Help please!

Carthesis

For my own clarity, is it Driver or Owner so I can make sure my post above is correct in case anyone else reads it in future?

Coupon-mad

The railway byelaws say owner, and POPLA have found in favour of admitted drivers on that basis (so no worries if any OP has said who was driving, not on railway land). Remember the keeper is not necessarily the owner either:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71042210#Comment_71042210

''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. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.''

catfunt

Ah.

If those of us a little in the know can get confused, then what hope for Joe Public???

Coupon-mad

I know...and I think Airport bylaws tend to say 'driver'. But railway byelaws hold the OWNER liable and they will never know who that was!

A keeper is not 'the owner' necessarily.

Confusing.

But it does at least clear up that an admitted driver in an Indigo case will not matter and POPLA cases can be won (if POPLA start to re-hear byelaws cases, which I doubt).