Penalty Notice NCP Stratford

LDast

Trust me, the 6 months statute of limitations does not apply here. It is not a real Penalty Notice. Coupon-mad said:

Dumb question for regulars:

If the OWNER is liable (as it says, because it is dressed up as a Penalty relying on byelaws) what happens if the owner (the keeper probably) wasn't driving yet they decide to use the option to name the driver?  The PN lets you do that.

Sooo if a person does that, how do the byelaws hold the driver liable? Genuinely, I don't know. Just wondering.

The distinction between "the person in charge of the vehicle" under Byelaws 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3, and the Owner's liability under Byelaw 14.4 is critical to understanding how liability works under Railway Byelaws.

These sub-sections impose liability on the person "in charge" of the vehicle for specific acts:

• 14.1: Parking in a way that contravenes the terms and conditions displayed (e.g., failing to pay for parking, overstaying, or parking outside a designated area).
• 14.2: Leaving a vehicle in a dangerous or obstructive position.
• 14.3: Abandoning a vehicle.

In all these cases, liability falls on the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the contravention—which would typically be the driver, not the Owner or Registered Keeper, unless they are the one driving.

Byelaw 14.4 provides a separate and secondary mechanism for enforcement. It states:

"The owner of the vehicle may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area."

This creates a different form of liability that applies only if the "person in charge" cannot be identified or pursued. The use of the word "may" is important because it implies that owner liability is not automatic. Instead, it is a fallback mechanism used when:

1. The Driver (person in charge) is unknown.
2. Evidence of the Driver’s identity is unavailable or insufficient.

When the Keeper (not necessarily the Owner) names the Driver, the liability framework works as follows:

A. Liability of the Driver (Person in Charge)

• Once the Driver is named, they are considered the person in charge of the vehicle under Byelaws 14.1, 14.2, or 14.3.
• Liability shifts to the Driver because they were the one allegedly committing the contravention.
• The prosecution can proceed against the Driver for the specific breach.

B. Owner’s Liability Under 14.4 No Longer Applies

• Byelaw 14.4 liability for the Owner is only relevant when the person in charge cannot be identified.
• If the Driver is named, the Owner is effectively off the hook, as liability reverts to the Driver under 14.1, 14.2, or 14.3.

If the Driver is named, the prosecution must prove:

1. That the named individual was the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach.
2. That the contravention occurred (e.g., failure to pay for parking, abandoning the vehicle, etc.).

The standard of proof in a magistrates’ court is beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be challenging if there is no direct evidence (e.g., eyewitnesses, admissions, or CCTV footage of the Driver).

If the Driver is not identified, the prosecution must prove:

1. That the defendant is the Owner of the vehicle.
2. That a contravention occurred.

As we’ve discussed, proving ownership is problematic because the V5C only identifies the Registered Keeper, not the Owner. Without additional evidence, the prosecution is unlikely to meet the required standard of proof.

The dual liability structure in the byelaws (Driver first, Owner second) creates significant challenges for enforcement:

• Driver Identification: If the Driver is identified (e.g., through naming), liability attaches to them as the person in charge, and the Owner is not pursued.
• Fallback to Owner: The Owner can only be held liable under Byelaw 14.4 if the Driver cannot be identified or prosecuted.
• Misleading Notices: Penalty Notices issued under the byelaws do not usually or clearly explain this distinction, leading to confusion for recipients. Owners may feel coerced into naming the Driver or paying penalties they are not liable for.

In short... Under Railway Byelaws, the person in charge of the vehicle is primarily liable for breaches under Byelaws 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3. The Owner's liability under Byelaw 14.4 is a secondary mechanism that only applies if the Driver is unknown. If the Keeper names the Driver, the byelaws hold the Driver liable, and the Owner cannot be pursued. 

Le_Kirk

 I was just about to say that - Not! Thanks for the clarification. 

Hodes101

Hi Everyone.

Thanks everyone for your help so far with this.

As I was somewhat expecting, I recived a rejection of my appeal.  I do want to highlight, that the person parked did not indeed have a valid ticket as their system didn't take payment.   Should I continue to fight this?

I've attached the response.

Regards,

Gr1pr

If you appealed as keeper and didn't reveal who was driving,  to a penalty notice,  then fight on as keeper 

No blabbing about who was driving or about the incident itself,  so no background stories,  nothing about no ticket,  nothing about their system 

Just POFA, no keeper liability,  no landowner authority etc, check the appeal you were linked to back on page 1, study the replies by coupon mad and Ldast 

ChirpyChicken

Of course why wouldn't you when it times out after 6 months 

LDast

Just tell POPLA to refer to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971). POPLA have no jurisdiction to assess a real Penalty Notice and this is not a real one. It is a fake one.

Stop fretting over this farcical situation. Nothing is going to happen except you receive a bunch of useless debt collector letters which you can safely use as kindling. NCP are not going to litigate in the civil court because they can't and they are certain lying not going to take out a private criminal prosecution in the magistrates court because they Penalty Notice is fake and even if they were able to, the would not get a penny out of it, assuming they were even able to win.

Coupon-mad

LDast said:

Just tell POPLA to refer to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

I wouldn't!

Although we all know that it is completely true that nothing is going to happen except you receive a bunch of useless debt collector letters which you can safely ignore

Why not just appeal to POPLA starting by saying that you don't think NCP have adequate and specific landowner authority to issue Penalty Notices and pursue them in the Magistrates' Court?

We should try this tactic more with PNs.

None of these PPCs will have landowner authority to take PNs to Magistrates' Court, which is the only place (had it been a real PN).