Mr John McDonnell MP

11th August 2016

Dear Mr McDonnell

Parking on Station Approach at Hayes and Harlington Station

I refer to your e-mail of the 29th July detailing your concerns about the activities of private parking company (PPC) PCM UK Ltd at the above site.

As you say, the drop off point in the front of the station, which is accessed by driving over the part of the approach road controlled by PCM, has been closed for approximately 7 months due to construction work at the station for Crossrail.

During this time we have become aware that there has been an increase in the number of complaints regarding the issue of Parking Charge Notices (PCN) issued by PCM at the site. The complaints have been recorded by the Citizens Advice Consumer Service and Hillingdon Parking Services. (PCM have operated on the site for some years before the closure of the turning circle).

Because of this, consideration has already been given to the company's activities and the legal position that applies.

PCM have a Primary Authority relationship with Slough Borough Council, and I have put some questions to them via my colleagues in Slough, regarding the disproportionate number of complaints recorded from drivers regarding this site in comparison to other sites that they operate on.

I note your comments about the signage employed at this site.

As PCM are members of the International Parking Community (IPC), they need to abide by the IPC code of Practice.

The IPC code of practice details, at Part E Schedule 1, the standards that signs should comply with. It is a moot point whether PCM's signs comply, as the code talks about "easily read" etc . However, failure to comply with Code of Practice is primarily a cause for appeal by a driver who has been issued a PCN, rather than a criminal offence.

Continued failure to comply with the Code of Practice could, in theory, lead the IPC to cancel PCM's membership which would prevent them accessing keeper's details from the DVLA. The company however have stated that the IPC have audited the site.

The company have agreed that not all signs can be read from the vehicle, nor are they intended to be; however, they are of the opinion the two "quick read" entrance signs can be read and interpreted from a slow moving vehicle. In total there are 9 signs in the area. They have also stated that enforcement signage was improved when the dropping off point was closed. Drivers are entitled to a grace period to read the signs.

The company have stated that a charge will not be issued if a vehicle does not park or a vehicle is merely performing a manoeuvre, or in a line of traffic. However, analysis of the complaints received mainly relate to having stopped for a very short time, perhaps to read the signs, and in some cases not having stopped at all. The issue of PCNs is of course at the discretion of the operatives, and if a driver feels that a PCN has been wrongly issued, then there are some appeal mechanisms. Ultimately though, it is a civil debt that can only be pursued by the PPC in the County Court.

As a result of contact from this Authority, I note that National Rail have altered the details on their website about parking at Hayes Station.

I am continuing to monitor the situation at Hayes, but, at the present time, I have not identified any criminal offences. However, there appears to have been a drop off in recorded complaints in the last couple of months (which may be as a result of our interest in the situation?). As you say, the enforcement of parking on private land is an activity which seems to be difficult to control.

Please contact me if you wish to discuss the matter further.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Pollitt

Trading Standards Team Manager