Indigo PCN Leagrave Station - accidently put wrong reg in Connect app

inzimam

Hi All

My appeal was successful - I didn't get a chance to post the reply. Thank you so much for your help!

Successful
Assessor NameTimothy Jessop
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket in the car park in question.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that there was no breach of contract, or railway byelaws. They have also claimed the operator does not have the authority to issue and pursue the charge, and that the charge itself is unenforceable. Finally, they have also stated that the signage within the car park was insufficient.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage erected at the site provided to me by the operator, stating that “This car park is subject to railway byelaws”, I consider that the land upon which the appellant parked on this occasion is subject to railway Byelaws, which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws. In this case, I have not been provided with a copy of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that would have informed the appellant of what law or regulation they were being pursued under, and also define the standards that I would need to assess the appeal against. Given that the signage in the car park indicates that motorists will be pursued for a Penalty Notice under Byelaws for parking contraventions, that the photographic evidence shows the notice attached to the vehicle to state “Penalty Notice”, and given that the response made by the operator to this initial appeal also identifies the charge as a “Penalty Charge Notice”, I am only able to assume that the charge was issued under Byelaws. This is on the basis that the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice indicates, under section 14.2 “Misrepresentation of Authority”, that you must not use terms that imply parking is managed, controlled or enforced under statutory authority, such as ‘fine’ or ‘penalty’. Whilst this is not condoned for parking charges issued for non-compliance with the contract, as set out on the signage in the car park, under the BPA Code of Practice, charges issued for contravention of Byelaws are technically penalties and so this restriction does not apply. From the photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in the car park, showing that a yellow wallet had been affixed to the windscreen of the car, and on the basis that the operator has not provided me with any information relating to who the registered keeper of the vehicle is, I must assume that the appellant had been issued with a notice to driver, and that no notice to owner had been produced at any stage of this alleged parking event. Accordingly, on the basis of the appellant’s statements regarding the event, and the lack of any information about who the keeper of the vehicle is, or a copy of any notice sent to the keeper of the vehicle, I must assume that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the driver of the vehicle. The railway byelaws state, under 14 (4), that: “In England and Wales (i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.” Accordingly, under the Byelaws the owner of a vehicle is liable to pay any outstanding penalty for contravention of the Byelaws. From the evidence provided to me by the operator, I am unable to determine that it has identified the appellant in this case as the owner of the vehicle. Whilst I am willing to consider that a keeper may be held as the owner in the absence of any evidence disproving this fact, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the individual who it is pursuing for the penalty is in fact liable for the penalty. As the burden of proof rests with the operator in both showing that the appellant has not complied with the relevant Byelaws in place on the land, and showing that the appellant is liable for the penalty issued, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

I've seen this exact template response before in a byelaws case from new POPLA.

Wordy tosh. They could have condensed all of this by saying:

POPLA has no authority to adjudicate criminal cases. As such, it is for the landholder to pursue this through the Magistrates Court within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence. The appeal is therefore upheld.

Well done on your win.