Oxfordshire car park fines for not keeping within white lines

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

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

People parking at an Oxfordshire car park say they are being fined for not keeping within the white lines.

The size of the spaces at Didcot Parkway railway station, on Foxhall Road, are unconfirmed but some commuters claim they are too small.

APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area), which operates the car park, has so far declined to comment.

The firm is a member of the British Parking Association, which recommends a minimum of 4.8m (15.7ft) x 2.4m (7.8ft), but this is not mandatory.

Penny Reid, from Wantage, drives a Land Rover Freelander and recently received an ^80 Civil Parking Notice at the car park.

"I can fit within the space, I'm a good parker - but if there is a car parked next to me I can't get out," she said.

Kelvin Reynolds, from the British Parking Association, said the association's recommended minimum size for a parking space had "survived the test of time".

He added that although it does not regulate companies the association does assist them to operate "best practice".

"Spaces need to be marked so the car park works efficiently - maximising space without compromising safety," he said.

Edward Hanrahan, from East Hendred, regularly parks his Audio A4, which he describes as a "medium sized car", at Didcot Parkway.

He said: "I got an ^80 parking ticket, then three weeks later when I hadn't paid it I got a final demand and a doubling of the payment.

"Since then I've had another demand from a solicitor and debt collectors - it's all just scare mongering."

A spokesperson at First Great Western, which operates the railway station, said: "We haven't received any complaints about this issue previously, but we will now be investigating and assessing the car park sizes."

The British Parking Association said it would also investigate the situation.

[JayMac]

Same advice as always with regard to 'Civil Parking Notices'. They need to be filed very carefully.....

.... in the bin.


EDIT: That is to say, ones from Private Parking Companies (PPC), often made to look like they are backed up by legislation specific to parking offences. Do NOT ignore or bin ones that come from the Police or a Local Authority.

There is a bit of a grey area when it comes to parking on railway property also. Railway Byelaws cover certain offences that may be committed by someone parking on railway property:

14. Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking
<snip>

(2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway:

(i) in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or
(ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person.

If a notice stuck to your windscreen quotes Railway Byelaw 14, then you should attempt to ascertain whether the PPC is acting as an 'authorised person'. That is ill-defined and I'm not aware of any precedent yet where a PPC with a contract to run car parks on railway property has successfully prosecuted someone under Byelaw 14.

FURTHER EDIT: If one of these notices quotes Railway Byelaw 14 and further mentions 'Magistrates Court' then it should be taken seriously. If it mentions 'County Court' then it's safe to assume it is merely an unsolicited invoice.

[BerkshireBugsy]

I heard about this listening to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 (in hospital, radio 2 was free, end of excuse) and it was a interesting article. Living next to a school I am not the biggest fan of drivers who use 4x4s for local travel BUT it would appear the owner was a competent driver who - given the right space - could correctly park their vehicle within the white lines. I watch the progress on this issue with interest.

So good on you Lady, I home you stand your ground. I believe First Great Western's comment was something along the lines of "we sub this out to another company, it's down to then but I don't think it is that simple. Does anyone know (in the case of Didcot Parkway Station) who owns the land the car park is on?

One of the few benefits on catching the early train from Thatcham (THA) is that (a) parking is free and (b) where I park vehicles park nose to tail in marked spaces so vehicles parked next to you are never a problem..

I hope my use of TLA^▸ (three letter acronym)'s in this post did not cause offense to any other readers or moderators (see, I do take  note!) and I hope I've not mixed up this presenter called "Jeremy" with another who always seems to be doing DNA tests on questional families..

Dave

[inspector_blakey]

You got the right Jeremy!

[BerkshireBugsy]

You got the right Jeremy!

Phew - the results of my childs paterity suite will remain private then!

[adc82140]

The worst thing Ms Reid could have done is gone to the media. Before she went public the only information APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area) could have got is the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA^▸ (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency), and legally that means nothing. APCOA now know who she is, and will get their "associates" Roxburge Debt Collectors to start sending threatograms.

[JayMac]

And as long as Ms Reid's original 'Civil Parking Notice' (there's a big clue in the name of that 'notice'...) is nothing more than a speculative invoice - despite her admitting to the media that she was the driver of the vehicle - then she has nothing to fear from Roxburghe and/or 'Graham White Solicitors'.

'Scam' is a strong word, but these 'notices' requiring payment of a charge for supposed breaches of parking rules are just that. A scam. I think it would be a first if Roxburghe/Graham White are pursuing a case where they have the full weight of legislation (statute, Railway Byelaws or precedent) behind them. Their letters are designed to frighten people into paying.

As long as her 'notice' is not backed up by correct reference to Railway Byelaw 14 and potential prosecution in a Magistrates Court, then she has nothing to fear and can safely ignore the stream of letters from Roxburghe/Graham White that will land on her doormat.

As always, these are my general observations. I am not a lawyer.

[adc82140]

I agree, they still don't have a legal leg to stand on, but it will get quite unpleasant for the lady concerned unless she is familiar with the Roxburge/Graham White letter chain.

Also, and soon as they make reference to a discount for quick payment, or ramp up the cost through the debt collectors, any court in the land would laugh in their faces.

The invoices DO make reference to Railway Byelaw 14 (I have one of them as a souvenir from Twyford station) but then ask for payment to be made to APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area). Would I be right in thinking it's actually a criminal offence to impersonate a Magistrates' Court?  That's one of the reasons why APCOA don't do court. Ever.

[Brucey]

The invoices DO make reference to Railway Byelaw 14 (I have one of them as a souvenir from Twyford station) but then ask for payment to be made to APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area). Would I be right in thinking it's actually a criminal offence to impersonate a Magistrates' Court?  That's one of the reasons why APCOA don't do court. Ever.

Byelaw 14 allows an operator to charge a "penalty as displayed in that area".

[adc82140]

Which is payable via a Magistrates' Court, not to a private company.

[Oxman]

Not sure I like the way this topic is going.

Advising people not to pay penalties for breach of parking regulations is incitement to breach of contract!

Yep, I know that sounds ridiculous, but when you park in a private car park, you accept the conditions that are displayed, including the imposition of penalties for breach of those conditions. Advising people not to pay simply risks anarchy.

For example, there are some station car parks that offer cheap parking compared with other local car parks. One I am familiar with is Oxford, which is restricted to rail users only. Without the threat of enforceable penalties, the car park there would be full of Oxford city workers, parking gratis, with no room for rail users. According to some of the posts on this thread, all the illegal parkers have to do is ignore any demands sent to them by APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area) and its agents, and that would be fine.

Of course, that would be unacceptable to the vast majority of contributors to this forum. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and APCOA would be castigated for not taking action to pursue the non-paying parkers. The point is that it cannot be OK to say ignore a notice for one type of breach if the breach is one that someone disagrees with, but pursue all others.

The Administrators of this forum rightly take a dim view of suggestions on how to breach the Conditions of Travel. I would suggest the same approach should be taken to a breach of other conditions, such as those for parking.

Incidentally, I know for a fact that the spacing at Didcot Parkway is less than the national standard - it always has been! Its a difficult one to sort out - FGW are not allowed to reduce the number of spaces in the car park. But that does not alter the fact that when you park there, you agree to abide by the conditions of use, which include parking between the lines!

[JayMac]

Advising people not to pay penalties for breach of parking regulations is incitement to breach of contract!

Contracts should not contain penalties for breaches that are too onerous on one party. ^80 is excessive for parking over a white line, overstaying by a few minutes or failing to properly display a ticket. Even more onerous when the penalty increases with each subsequent demand. There is a reason why PPCs go down the threatening letter route rather than attempt to recover these onerous penalties through the courts. There is precedent where they have lost and I'm unaware yet where they have been successful.

Yep, I know that sounds ridiculous, but when you park in a private car park, you accept the conditions that are displayed, including the imposition of penalties for breach of those conditions. Advising people not to pay simply risks anarchy.

Anarchy is a bit strong. If the PPCs want to be able to enforce these contract penalties then they should lobby for legislation. At the moment courts have ruled the penalties excessive.

For example, there are some station car parks that offer cheap parking compared with other local car parks. One I am familiar with is Oxford, which is restricted to rail users only. Without the threat of enforceable penalties, the car park there would be full of Oxford city workers, parking gratis, with no room for rail users. According to some of the posts on this thread, all the illegal parkers have to do is ignore any demands sent to them by APCOA^▸ (Car parking company used at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - controlled stations in the area) and its agents, and that would be fine.

This one is a bit different to issuing penalty notices for parking over a white line. Users of this car park are asked to retain their train tickets for inspection on exit of the car park. Is this car parked barriered and manned?

Of course, that would be unacceptable to the vast majority of contributors to this forum. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and APCOA would be castigated for not taking action to pursue the non-paying parkers.

No-one in this thread is talking about non-payment. That said if they want to ensure everyone pays they can of course implement pay on exit, rather than pay and display.

The Administrators of this forum rightly take a dim view of suggestions on how to breach the Conditions of Travel. I would suggest the same approach should be taken to a breach of other conditions, such as those for parking.

National Rail Conditions of Carriage are backed up by legislation allowing for criminal prosecution when terms are breached. Alternatively TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) may have a 'Penalty Fares' scheme. ^20 or twice the single fare to the next station, whichever is greater. I return to my earlier point. Breaching the 'rules' in a PPC is a civil matter and contract law protect parties to a contract from onerous penalties. Now if PPCs, say, charged twice the maximum daily parking fee for breach of parking rules then maybe the courts would look more favourably on them. Not ^80 and rising.

Incidentally, I know for a fact that the spacing at Didcot Parkway is less than the national standard - it always has been! Its a difficult one to sort out - FGW are not allowed to reduce the number of spaces in the car park. But that does not alter the fact that when you park there, you agree to abide by the conditions of use, which include parking between the lines!

And therefore the penalty should be commensurate with the loss. ie. The parking fee for one space unavailable for the time someone was parked over the line. Or maybe twice that amount. Not ^80 and rising.


I made it clear when editing my original reply that the advice given only apples to penalty 'notices' from PPCs, not those from Police or Local Authorities. I further qualified that by highlighting the slight grey area when it comes to PPCs contracted to run car-parks on railway property. Even penalty 'notices' in these car parks need to be in the correct format. It is not OK for a PPC to reference Railway Byelaw 14 and then ask for the penalty payment to be sent to them. A breach of  Byelaw 14 must be dealt with in a Magistrates court.

Finally, these are my personal views and not necessarily shared by fellow moderators or the Administrators of this forum. I remain, as always, most definitely not a lawyer.

[BerkshireBugsy]

Not sure I like the way this topic is going.

Advising people not to pay penalties for breach of parking regulations is incitement to breach of contract!

I agree. But then I have to admit that I am not legally qualified to advise on legal matters

[grahame]

Not sure I like the way this topic is going.

Advising people not to pay penalties for breach of parking regulations is incitement to breach of contract!

I agree. But then I have to admit that I am not legally qualified to advise on legal matters

confirmation: Forum policy is not to incite breaking of the law, nor breaching of valid civil contract terms.  But discussion of what is and isn't valid in law, and what is and isn't part of a legal contract is OK.  As is discussion about what you can do if you're being (you believe) hounded without civil or legal basis.   But neither I nor any of the other moderators / admins are legal eagles, so you much check and not take our word if in doubt.  Many mods / admins will comment personally and make that very clear (see above) ... and incitement to break the law by any moderator / admin / other member isn't on from either an official or personal position.

Looking wider, away from the topic under discussion here, there are some people who will try to trick you into a contract which you had no intention of taking up - very often via email.  And will then make it very difficult indeed for you to change your mind.  I'm very much in favour of providing knowledge of the system for people caught in such a situation - see indeed here and all sorts of others here on my own company's web site.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Ahem! ... 

My intention, in posting the original story from the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) News site, was perhaps to prompt a debate here on this forum among our knowledgeable membership.

Well, that seems to have worked, anyway! 

And just for the record, positioning myself alongside bignosemac and grahame on this point: we do not condone any actual lawbreaking - but we do want to facilitate an open debate about 'the rights and wrongs' of certain aspects of the 'civil remedies' apparently being applied by some organizations in these matters.

Chris.