Station car parking

russm1981

Hi,

You've all been very helpful with an appeal I'm running for Swindon station carpark.  All steps complete into POPLA now so what will be will be, and my post here doesn't relate to advancing that appeal which is now near its end.

However, in getting in to that, it seems to me that the whole edifice of the station parking stuff is total nonsense and wondering what others think about challenging it generically.  I'd write to my local MP asking him to ask a DfT Minister (who then replies personally, rather than a junior admin fobbing you off), and send something to a train operator legal department (rather than APCOA).....

Couple of things....

Ownership
Part of APCOAs evidence was the land owner agreement from GWR the train operator.  Attached below.  GWR are purporting to be the "landowner".  I'm pretty sure this'll almost never be true as Network Rail own the stations and lease them out to the operator as franchises are temporary.  They don't sell car parks every time the franchise changes.  And actually you'll see Cheltenham in the list below, but the link below shows station ownership with Network Rail including the car park.  So its basically misrepresentation (some might say fraud) for GWR to claim to be the landowner?  I accept that some of the parking companies might chose to play fast and loose, but I think GWR could be held to a different standard as they're an effective extension of the state (the Government will ultimately be getting the parking money given the way franchises work)?

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2020-09/C17-land-disposal-decision-notice-gloucester-road-2020-09-24.pdf    

Byelaws
As is set out in more detail here, its not really clear that there is any legal basis to charge a penalty under a byelaw.  The clear principle being that byelaws as secondary legislation only exist to "enact" primary legislation (i.e. a bill in Parliament), and the primary legislation just doesn't provide sufficient cover to be raising "penalties" under the Byelaws.
Important News from POPLA, Railway bye-laws - FightBack Forums (pepipoo.com)

Again, thoughts welcome....

Russ

Coupon-mad

The DFT are not responsible for car parks on private land, the DLUHC are (albeit this new code is temporarily stalled right now):

https://www.patrol-uk.info/government-publishes-new-code-of-practice-for-private-parking/

(the Government will ultimately be getting the parking money given the way franchises work)?

Nope, APCOA (not the state) are after your money, with a fake 'penalty' that they won't follow up (at least they cannot try a small claim) so you don't pay after losing at POPLA  and it then times out after 6 months.

Leasing a car park puts GWR in the position of a landholder (landowner) because it gives them title in the land.

These cases are usually lost at POPLA, which you can see from the sticky thread POPLA Decisions if you look back to 2022 outcomes.  You just ignore them after that.  

KeithP

OK, so Network Rail own the land.

Network Rail lease the land to First Greater Western Ltd.

FGW are the lessees - aka the landholder.

I think you are misusing the term landowner when you should be using landholder.

So to bring this back to your situation... FGW, as GWR, can set up a contract with APCOA such that the latter 'manage the car park(s) on land that they, GWR, control as lessee.

russm1981

But isn't that the point.  Landowner and Landholder have different definitions.  GWR are purporting to be the *owner* (per the BPA form) when in fact they're the *holder*?

And I'm sure you're right that Network Rail can assign the parking rights to GWR, such that GWR become the landowner "agents" (a term in the BPA COP), but that's not the evidence APCOA are providing.  They're just sending out a single document recording GWR as the *owner*.  Surely to prove the whole chain they'd need something Network Rail->GWR for the first step (lease / parking rights), plus the GWR->APCOA agreement taken together?

Coupon-mad

Not for POPLA.  This will be lost at POPLA but no worries, ignore it.

russm1981

@Coupon-mad

Thanks.  Doesn't it depend on byelaws vs contract law.  Judging by the fact APCOA said in their POPLA evidence they're not relying on PoFA, and the PCN wasn't issued under PoFA, are they not just going down a contract route still.  They seem to be explicitly avoiding a byelaw route.    

I agree with you that if a byelaws case was taken to its full conclusion of a magistrates case where you lost on a criminal law point, your "fine" would be going to the government

My point was more that for people who do actually pay APCOA on demand, that goes back to GWR and the way franchising is now set up all ticket revenue (and presumably therefore also parking fees) go to the government, with the government paying GWR their costs and a concessionary profit/fee on top.

So even if DLUHC regulate the parking stuff in general, it's still DfT who are the client/sponsor of GWR and recipient of the parking cash, plus also the ones who'd know about NR vs GWR ownership etc?

KeithP

I think you are concentrating on the wrong thing.

At the moment, railway byelaws and POFA's 'relevant land' term work in favour of the motorist.
Why would you want to remove that slight protection?