Hypothetical: Waiting too long in station drop off / pick-up zone

[Western Sunset]

Many stations have 20min (max) waiting areas to pick-up passengers.

Suppose I arrive 10mins before the train I'm picking up someone from is due in, but find that it's running 30mins late. So instead of occupying the space for 10mins (thus within the 20 max), I'm there for 40min (20 min too long). Would a TOC take a soft or hard view of this overstay?

Just wondering really.....

 

[IanD]

I'd guess it depends on whether they use camera or manual enforcement.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Many stations have 20min (max) waiting areas to pick-up passengers.

Suppose I arrive 10mins before the train I'm picking up someone from is due in, but find that it's running 30mins late. So instead of occupying the space for 10mins (thus within the 20 max), I'm there for 40min (20 min too long). Would a TOC take a soft or hard view of this overstay?

Just wondering really.....

It depends on the TOC. At some stations it is attendant enforced. In such a case, if you're lucky your "misdeed" won't be noted at all. At other stations it's ANPR based, so, short of a technical fault, the overstay will be noticed.

Of course, the practicality of enforcing various types of penalties is a completely separate matter, and there are a number of complications (to the benefit of the passenger/driver) on railway land.

 

[Ianno87]

It depends on the TOC. At some stations it is attendant enforced. In such a case, if you're lucky your "misdeed" won't be noted at all. At other stations it's ANPR based, so, short of a technical fault, the overstay will be noticed.

Of course, the practicality of enforcing various types of penalties is a completely separate matter, and there are a number of complications (to the benefit of the passenger/driver) on railway land.

There's ANPR at Cambridge, so I don't set off for a pickuk until I can see on Real Time Trains the train has passed a suitable point. But would be interesting to know if penalty notices can be successfully challenged in the event of late trains.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

There's ANPR at Cambridge, so I don't set off for a pickuk until I can see on Real Time Trains the train has passed a suitable point. But would be interesting to know if penalty notices can be successfully challenged in the event of late trains.

The legalities of parking have no relation to the train services. Except in the case of something like an Executive Package that includes parking and train travel in one ticket, you hold two entirely separate contracts (if indeed there is a contract at all, which is one of the issues with penalty charges of all kinds in station car parks!).

 

[Puffing Devil]

The legalities of parking have no relation to the train services. Except in the case of something like an Executive Package that includes parking and train travel in one ticket, you hold two entirely separate contracts (if indeed there is a contract at all, which is one of the issues with penalty charges of all kinds in station car parks!).

Though some railway land is managed under bylaws, which brings a different element to enforcement, including the possibility of clamping as it's not "private land".

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Though some railway land is managed under bylaws, which brings a different element to enforcement, including the possibility of clamping as it's not "private land".

Indeed, though there are some schools of thought (which I tentatively agree with, having had a look at it) that, given the general unlawfulness of clamping in the absence of "lawful authority" since 2012, suggest that the operators need to be exceedingly careful to not be committing an offence.

 

[Stigy]

Indeed, though there are some schools of thought (which I tentatively agree with, having had a look at it) that, given the general unlawfulness of clamping in the absence of "lawful authority" since 2012, suggest that the operators need to be exceedingly careful to not be committing an offence.

As long as the land is railway owner, clamping is permitted. Even if the Byelaws aren’t used to enforce parking itself by way of Penalty Charge Notices (most contractors will issue PCNs but won’t use the Byelaws in conjunction with them), the company’s Contractors may wish to clamp offending vehicles and this would be lawful.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

As long as the land is railway owner, clamping is permitted. Even if the Byelaws aren’t used to enforce parking itself by way of Penalty Charge Notices (most contractors will issue PCNs but won’t use the Byelaws in conjunction with them), the company’s Contractors may wish to clamp offending vehicles and this would be lawful.

The risk for rail companies arises because the general prohibition of clamping is found in an Act, which provides that "lawful authority" must exist. The Act doesn't define what "lawful authority" is, but it makes clear that it is not something that can be gained contractually - i.e. it must be statutory. So if one suggests that the Railway Byelaws provide such a statutory authority, then in turn a piece of primary legislation must provide the statutory authority for the Byelaws.

Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 enumerates the powers of the then SRA to make certain Byelaws, but I think it is hard to imply into any of the enumerated powers the lawful authority to clamp a vehicle - something that in the case of other authorities, such as councils or the police, is perfectly clear.

Anyway, it's all rather theoretical, as whilst clamping does occur sometimes, it is far less frequent than the issuance of penalty charges, for instance.

 

[87 027]

Private parking schemes rely on civil law, specifically contract (if you** park here, in exchange for using the landowner's facilities, you the driver agree to the clearly displayed conditions and to pay the landowner (via his agent where applicable) any charges as stated), and tort (if you park here on private land without permission you are trespassing and the occupiers can seek damages). In practice, tort is weak as the legal remedy is compensation for actual damage caused, which may well be zero in the absence of any measurable detriment. And for the contract element to be enforceable there are also conditions to be met e.g. the scheme is properly established and the signage must comply with all the relevant regulations re visibility and clarity etc. Also the charge must be a reasonable pre-estimate of loss and not contain any punitive or deterrent element.

**The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in exchange for banning clamping on private land, did specifically legislate that the registered keeper of a vehicle is liable for a civil parking charge if they fail to provide the details of the actual driver. There have been some successes in enforcing this in contract law.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Private parking schemes rely on civil law, specifically contract (if you** park here, in exchange for using the landowner's facilities, you the driver agree to the clearly displayed conditions and to pay the landowner (via his agent where applicable) any charges as stated), and tort (if you park here on private land without permission you are trespassing and the occupiers can seek damages). In practice, tort is weak as the legal remedy is compensation for actual damage caused, which may well be zero in the absence of any measurable detriment. And for the contract element to be enforceable there are also conditions to be met e.g. the scheme is properly established and the signage must comply with all the relevant regulations re visibility and clarity etc. Also the charge must be a reasonable pre-estimate of loss and not contain any punitive or deterrent element.

**The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in exchange for banning clamping on private land, did specifically legislate that the registered keeper of a vehicle is liable for a civil parking charge if they fail to provide the details of the actual driver. There have been some successes in enforcing this in contract law.

You are mostly correct, but two things - since ParkingEye v Beavis it has been established that penalty-like charges can be enforceable if there is a good justification for their imposition (e.g. in that case, to dissuade misuse of a retail car park by commuters), although they are by no means automatically acceptable.

And secondly, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 doesn't apply to land under statutory control such as the railways, which is one area where people can start to get off these charges, since the Byelaws only provide for owner liability and many vehicles are leased nowadays, so the registered keeper is by no means the owner.

 

[Kite159]

I wonder how long it will be until some of the more greedy TOCs start charging for drop-offs/pick ups from stations (like they do in airports)?

 

[Stigy]

I wonder how long it will be until some of the more greedy TOCs start charging for drop-offs/pick ups from stations (like they do in airports)?

They already do at some locations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They already do at some locations.

Which stations do?

 

[Stigy]

Which stations do?

Swindon I noticed had chargeable drop off/pick up parking the other day, although admittedly you do get up to an hour. Busier stations where parking is limited often have ‘short stay’ chargeable parking as opposed to set down and pick up areas.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Numerous Chiltern stations have just 20 minutes' parking free of charge, in effect a pickup/dropoff charge if your planning goes awry at all (or there are train delays). ANPR enforced too, so you can't hope the attendant turns a blind eye.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Numerous Chiltern stations have just 20 minutes' parking free of charge, in effect a pickup/dropoff charge if your planning goes awry at all (or there are train delays). ANPR enforced too, so you can't hope the attendant turns a blind eye.

One of the problems with this is that it's a choice between 20 minutes for free and a tenner (or whatever) for all day. If there was an option of an hour for a quid (or for 10p more than whatever the local going rate for an hour is, to ensure the railway car park doesn't fill up with shoppers) I'd happily cough that up and relax.

Same with airports - it's usually £2 (or whatever) for the tightly-controlled drop-off or full whack for the "proper" car park (or something like an hour for free which isn't really enough to get to the airport and back). This just creates stress and resentment when compared to charging more reasonably, e.g. allowing something like £2 for four hours in the long-stay which would be plenty of time to park up, bus to the terminal and wait for the person you're waiting for, but not enough time that anyone could use it to actually fly anywhere.

Most of the problems with parking charges are about stress and awkwardness caused by the implementation (such as needing change), not about having to pay a reasonable fee for using someone's land to put my car on, which I don't really object to at all. It's one reason I favour "pay on exit" (be that a barrier or ANPR) - you simply pay for what you use just before you leave, no risk of fines.

 

[Journeyman]

What happens with parking fines also varies depending on where you are. In England and Wales, the owner of the car is responsible, and any parking fines levied by private companies that enforce the rules can and do end up in court. In Scotland, private parking fines cannot be enforced as only councils and the police have the power to issue legally-enforceable fines. It's also the driver of the car who is responsible, and not the owner. In Scotland, threatening letters from private parking companies can be safely ignored and the fines left unpaid, as it's 99.999999999% likely it won't ever get anywhere near a court, and if it does, it'll be thrown out immediately. If you do that in England, you could find it all escalating fairly quickly.

 

[87 027]

In Scotland, threatening letters from private parking companies can be safely ignored and the fines left unpaid, as it's 99.999999999% likely it won't ever get anywhere near a court, and if it does, it'll be thrown out immediately.

Is this really true? I remember the following news story from a few years back

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-39478203

"A woman has been ordered by a sheriff to pay a private parking company £24,500 in unpaid charges. Carly Mackie ignored hundreds of parking tickets for leaving her car at Dundee's Waterfront without a permit, claiming they were unenforceable."

The story continues...

The sheriff said Ms Mackie had "entirely misdirected herself" on both the law and "the contractual chain" in the case. He said: "The defender is bound by that contract and incurred the parking charge on each occasion. The defender refused to pay the parking charges not because she was unaware of the parking scheme or the terms of the notices or the financial consequences of parking at any time, but because she did not believe that the charges were valid in law.

"The parking charges flow from a valid contract between the pursuers and the defender and she is liable for them."

 

[Stigy]

Is this really true? I remember the following news story from a few years back

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-39478203

"A woman has been ordered by a sheriff to pay a private parking company £24,500 in unpaid charges. Carly Mackie ignored hundreds of parking tickets for leaving her car at Dundee's Waterfront without a permit, claiming they were unenforceable."

The story continues...

The sheriff said Ms Mackie had "entirely misdirected herself" on both the law and "the contractual chain" in the case. He said: "The defender is bound by that contract and incurred the parking charge on each occasion. The defender refused to pay the parking charges not because she was unaware of the parking scheme or the terms of the notices or the financial consequences of parking at any time, but because she did not believe that the charges were valid in law.

"The parking charges flow from a valid contract between the pursuers and the defender and she is liable for them."

It used to be the case throughout the U.K. that you could safely ignore these letters (unless it was at a railway station and they were using Byelaws to enforce parking rules and thus criminal law.....which is extremely rare). It’s not the case now though and as has been seen in the article, people have been taken to the county court for non-payment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It used to be the case throughout the U.K. that you could safely ignore these letters (unless it was at a railway station and they were using Byelaws to enforce parking rules and thus criminal law.....which is extremely rare). It’s not the case now though and as has been seen in the article, people have been taken to the county court for non-payment.

Some of the companies are more litigious than others - the forum at pepipoo.com (goodness knows where that name came from) can usually advise knowledgeably about such things.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Is this really true? I remember the following news story from a few years back

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-39478203

"A woman has been ordered by a sheriff to pay a private parking company £24,500 in unpaid charges. Carly Mackie ignored hundreds of parking tickets for leaving her car at Dundee's Waterfront without a permit, claiming they were unenforceable."

The story continues...

The sheriff said Ms Mackie had "entirely misdirected herself" on both the law and "the contractual chain" in the case. He said: "The defender is bound by that contract and incurred the parking charge on each occasion. The defender refused to pay the parking charges not because she was unaware of the parking scheme or the terms of the notices or the financial consequences of parking at any time, but because she did not believe that the charges were valid in law.

"The parking charges flow from a valid contract between the pursuers and the defender and she is liable for them."

It used to be the case throughout the U.K. that you could safely ignore these letters (unless it was at a railway station and they were using Byelaws to enforce parking rules and thus criminal law.....which is extremely rare). It’s not the case now though and as has been seen in the article, people have been taken to the county court for non-payment.

The issue in that particular case is that the defender effectively tried to just ignore it and hope it'd all go away by claiming it's "unfair". Had she taken a more sensible approach to defending the matter (e.g. the difference between driver and keeper liability) it would have ended up very differently indeed. Either way, neither that judgment, nor any other judgment in English, Welsh or Scottish law establishes that the keeper of a vehicle can be assumed to be the driver or the owner.

 

[Stigy]

The issue in that particular case is that the defender effectively tried to just ignore it and hope it'd all go away by claiming it's "unfair". Had she taken a more sensible approach to defending the matter (e.g. the difference between driver and keeper liability) it would have ended up very differently indeed. Either way, neither that judgment, nor any other judgment in English, Welsh or Scottish law establishes that the keeper of a vehicle can be assumed to be the driver or the owner.

Talking non-Railway Byelaws I assume, re the owner liability?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Talking non-Railway Byelaws I assume, re the owner liability?

The general case, but even for the purposes of the Railway Byelaws the registered keeper cannot be assumed to be the owner - take the case of a company car or a leased vehicle. There is no central register of vehicle owners. That can leave TOCs (or their PPC agents) a little stuck from time to time, with no-one fessing up to being the driver or the owner!

 

[Stigy]

The general case, but even for the purposes of the Railway Byelaws the registered keeper cannot be assumed to be the owner - take the case of a company car or a leased vehicle. There is no central register of vehicle owners. That can leave TOCs (or their PPC agents) a little stuck from time to time, with no-one fessing up to being the driver or the owner!

I understand that, but Byelaw 14 does still make the owner liability for any penalty.

 

[Stigy]

The issue in that particular case is that the defender effectively tried to just ignore it and hope it'd all go away by claiming it's "unfair". Had she taken a more sensible approach to defending the matter (e.g. the difference between driver and keeper liability) it would have ended up very differently indeed. Either way, neither that judgment, nor any other judgment in English, Welsh or Scottish law establishes that the keeper of a vehicle can be assumed to be the driver or the owner.

It used to be the ‘done thing’ to simply ignore, and this was the advice given by most, as PPCs would simply give up and seldom actually take matters any further than the odd threatening letter.

 

[island]

Civil parking charge notices aside, one can still be prosecuted under the Railway Byelaws for various parking violations on the railway.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Civil parking charge notices aside, one can still be prosecuted under the Railway Byelaws for various parking violations on the railway.

The driver can, that is. And neither the keeper nor the owner is under any obligation to name the driver, so it's only an effective law in the case of being caught 'in the act'.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The BTP can require the keeper to name the driver, using the same process as is used for camera enforcement of red lights / speed limits

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The BTP can require the keeper to name the driver, using the same process as is used for camera enforcement of red lights / speed limits

The issue of course being that the BTP don't tend to enforce these kinds of things.