Case Study: Car Parking
This is a series of case studies to demonstrate issues seen by the Rail Ombudsman relating to car parking issues.
Consumer A – dispute relating to car park closure and lack of signage
The Consumer parked their car in the station car park, midweek and paid via the app for two days’ worth of parking. When the Consumer returned on Saturday at 4pm, they found that they could not exit the car park until 11pm, because the road outside was closed that day for an event. The Consumer complained about the lack of signage at the station to warn passengers about the car park closure that day.
The Rail Ombudsman resolved the case through mediation as the RSP explained that they do not manage the station and are not responsible for signage. This had not been explained to the Consumer when the RSP responded to the complaint.
The RSP offered £25 for the delay in the complaint handling, which the Consumer accepted.
Consumer B– dispute relating to damage to a vehicle
The Consumer complained about a “huge pothole” at the station that was unmarked and there were no clean signs to warn drivers. The Consumer advised that they were seeking compensation for the damage. They provided photographs of the pothole and the repair invoice. The Consumer also stated that they had not received any response from the RSP about their complaint.
The Rail Ombudsman adjudicated on complaint handling only, because damage to a vehicle on railway land falls out of remit.
When mediating, the RSP apologised that the Consumer should have been advised to claim through their insurance company. The RSP offered £15 for complaint handling.
The Rail Ombudsman made no award for complaint handling because although the Consumer did not receive a response to their complaint, they didn’t follow this up with the RSP either.
Consumer C– dispute relating to retailing and refunds
The Consumer parked in the station car park and purchased a combined parking and train ticket which cost £10.90. After making the purchase, the Consumer complained that they had no need to purchase a train ticket because they did not have to use the train to make use of the station car park. The Consumer did not raise this at the time, because they would have missed the bus.
The RSP explained that no refund was due because the train ticket was £8.00 and tickets were subject to a £10.00 admin fee. However, the RSP offered £8.00 to settle the claim and this was accepted by the Consumer.
Consumer D – dispute relating to being overcharged for parking
The Consumer complained that the automated parking system overcharged them. The RSP admitted that they were having issues with the parking system and they requested a copy of the Consumer’s receipt. The Consumer provided their receipt but did not hear back from the RSP before escalating to the Rail Ombudsman.
The RSP responded to the Rail Ombudsman with an apology for not responding. They offered the Consumer a full refund of the parking ticket and a gesture for not responding earlier. The Consumer accepted this as a resolution.
Consumer E – dispute relating to a technical issue with the payment machine
The Consumer complained that when they paid for parking, the machine failed to print their ticket. This meant that they could not exit the car park. A member of staff let them out of the car park but the Consumer had no receipt to claim the cost of parking back from their work. The Consumer stated that this had happened on two occasions and the RSP failed to resolve the complaint.
The RSP offered to reimburse the Consumer £50, which the Consumer accepted.
Consumer F – dispute relating to an issue with the payment machine
The Consumer paid for their parking ticket, but they complained because the machine did not produce a receipt.
The RSP stated in their response to the Rail Ombudsman that they could not retrospectively produce a car-parking receipt.
The Rail Ombudsman found that the Consumer received the service they paid for and that there was insufficient evidence of a service failure. The Consumer’s claim could not be upheld.
Consumer G – dispute relating to a Parking Charge Notice
The Consumer complained that they received a parking fine due to poor signage at the car park. The Consumer offered to pay the fine but as they missed the deadline, the RSP started court proceedings.
The Rail Ombudsman closed the case as out of scope because parking fine appeals fall out of remit. Also, this matter was now within the Court system. The Rail Ombudsman referred the Consumer to the Parking On Private Land Appeal service (POPLA), and the Citizen’s Advice Bureau.
Comments from the Ombudsman and information for consumers
The Rail Ombudsman’s remit in relation to car parking issues is not as wide in comparison to other matters.
The Rail Ombudsman can investigate complaints in relation to car parks as long as they are managed or under the responsibility of the Train Company. However, any claim relating to car damage needs to do through the RSP’s claim process. In some cases, we can still look at complaint handling even if the train company do not manage the car park.
If you are appealing a Parking Charge Notice, you should contact POPLA.
Complaints regarding the pricing of car parking tickets at a station will be referred to Transport Focus or London Travel Watch.
