only agents themselves. The landowners will be Network Rail, and the stations will be managed by a Train Operating Company. Therefore VCS are merely agents of an agent of a manager of a landowner. A very tenuous position to be able to legally enforce Parking Charge Notices in free car parks.

If the land is subject to byelaws and Centro are (through their agent VCS) going to issue PCNs backed up with the threat of criminal sanction through byelaws rather than PoFA, then this is also very dodgy legal grounds. Essentially they would be demanding a bribe to prevent a trip to the magistrates court. "Pay us ^100 or we'll take you to court". That could be deemed illegal.

A very convoluted state of affairs and I expect some interesting time ahead.

[John R]

Also must be reduced by at least 40% if paid within 14 days.

Which is indeed stated in the scheme information.

Whilst BNM considers the legality of the scheme, I'd ask the more general question as to whether it's reasonable for Centro to do what they are doing. I get the feeling that posters to date think they are not. However, if I were one of the 170 motorists blocked in for 3 hours I'd think differently, and the pictures shown, if typical, indicate that there is a problem that needs addressing. Other than hitting motorists in the pocket, how else are they supposed to persuade motorists to park correctly and considerately?

And the cost, ^60 if paid within 14 days isn't really that much these days - about the cost of the cheapest tickets for one of the premier league's bigger teams, or a tank of petrol.  And it's easy to avoid - just park where you're supposed to.

[JayMac]

So motorist should just pay up, even if the operator/agent has no legal authority to demand ^60/^100 or is obfuscating their legal authority?

If this is land covered by byelaws then there is already sufficient legal authority to deal with vehicles causing obstructions. There's zero need for a Private Parking Company to be used to enforced the rules. A vehicle that blocks in others can be legally towed on land covered by railway byelaws. Slapping a ^100 invoice on the windscreen won't clear the obstruction. If Centro want to stop people parking inconsiderately on verges and pavements then bollards can be installed.

Of course, with Centro going down the PPC route and charging ^60/^100 they get a share of the money - unless VCS are paying them a fixed annual fee for 'management', which means VCS, typical of nearly all money grabbing PPCs, are likely to issue as many tickets as possible to maximise their income.

Taking people to court is expensive, so Centro have, it appears, decided to make money from the inconsiderate parkers.

As well as bollards, there is another much simpler way to prevent the inconsiderate parking that could cause an obstruction. You install a barrier system with a vehicle count. As soon as the car park is full, no more vehicles can enter. That though doesn't generate revenue for the PPC or Centro. I've a strong suspicion that VCS read of the incident at Cradley Heath and approached Centro to offer their 'services' in return for a fee or share of PCN revenue.

[John R]

If what they are doing is illegal then clearly that needs to be addressed. However, the suggestions you make for solving the problem all cost money.

Towing cars is time consuming, costs money, and only so many can be dealt with. A barrier system will cost a lot of money to introduce, needs maintenance, and probably someone on hand in case it malfunctions. Bollards cost to install. Yes, taking people to court is expensive, and time consuming, again reducing the number that can be dealt with.

Why should the authority and thus in one form or another council tax payers be out of pocket because people refuse to obey the rules and thus inconvenience other motorists.  A legal process should exist that enables them to fine them, if as you say, it doesn't currently.

[ChrisB]

It would also cost the offenders at least the same amount in coasts/legal fees at court, so your argument about hitting them in the pocket (unfairly?) doesn't really stand up. Either way, it'll cost 'em around that figure. But saves them court time....