NPC - Railway Car Park

antioch

Hello Fruitcake
Thanks for confirming NTK & NTD.
The random info was not 'the man in the pub' but from a similar help forum where they assist to "Resolve" [hint, hint] your problems. No offence taken was taken as I considered the para I quoted as uninformative and ambiguous.

I accept that Customer Services may not be an ideal place to contact the rail company [Greater Anglia] but had no other option from the web site. After the second phone call I made and 45 minutes later, I was able to get the address of the Head Office for my area. I was advised to write a letter, but I wanted an email address which they could/would not give.
So my next action will be to get the email address. If I can get that then I will compose my request and post it here for comment [if that's allowed?]
If I make progress I will update this thread.
Rgds
Antioch

larachantie

I'm confused by the opinion that parking operators cannot claim for parking on railway land subject to byelaws. POPLA's latest 2018 report (on their website) has a whole appendix on this. The Department of Transport new advice is that operators can "issue penalties in line with Section 14 of the Railway Byelaws. (Note they use the word "penalties" not "charges"). POPLA then seem to say that although POFA 2012 does not apply, they will use similar rules for assessing appeals such as the 14 day limit on sending the Notice to Keeper.

Can anyone clarify as I may have misunderstood or it may be out of date?

KeithP

larachantie wrote: »

I'm confused by the opinion that parking operators cannot claim for parking on railway land subject to byelaws.

I too am confused. Where did you read that?

Don't posts #2 and #5 above go a long way towards explaining that?

larachantie

Not sure if I can post links but if you go to the POPLA site and bring up their (latest) 2018 Annual Report it has advice from the DoT. It says that "parking operators have a remit to issue penalties in line with Section 14 of the Railway Byelaws" (page 11). It then goes on to say that only the owner can be pursued but the owner has liability. POPLA will adjudicate such appeals. It also says that this is done outside of POFA 2012 and it uses similar but different rules.


For example, the notice must say "penalty" not "charge" but it also uses the POFA timescales. I'm confused.

KeithP

Yes, I understand that, but where did you read the opinions "that parking operators cannot claim for parking on railway land subject to byelaws"?

As I said earlier, don't posts #2 and #5 above address that?

larachantie

KeithP - I said "parking operators cannot claim for parking on railway land" based on e.g. post #5 saying that keeper has no liability. Is that not the same thing? Sorry if I'm missing something?


The POPLA report claims that owner is the same as the keeper under railway byelaws.

Coupon-mad

You are making the mistake of believing some old drivel from POPLA, who do not understand keeper liability/the POFA properly.

But why are we discussing this when NCP (unlike SABA) do not say that their PCNs are penalties, so byelaws do not come into it.

The land is still not relevant land though! No keepers can be held liable.

KeithP

It seems quite simple to me, but maybe I'm missing something too.

If the land is covered by byelaws, then the the driver's liability cannot be transferred to the keeper - e.g. by POFA.
In other words, the keeper can never be liable on railway land.

However, if the identity of the driver is known to the parking company, then the parking company can pursue the driver.

None of that is going to stop parking companies pursuing the Registered Keeper, because that is usually the only name they know, and a large proportion of those will pay up through ignorance or fear.

larachantie

Thanks for your input. I think the advice on this thread is outdated IF the POPLA interpretation is right. The POPLA report says that following the DoT guidance, parking operators can pursue the owner. The owner is also the keeper. No need to involve the driver as he does not affect owner liability. The operator can use the DVLA to identify the owner. These are the main points, which is why I can't see how the advice at the top of this thread is right.



POPLA then state how they expect operators to handle railway byelaws - e.g. using POFA timescales or calling them penalties not charges. But not all operators use POPLA, so the rules for other appeals bodies - e.g. AS - may be less good.


So my main point stands - i.e. railway byelaw parking penalties are completely different to parking charges on private land. Once again, have I got this wrong?

KeithP

larachantie wrote: »

So my main point stands - i.e. railway byelaw parking penalties are completely different to parking charges on private land. Once again, have I got this wrong?

No, that's right. As you say "railway byelaw parking penalties are completely different to parking charges on private land".

PoPLA are wrong to be saying that "The owner is also the keeper".
That 'can' be the default position under POFA, but I think we agree that POFA is not relevant here.