PoFA to apply to all railway locations that are subject to byelaws from 26th December

doubledotcom

I've not seen this discussed here yet. So, for the uninitiated:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/1256/introduction/made

From 26 December 2025 in England and Wales, railway station car parks governed by the Railway Byelaws 2005 are treated as “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This removes the long-standing exclusion that prevented private parking operators from using PoFA keeper liability on railway land. Operators can now, in principle, pursue the registered keeper or hirer for an unpaid parking charge, provided they strictly comply with PoFA’s notice wording and timing requirements. The change is limited to railway byelaws and does not extend to other byelaw-controlled land such as airports, ports, harbours, parks or countryside land.

The change was made without any public consultation. There was no statutory consultation requirement, and no open consultation of motorists or consumer groups. The Department for Transport refers only to a limited, informal stakeholder exercise carried out in 2020 with industry bodies, train operators and selected passenger groups, the results of which are not being published.

Pros of the change include the removal of criminal liability for ordinary contractual parking at railway stations in England and Wales, and the formal application of PoFA’s statutory notice and appeals framework instead of reliance on loosely defined railway “penalty” schemes. It also aligns railway parking with the enforcement model used across most private land.

Cons of the change are significant for motorists. It removes a major protection that previously prevented keeper liability on railway land, materially strengthening the hand of private parking operators. It increases the risk of keepers being pursued where the driver is not identified, and is likely to increase the volume of enforceable demands and litigation. There is also a real risk of confusion and abuse during transition, with operators continuing to use byelaw or penalty-style language for what is now intended to be civil enforcement.

More broadly, the change can reasonably be seen as the government yielding to long-standing pressure from the private parking industry. A legal barrier that limited the commercial effectiveness of private enforcement on railway land has been removed, without public debate and in a way that primarily benefits operators’ recovery prospects rather than motorists’ protections.

Half_way

Curious to see if this will resolve issues around clamping on railway land/related land such as at Nottingham s(or /and Manchester's as well as other) tram networks

Castle

The Railway Byelaws were also amended on the same date:-
The Railway Byelaws Amendment Order 2025

NCC1701-A

Will the change apply to airports too?

ChirpyChicken

NCC1701-A said:

Will the change apply to airports too?

No not at all

Coupon-mad

And not Ports or Council land.

This amendment was discussed in October:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6631195/relevant-land-railway-parking-definition-amendment#latest

...but I didn't know it was going live already!

troublemaker22

As well as failing to change the position with regard to airports, ports and council car parks, it also has no effect at any Transport for London (TfL) car park. TfL is the station operator for more than 70 Tube and other stations in and around London.  TfL has appointed Saba Park Services UK Limited to operate the station car parks on its behalf,  so these car parks will remain excluded from the POFA  definition of 'relevant land' because TfL is defined as a 'traffic authority' in POFA 3(2)(c).  Saba is aware of this but purports to issue POFA notices because the legal title to the station car parks is held by a wholly owned and controlled TfL subsidiary rather than by TfL directly.  However, TfL has confirmed to me in a FOI response that all the following stations are locations where TfL has appointed Saba Park Services UK Limited to operate the car park on behalf of TfL (a point reinforced by the prefix TFL on all PCNs issued by Saba at these sites):

Barkingside

Brent Cross

Brentwood

Buckhurst Hill

Burnham

Bush Hill Park

Bushey

Canons Park

Chalfont & Latimer

Chesham

Chingford

Chorleywood

Cockfosters

Croxley

Crystal Palace

Debden

East Finchley

Eastcote

Epping

Fairlop

Finchley Central

Forest Hill

Gidea Park

Greenford

Hainault

Harold Wood

Harrow and Wealdstone

Harrow-on-the-Hill

Hatch End

Hatton Cross

Hayes and Harlington

High Barnet

Highams Park

Highgate

Hillingdon

Hornchurch

Hounslow East

Hounslow West

Ickenham

Langley

Leytonstone

Loughton

Mill Hill East

Moor Park

Morden

Newbury Park

North Ealing

North Greenwich

Northwood

Norwood Junction

Oakwood

Osterley

Penge West

Perivale

Queensbury

Rayners Lane

Redbridge

Ruislip

Ruislip Gardens

South Harrow

South Ruislip

South Woodford

Stanmore

Sudbury Town

Taplow

Theobalds Grove

Theydon Bois

Totteridge & Whetstone

Turkey Street

Walthamstow Central

Wanstead

Watford

West Drayton

Woodford

Woodside Park

ChirpyChicken

Useful @troublemaker22

doubledotcom

I have also been chasing TfL over an FOI request that did not answer the relevant question of whether the land that TfL transferred to their TTL Properties Limited subsidiary, had the relevant TfL byelaws revoked by statutory instrument. This matter has been escalated to their legal department because the FOI people could not answer one way or another. However, they have not responded since October despite repeated requests for an update.

The point is, SABA are issuing PCNs (not PNs) at these TfL locations and arguing that PoFA applies because the land is not TfL land anymore. That misses the point that simply transferring title to the land from TfL to their subsidiary TTL Properties does not automatically revoke any applicable TfL byelaws that were in place and therefore the land is NOT relevant for the purposes of PoFA. Just like at airports, simply because a parcel of land within the byelaws boundary has been sold or leased, does not automatically revoke the applicability of byelaws on that land.

So, here we will still have statutory element for PNs and the PoFA element for PCNs when it comes to TfL locations.

troublemaker22

With all due respect, @doubledotcom, I think you've been barking (and Dagenham) up the wrong tree.  Bylaws are irrelevant here because TfL is a traffic authority and POFA defines relevant land as:

any land ... other than—

(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
(emphasis added)

As TfL car parks fall within (b) the absence, presence or wording of byelaws under (c) has always been irrelevant, and will remain irrelevant on Boxing Day, when the amendment comes into effect. 

doubledotcom

With respect, I do not think I am barking up the wrong tree at all. I agree with your point about the structure of Schedule 4 paragraph 3: if paragraph 3(1)(b) applies, then paragraph 3(1)(c) is irrelevant because (c) only applies to land “not falling within (a) or (b)”. That part is uncontroversial.

The difficulty is that you are treating (b) as if it automatically applies to every station car park merely because TfL is a traffic authority. PoFA does not say “any land connected to a traffic authority is excluded”. It excludes “a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority”. That is a fact-specific question about the status and control of the particular parking place, not simply a label that attaches to everything in a corporate group.

The reason this matters is that Saba’s own stance is that PoFA does apply at certain locations precisely because they say those car parks are no longer “TfL land” (in their words) due to title being held by TTL Properties Ltd. Once Saba take that position, they are, in substance, disputing that the location is a parking place provided or controlled by TfL as a traffic authority. They cannot rely on (b) as a self-evident given, while simultaneously arguing that PoFA applies because the land is not TfL land. Those positions are logically inconsistent.

That is where the statutory control point becomes relevant. If (b) is genuinely accepted by all parties, then yes, one never reaches (c). But where the operator’s case is that (b) does not apply (because they say TfL does not own or control the site), then (c) is the next question: is parking there subject to statutory control (for example, by TfL Railway byelaws applying to the station premises and approaches, including premises now held by TfL subsidiaries)? A transfer of title within the TfL group does not, of itself, answer that question, and it certainly does not “switch off” statutory control.

So I am not saying that (c) must apply in every case. I am saying that byelaws are not “irrelevant” in the scenario we are actually dealing with, because Saba are trying to make PoFA apply by disputing the very proposition that would make (b) determinative. In that factual context, (b) and (c) are alternative routes to the same conclusion: either the car park is provided/controlled by a traffic authority (so PoFA is excluded under (b)), or, if the operator insists it is not, then the operator must also confront whether the land remains subject to statutory control (so PoFA is excluded under (c)).

In short: if Saba want to argue “TTL (not TfL) title means relevant land”, they cannot also dismiss the byelaws point as barking up the wrong tree. The byelaws point is engaged precisely because their “TTL title” argument is an attempt to escape (b).