POPLA Decisions

Jenni_D

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81835563#Comment_81835563

I'm late to the party (not read this thread since 2022 apparently 🤣) but in the post quoted above the byelaw (bylaw?) talks about the owner … when it comes to cars etc. there is no such register of owners, so a notice sent to the registered keeper may still not be valid. (You don't own a car unless you've bought it outright - otherwise the finance co, lease co, Motability etc. own the car). 🙂

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81867309#Comment_81867309

POPLA believes that RK is the ‘Owner’. Fundamentally incorrect assumption, but don’t let that bother your lads and lasses John Gallagher! Keep the show ticking over!

doubledotcom

I advise anyone using POPLA for a railway byelaw Penalty Notice to pre-empt their rubbish response with:

Pre-emptive rebuttal of the “owner” assertion
I anticipate APCOA/POPLA will assert: “DVLA records indicate you were the registered keeper. You are legally liable as the owner even if not the driver. ‘Owner’ means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, presumed to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.” That reasoning is wrong in law for a byelaw allegation.

No deeming provision in the Railway Byelaws
Byelaw 14(4)(ii) allows prosecution of “the owner”. The Byelaws do not define “owner” and contain no presumption that the registered keeper is the owner. Any such presumption must be created by the Byelaws themselves. It is not.

Civil presumptions are irrelevant to criminal liability
The “kept by/presumed owner” wording cited by operators derives from civil contexts (e.g. VERA administration; PoFA keeper liability). Those regimes are not incorporated into the Railway Byelaws and do not create criminal liability. A byelaw prosecution is criminal in character and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ownership must be proved with evidence, not assumed from DVLA administrative data.

DVLA data is keeper data, not proof of ownership
DVLA provides registered keeper details only. The V5C expressly states it is not proof of ownership. DVLA data may be a starting point for enquiries, but it is not conclusive (or even sufficient) evidence of ownership for a criminal allegation.

Jurisdiction and correct route
If the operator believes an offence occurred, the only lawful route is to lay information in the magistrates’ court under the Single Justice Procedure within six months of the date of the allegation. POPLA cannot determine criminal liability or apply criminal standards of proof. Directing civil recovery or purporting to impose keeper liability under PoFA is outside scope.

Outcome sought

POPLA should decline jurisdiction over a Railway Byelaws Penalty Notice and direct APCOA to cancel it; or

In the alternative, if POPLA nevertheless considers itself competent, it must allow the appeal because APCOA has provided no evidence of “owner” as required by Byelaw 14(4)(ii) and cannot rely on PoFA or civil presumptions to impose keeper liability on non-relevant land.

For the avoidance of doubt, should POPLA be minded to endorse APCOA’s defective position, please instruct APCOA to refer to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

You can replace APCOA with SABA as necessary.