LUL Station Car Park PCN/ POPLA stage

KobeAlt

I'm sending off in a couple of days but haven't received any feed back for my POPLA draft. If someone wouldn't mind having a quick look at it I'd be very grateful (it's post #9)

Coupon-mad

I would change #3 and remove the R Bostock quote because NCP are not saying it was issued under byelaws. An NCP case was lost at POPLA last week (see POPLA Decisions (a recent post by me) because the stupid driver went an outed themselves on appeal.

So I would have #3 as this:

3. Railway Land is Not “Relevant Land”

The NCP operated car park at Walthamstow London Underground station is located upon land belonging to the railway. Railway land is subject to The Transport for London Railway Byelaws and applies to London Underground, Docklands Light Railway and London Overground services and regulate the use and working of, and travel on, the railway and railway premises and the conduct of all people while on those premises.

The definition of “relevant land” is provided within the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, under section 3(1)©. It says that “relevant land” means any land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to “statutory control.”

A Byelaw is a long-standing and recognised form of “statutory control”. Breaches are dealt with through the Magistrates Courts and upon finding a defendant guilty a penalty may be imposed. Section 23 of the Byelaws states “Any person who breaches any of the Byelaws commits an offence and may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”

On the basis that Byelaws cover this station (whether NCP are trying to 'issue under byelaws' or not) it follows that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not applicable and as keeper, I cannot be liable. NCP might allege the charge is issued under 'contract' not byelaws but this makes no difference. Any claim made for parking charges by NCP against a hirer or registered keeper is unfounded and unsupported by any applicable law because the concept of 'keeper liability' falls within the POFA only.

The onus is upon the operator, NCP, to provide evidence to the contrary.

POPLA Assessor please note that your Lead Adjudicator John Gallagher reminded the POPLA Team in December 2016, giving feedback after errors made where Assessors did not understand the term 'not relevant land'.

John Gallagher reminded Assessors that the fact that a parking firm may not have mentioned byelaws on their signs or notices, does NOT suddenly mean that Byelaws land is suddenly 'relevant land', as if by magic. That term defines the location - which is set in stone - and is not altered by an operator saying ''yes but forget that, we aren't using those byelaws''! The fact remains, whatever the evidence pack may say about pursuing under 'contract law', that railway car parks on railway-owned land, fall under Railway Byelaws as a location (in the Railway Byelaws maps).

This land remains 'not relevant land' in law. So, the POPLA Assessor cannot properly find against a keeper appellant on such land and cannot make this sort of erroneous statement: ''However, this PCN has been issued for a contractual breach, not a breach of byelaws. The PCN was also not issued under POFA 2012 and the operator is not relying on its provisions.'' As reminded by your Lead Adjudicator, this makes no difference at all.

In fact, as POPLA often says, ''the provisions of POFA 2012 are for when an operator wants to transfer liability of the PCN from the driver to the keeper'' and if an operator is 'not relying upon' its provisions then the operator cannot hold the keeper liable. It makes no difference whatsoever that a keeper ''was notified of the charge and was able to appeal it to the operator'' - Schedule 4 does not say keeper scan be held liable merely because they were 'made aware' of some fake PCN on the windscreen of a car they happen to be the registered keeper of, at the DVLA.

A keeper appellant remains just that in terms of legal status, whenever they appeal. And 'not relevant land' remains just that.

Remove this, what sort of madness is this in your appeal, delete it?!

[I declared myself the driver so is this line not valid?]

No, tell us you DID NOT.

You were here before first appeal stage, you were told to appeal as per the NEWBIES thread and you were further given a friendly warning/reminder, in post #7 NOT to admit who was driving.

You CANNOT have blown it at that stage...?

KobeAlt

Thanks for getting back to me Coupon-mad

[I declared myself the driver so is this line not valid?]

No, tell us you DID NOT.

You were here before first appeal stage, you were told to appeal as per the NEWBIES thread and you were further given a friendly warning/reminder, in post #7 NOT to admit who was driving.

You CANNOT have blown it at that stage...?

Oops not sure how that got in there.. DEFINITELY DID NOT declare myself as the driver at any stage. Must have been as I copied and pasted from another appeal - will be more careful

Coupon-mad

Thank heavens! Glad I spotted it then, I thought YOU had added it as a note and thought: Nooooo!!

KobeAlt

Right I've made the changes to my draft.

My only question with the byelaws is.. what happens if the 6 month deadline hasn't passed? I've still got a long way to go (end of November). Is there a way to stall?

waamo

POPLA seem to be doing a very good job of dragging their heels with byelaws cases.

They may well take till December to even decide if they can give a ruling on it.

Coupon-mad

NCP cases are not byelaws cases, like I said already:

NCP are not saying it was issued under byelaws.

Read the POPLA Decision about a case lost last week, POPLA are looking at NCP ones and deciding them.

KobeAlt

Big big thanks to everyone, I finally received an email today back from POPLA. NCP have stated they do not wish to contest!! Success.

I've also posted on POPLA decisions.

Coupon-mad

Nice one, I see they threw in the towel!