Parking company ignoring Byelaws on railway land

prjohnsonnn10

NCP manage a LU station near me. They have installed ANPR and removed all signs relating to 'Railway Byelaws'. The tickets and letters all refer to POPLA. Wright Hassall now involved and have confirmed in writing that the car park is NOT being managed under railway byelaws.

So I would appreciate GAN and or Bargepole and co getting involved here if possible as I am pursuing them for misuse of personal data as i am the owner / keeper of the car.

My question is what is the defence that I have to them just 'ignoring' the fact that it is railway land and deciding unilaterally to try and impose PoFA on this land?

Prior to the byelaws signs being taken down this car park had several wins at POPLA on basis of it being managed under byelaws.

Many thanks all

Fruitcake

You shouldn't say who the vehicle owner is on this forum.

One of HO87's suggestions was to ask Network Rail if the car park is a "Railway Asset."

See here, post 9.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72376626#Comment_72376626

It might be worth sending PMs to the byelaw experts.

Umkomaas

I don't see Gan posting on this forum - best try his home ground of PePiPoo.

EDIT

Just spotted your parallel thread over there. BP is currently active there as I write.

The_Deep

If a station car park is not being managed under by laws does that mean that one can sell stuff from one's car boot there, and conduct unlawful gambling, (find the lady), on the land? Both forbidden under bye laws.

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/1058/railway-byelaws.pdf


see 7 and 8

Coupon-mad

Gan's active today on pepipoo so will probably reply there.

I agree with the view already stated on your pepipoo thread, in that if the parking of vehicles is within byelaws which do apply to a piece of land then it remains 'not relevant land' for POFA purposes. It's still a fork!

an easy one to win at POPLA for a keeper, or even a driver.

System

For Byelaws, the use of POPLA has been agreed by the DVLA as a means of resolving disagreements. It does not change the underlying nature of the amount which has been defined as :

If the consequence of non-payment is that the client [e.g driver or owner] may be summonsed to the magistrates court and prosecuted for an offence, the penalty charge is an invitation to pay in order to avoid a conviction and is not a debt at all because non-payment is unenforceable as such. Any subsequent conviction could lead to a fine which would be a debt.

So to avoid the need to go to the Magistrates (something which the Magistrates approve of) they offer POPLA.

There is a long exchange of information between the DVLA and NCP on the issue [FOIR 3024] which basically says that they can manage car parks on an either/or basis but not both. So it appears they have decided to switch in certain areas where they feel the Byelaws do not cover parking e.g. they have leased land on a railways.

As regards getting your personal data, it is a breach of the DPA to request it without "reasonable cause" but NCP's argument will be that there a breach of byelaws and they are offering (as agents of the TOC's) "an invitation to pay in order to avoid a conviction." If there is a breach of contract the same applies.

So getting the data is not a problem. Inviting you to pay is not a problem. But issuing a court claim (as VCS and DE do) is a problem that has not yet been tested as it will come down to the definition of the land and whether byelaws apply to that specific part.

But you'll need deep pockets to push this issue.

Castle

You can find a list of LU car parks owned by TFL at "Car Park Asset List 2016/17":-
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/