Railway Bylaws and PPCs

trisontana

There is an article in today's Times all about Popla and the halt they have put on any appeals concerning railway land and bylaws. The DCLG have been asked to clarify the law. They are quoted has saying :- "Denying drivers the right to appeal is an affront to the basic principles of fairness and justice. We are urgently looking into the legal complexities of these fines (sic) and will respond shortly"

While Popla says it was "taking longer than anticipated to reach our decision on whether it has the authority to look at appeals in respect of alleged breaches of bylaws."

In other words, a right mess.

pappa_golf

it has been a right mess from the start , the goverment were strict on what land PPCs could work from , in the case of bylaw land , the mechanics were and are in place , only the land owner can file for tresspass , at a magistrates court and within 6 mths , any case that (any incarnation of) POPLa have adjudicated on are against goverment wishes

"taking longer than anticipated" is a farce , a simple read of the POFa 2012 tells them all they need to know

and if you look at completed cases , bylaw cases are still being adjudicated on

Umkomaas

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/railway-parking-fines-could-be-written-off-vz5gcqk2s?shareToken=0ab57e4607980ec00c92b7cc698159ba

Fruitcake

Umkomaas wrote: »

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/railway-parking-fines-could-be-written-off-vz5gcqk2s?shareToken=0ab57e4607980ec00c92b7cc698159ba

I can't get that link to work.

Umkomaas

Go in via PePiPoo.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110297

Redx

Fruitcake wrote: »

I can't get that link to work.

simple , just remove the "SPACE"

pappa_golf

The appeals service set up to oversee private parking companies fears that it has no authority to adjudicate on cases involving breaches of bylaws and has ordered operators not to pursue payment while the dispute is resolved. The Department for Communities and Local Government has been asked to clarify the law.

badly worded by the Times , or correctly worded and being abused by PPCs?

Redx

seems to me that this is wrong too

Q&A
How are station car parks operated?
At least 1,620 stations have car parks. Most are operated by private parking companies. Under legislation introduced in 2012 they are banned from clamping vehicles but can pursue the owner, often threatening to take them to court. Tickets are not “fines” but rather breaches of civil contract.

we know that POFA2012 isnt valid for non-relevant land like railways (and airports and ports) , so we know its not the owner that can be pursued , its the DRIVER


so I think it should say

Q&A
How are station car parks operated?
At least 1,620 stations have car parks. Most are operated by private parking companies. Under legislation introduced in 2012 they are banned from clamping vehicles but can pursue the driver, often threatening to take them to court. Tickets are not “fines” but rather breaches of civil contract.

I also suspect they have not taken TRAM "stations" into account either , like the Manchester Metrolink

HO87

pappa_golf wrote: »

it has been a right mess from the start , the goverment were strict on what land PPCs could work from , in the case of bylaw land , the mechanics were and are in place , only the land owner can file for tresspass , at a magistrates court and within 6 mths , any case that (any incarnation of) POPLa have adjudicated on are against goverment wishes

"taking longer than anticipated" is a farce , a simple read of the POFa 2012 tells them all they need to know

and if you look at completed cases , bylaw cases are still being adjudicated on

I think you have made an important omission. POFA - i.e. keeper liability - is only applicable on "relevant land" and land covered by [railway] byelaws is not "relevant land".

However, that does not prevent a PPC from operating - they just cannot use POFA in certain areas. Even on "relevant land" PPC's can choose whether they work under the provisions of POFA or not and it is this very fact that has seen the use of the case of Elliot -v- Loake - and before it was "rubbished" Barnard -v- Sully.

POFA did not "legalise" the operation of PPC's nor do anything other than constrain how and where they could use keeper liability which was, after all, the quid pro quo for the banning of wheel-clamping on private land.

pappa_golf

HO87 wrote: »

I think you have made an important omission. POFA - i.e. keeper liability - is only applicable on "relevant land" and land covered by [railway] byelaws is not "relevant land".

However, that does not prevent a PPC from operating - they just cannot use POFA in certain areas. Even on "relevant land" PPC's can choose whether they work under the provisions of POFA or not and it is this very fact that has seen the use of the case of Elliot -v- Loake - and before it was "rubbished" Barnard -v- Sully.

POFA did not "legalise" the operation of PPC's nor do anything other than constrain how and where they could use keeper liability which was, after all, the quid pro quo for the banning of wheel-clamping on private land.

POFa or not , those companies still use the services of POPLa , as mentioned by the times , without POPLa the companies cannot carry on issuing and demanding monies , ONLY the landowner can instigate charges

HO87

pappa_golf wrote: »

POFa or not , those companies still use the services of POPLa , as mentioned by the times , without POPLa the companies cannot carry on issuing and demanding monies , ONLY the landowner can instigate charges

I wasn't aware that the likes of District Enforcement, for example, now used POPLA. I'm sure the last time I checked they were still members of the IPC but I assume that what you meant is that PPC's still use an approved form of ADR - not that they [all] use POPLA.

I have to make allowance for the fact that your wording often has to be interpreted as a shorthand but with respect landowners are not the only ones who can instigate charges (if by that you meant PCN's). They might be the only party that can recover damages for trespass (although even then that can be delegated to a suitably [legally] empowered party) they can contract a PPC to impose charges and that is the most frequent scenario.

If however, what you were referring to, when using the term "charges", was the issuing of proceedings in the magistrates court (i.e. criminal proceedings) then you are again wrong when suggesting: "ONLY the landowner can instigate charges".

As far as the railway is concerned the landowner is Network Rail but we know that PPC's are contracted by one of the Train Operating Companies to whom responsibility for various aspects of the management of stations, car parks etc is delegated as a result of their being granted a TOC contract.

To confuse matters further the prosecution of cases is dealt with by, for example (in the south, south-east etc) Revenue Protection Support Services which is a trading title of London & South East Railway Ltd - which might not even be the leaseholder of the station car park concerned.

I'm sure you will now offer a further explanation of what you really meant.