Meteor / Orpington / I'm actually in the wrong - what to do?

[Lebbo]

UPDATE:

 

I received this through the post. It claims to be PCN and it claims that I'm in breach of Railway Byelaw 14. So does this mean I now have to pay the £90 (double!) fine, or are they lying to scare me? Can I check this?

 

Personally, if there's a risk that I have to go to a small claims court and end up paying like £500 or even £165 (in a few days!), then I'd rather pay the £90 and be done with it as I'm pretty broke.

 

I am, however, open to any advice / expertise / experience offered here

 

 

[ForestChav]

Railway Byelaw 14 of what, The Vuvuzelas on Trains Act 2011? A real notice would have a contravention with a real code, referring to the Act of Parliament which you have broken, wouldn't it.

 

The wording is important here - only local authorities and those acting on behalf of legally enforceable parking fines (i.e. where you have broken the law in the highway code, or in a local authority car park) are allowed to use the term "Penalty Charge Notice". They have used "Parking Charge Notice" - this is the same notice someone else posted last night and my response to this one is the same; if it is a breach of the law, rather than a breach of T+Cs, why not use the term you are legally allowed to? Therefore I would expect this to be an invoice from a private company.

 

The PPCs do usually do this, based on what people have said - letters from the PPC, then passing it on to a debt collector, they send a few, then letters threatening court action - but it never reaches court or at least I have not read any cases where it has. This may well be because this is costly, and sending a few letters is not, and if they don't win the case they will have to pay your costs as well as theirs and have not won anything, and even if they win, where you would be liable for the costs as well as the invoice, it is presumed you can pay, so it is probably more economical for them to threaten people and hope they pay. Previous advice still stands, in my opinion.

[buzby]

This does have the look of a [causing problems] PPC. The 'Debt Recovery Prosecutions Office' is evidence of this. RAILWAY bye-laws are made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Rail Authority and confirmed under Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for Transport on June 22, 2005. It therefore follows that the railway premises used are either owned by a SRA or Network Rail. Find out which, and call them regarding parking. As the Byelaw cannot be used by a PPC with any hope of legitimacy, if you can clarify this, you could then safely continue to ignore if they're trying it on.

[Al27]

This is a weird one.

 

Breach of railway byelaws can result in being issued with a Fixed Penalty Charge and failure to pay can result in a magistrate's summons and a fine of up to £1000 (the fine will never be that much though).

 

Yet they are asking for a 'Parking Charge' instead and have not named under which Act or specific Bye-law they are issuing under. Keeper liability is fishy.

 

The Transport Act 2000 states:

 

Penalties

 

2Bye-laws may provide that any person contravening them is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding—

 

(a)level 3 on the standard scale, or

 

(b)such lower amount as is specified in the bye-laws,

 

for each offence.

 

and

 

Confirmation

 

3Bye-laws shall not come into operation until they have been confirmed by the Secretary of State.

 

and

 

(5)The Authority shall supply (free of charge) one copy of the bye-laws to any person who applies for a copy or copies of them.

 

I would take a different approach. I would write back asking for a copy of the bye-law as is your right under Schedule 20 Part 4 (5) of the Transport Act 2000.

[Lebbo]

According to wikipedia, the SRA hasn't existed since 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Rail_Authority)

 

Orpington isn't a Network Rail managed station: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/765.aspx

 

I called National Rail and asked them about the Transport Act and they didn't know, they put me onto the main phone number for Southeastern customer services: 0845 000 22 22 (option 6).

 

Southeastern were very helpful. The guy with whom I spoke is going to dig around and try to find out where I can independently discover if Orpington is indeed covered under the Transport Act 2000 and he'll email me with a response hopefully tomorrow.

 

He also pointed out that the 7 day ticket ending at 3.59, regardless of the time of purchase, is pretty ridiculous - especially (as pointed out in this thread) as there are no trains at that time and the ticket office is closed; he advised me to submit a complaint via http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/about-us/contact-us/

 

On a side note, just noticed that Debt Recovery & Prosecution Service is a trading name of London and South Eastern Railway Limited (written at the bottom of the letter) which is the same registered address as Meteor Parking Limited (http://www.southeasternparking.co.uk/aboutus.asp)

[Michael Browne]

On a side note, just noticed that Debt Recovery & Prosecution Service is a trading name of London and South Eastern Railway Limited (written at the bottom of the letter) which is the same registered address as Meteor Parking Limited (http://www.southeasternparking.co.uk/aboutus.asp)

 

Meteor are part of the Go Ahead Group who also run train and bus companies:

http://www.go-ahead.com/goahead/storage/pdf/factsheet_jun10.pdf

 

Interestingly the original Meteor ticket makes no mention of any laws, never mind Railway Byelaw 14.

[Lebbo]

Well, I've drafted the following letter... what do you think?

 

[Al27]

Sounds good to me.

 

Bylaw should be byelaw.

[buzby]

I'd skip the second para. It sounds passive. Much better is;

 

In the meantime, any action you contemplate will be vigourously defended, and the costs incurred will be recovered from yourselves. You may wish to suspend your action until this issue is resolved.

[Zamzara]

The relevant parts of the Transport Act 2000 have been repealed by the Railways Act 2005. This will not affect the validity of byelaws made under the 2000 Act, but Schedule 9 para 6 of the Railways Act now contains the relevant provisions to request copies.

[jl4]

Any update on this? I've had an identical letter today.

[Lebbo]

I only posted my response letter yesterday!

[Cobra11]

I noticed in their PCN they said failure to pay the increase will result in a Magistrates Court Summons aginst you etc.

Is this now more than 6 months old, as they needed to lay information to the courts within 6 months of the alleged offence.

[Lebbo]

At the top of the most recent contact from the debt recovery folks, there are two dates:

 

Parking charge notice date

Date of issue of this notice

 

The time between those dates is 6 months and 3 days.

 

Does this mean that it's too late for them to take me to court? (my fingers are crossed!)

 

Do you have a source for this information that I could check out?

 

Thank you!

[Al27]

I doubt you'll be going to court. It's becoming increasingly likely this is the most fraudulent private parking ticket paperwork we've seen for a long time.

 

See if they reply and then we can look at sending information to Trading Standards and the police.

[buzby]

Tebbo - this will be a private action (for debt) so there is no 6 month limit. It would be 6 years for them to claim (or 5 in Scotland). The chances of them winning in court remains slim, however.

[Cobra11]

Lebbo - it is Sec127 Magistrates' Court Act 1980 (Time limitation)

@ busby - it is the inference in their paperwork that states, will result in a Magistrates summons against you under Railway byelaws (post #26). Hence they have to lay information to a Magistrates' court within 6 months of the alleged offence, the 6 months starts the day after the alleged incident.

You are probably right in saying that it is a PPC, otherwise why would they send it to a supposed debt recovery agency (tongue in cheek).

[buzby]

Of the cases I've seen so far, the Magistraite's Court reference (under Railway Byelaws) is a smokescreen, as it is vrtually impossible for a third party to claim that they have delegated powers to proceed, even if they did, the fines are much less than what they would attempt to claim under Contract Law!

[jl4]

For your info...

 

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=54558&st=20

[buzby]

Unfortrunately. this still does not confirm anything. The OP in the other forum paid up as he was 'satisfied' that the ticket was issued correctly. OTOH, many PPCs simply add the 'Byelaw' line and a threat of prosecution as purely marketing. The test, of course would have been not to take their workd for it, but wait for the follow-through. It does seem strange after this length of time, there are not more stories of 'Magistrates' cases, rather than the odd County Court civil nonsense.

 

Until this happens, I don't believe this argument will progress. A poster paying up simply prevents the full disclosure of these Byelaw jokers. Especially in the situation cited, the 'offender' had actually paid to park, but was in the 'wrong area'.

[Lebbo]

Update!

 

I received another letter identical to the previous one (posted above).

 

I then received the following letter, which includes copies of the emails sent between Meteor & I back at the time the fine was issued. I wrote in an email at the time that my ticket must've slipped from the dash, hence receiving the fine. I was asked to provide a valid ticket, which I couldn't do as my ticket expired in the early hours of the day in which I received the fine.

 

Anyway, here's the letter I received. I've included the front cover of the 30+ page document I received along with the letter & I've also scanned the page that was highlighted for my attention.

 

Let me know what you think (and what you think I should do). Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

[Lebbo]

Anybody?

[buzby]

Only the observation (and only that) that a prosecution would (should?) rely on BTP to proceed. Not a 'debt recovery and prosecutions service'. Also AIUI, the London & South East Railway limited only has a limited franchise to run train services. It is not owner of the railway, or indeed the buildings and other infrastructure - which remain within the sole gift of Network Rail. I feel L&SE are over-reaching themselves and over-stating their authority, but this is only a personal opinion. It would need a 'put up or shut up' stance, to see if they attempt to risk an adverse result. Since Network Rail are the landowners, are they seriously suggesting that these powers can be delegated? A SRA might have this power, but a leasholder with a licence to operate? I'm unconvinced, but it isn't my call, just an opinion.

Edited October 4, 2010 by buzby

[Lebbo]

Thanks for the input, I look forward to reading further responses.

[Lebbo]

Anybody else got some input