Penalty Notice - Radlett Railway Station / POPLA Appeal Unsuccessful

Tron103

Hello,

I have a Penalty Notice from Parking at Radlett Railway Station in November. I have followed guidance, appealed to APOCA and POPLA. Both appeals have been unsuccessful. POPLA have provided the response below which seems to contradict what I've read and suggests I can be pursued further. Can anyone with better understanding translate the response and advise on next steps? My understanding is that APOCA has no ability to take this to Court or demand payment but the below makes me nervous that I'm mistaken?

Having reviewed this case, I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws.

The appellant’s case is that they’re the keeper and not the driver, how under Railway Byelaws 14 the penalty applies to the person who committed the breach and not the keeper, that PoFA 2012 doesn’t apply on railway land that falls under statutory regulations. They say that the PN was issued under Railway Byelaws which is a statutory byelaw and not a contractual term under PoFA 2012 and how POPLA has stated that it suspends hearings for cases falling under Railway Byelaws advising such matters lie outside its jurisdiction, so POPLA should dismiss the appeal due to the lack of authority.

The requirements of PoFA 2012 apply when it comes to private land and not on land where Railway Byelaws are in effect. Whilst it is true that this land is not relevant land in accordance with PoFA 2012 as it is under statutory control, the operator is not relying on PoFA 2012 to issue this charge. They have issued a Penalty Notice for a breach of the byelaws and not a Parking Charge Notice issued for a breach of contract. The Railway Byelaws specify that only the owner of the vehicle can be held responsible for any breach. As the operator is not using PoFA 2012 to issue this penalty, I do not need to consider whether the land is relevant land as PoFA 2012 does not apply in this case. I note the appellant’s concerns regarding whether POPLA can deal with matters in relation to Penalty Notices being issued by private operators on land where the Railway Byelaws are in effect.

In September 2018, POPLA received several challenges from motorists regarding this matter. Due to this, we adjourned all cases where Penalty Notices were issued under Byelaws while we contacted the Department for Transport (DfT) for clarity regarding the remit of parking operators to issue penalty notice on land under statutory control and POPLA’s remit to deal with penalties. The DfT responded to POPLA and confirmed it considers parking operators do have a remit to issue penalties in line with section 14 of the Railway Byelaws Act. The DfT also confirmed that it expects parking operators to offer an appeal process such as POPLA in relation to tickets issued on Railway Land. Therefore, confirming POPLA has the authority to assess appeals in accordance with the Railway Byelaws for parking operators appointed by the landowner to issue Penalty Notices on that land.

The operator has provided images showing signs located throughout the site which confirms the rules for parking, the tariffs applicable to pay and how a payment is to be made for parking. The sign goes on to explain that a £100 PN will be issued for breaching the rules of parking. The operator has provided the ANPR images of the vehicle captured entering and exiting the boundaries of the car park. It shows that the vehicle was observed entering the car park at 07:26 and was seen leaving 8 hour and 58 minutes later. The operator has provided a system print out which shows a search carried out for the appellants vehicle registration number. It shows that the operator didn’t receive a payment for the time the appellant was observed parked on site.

Therefore, as the appellant didn’t pay for their time spent on site, they breached the rules of parking and become liable for the issuance of a PN. I note the appellant has requested that POPLA uphold this appeal and instructs the operator to cancel the PN. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the rules of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant didn’t pay for their time spent parked on site and therefore did not comply with rules. As such, I conclude that the PN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

DE_612183

I thought PoFA 2012 doesn't apply to railway land anyway - so their appeal process is moot?

Gr1pr

Ignore them, including APCOA, nothing will happen

Tron103

I've just recalled, my understanding is that the onus is on the Parking Operator to evidence who was the driver on the day in question vs. the assuming the Registered Keeper is the driver? Onus is NOT on the Registered Keeper to prove that they were not the driver.

Is this correct?

Gr1pr

It was in cases before boxing day 2025, like yours , no keeper liability

But APCOA dont have the legal authority to pursue Penalty Notices through the Magistrates court, plus the 6 months deadline applies , s APCOA won't be taking it further

Tron103

Thank you!

cooldude255220

Firstly, I don't think there's any evidence of APCOA taking any further action in these cases, so you can relatively safely do nothing.

But: the crux of the argument is what the byelaws say.

Pre-boxing day byelaws (which are relevant here), stated:

14(4) In England and Wales

(i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

My Take:

In my opinion, 14(4)(i) empowers TOCs to issue Penalty Notices to the owner of a vehicle where that vehicle has been left in breach of byelaws 14(1) to 14(3).

The DfT state:

The ability to render a charge under byelaw 14(4)(i) is distinct from the general enforcement power in byelaw 24(1), under which a person can be prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts

My interpretation of that is that the DfT agree.

POPLA also agrees with that interpretation.

So, on the face of it, my opinion is that strictly speaking, you are liable to pay for the PN as the owner of a vehicle which was parked in breach of byelaw 14.

So, what happens if you don't pay? Well, as above, APCOA don't seem to actually bother doing anything.

But what could they do, theoretically?

Well, I think the PN likely threatens that they can "pursue you through the Magistrates Court by way of a private criminal prosecution for payment of the Penalty Notice." I don't think that is this accurate. They have no mechanism to prosecute you to get you to pay the Notice.

What they might be able to do, theoretically, is prosecute you under byelaw 24(1) for breaching byelaw 14(4)(i), in that you failed to pay a penalty that you were liable for.

But, as above, they are 99.9% not going to do that.

Typing all of this out, does make me wonder if someone who undoubtedly disagrees me me would like to explain what their position is.I'm struggling to see this in any other way, but clearly the conventional wisdom differs to my reading of it!

kryten3000

Ignore POPLA's flawed decision, just sit it out until May. You might want to play "letter tennis" with any debt recovery companies just to eke out the time, but there's almost zero chance of a prosecution because APCOA want your money and if you were found guilty and fined by a Magistrate, the fine would go to the Crown, not APCOA.

Coupon-mad

You missed a trick and sounds like you used a pretty old appeal. None of that stuff about POFA should have been tried in a PN case.

The POPLA winning words for PN cases were to state that APCOA only had landowner authority for parking charge notices and not to issue PNs.

But hey ho, nothing will happen.

🙂

Tron103

I did include this point (landowner authority) in the appeal but perhaps contradicted myself with the POFA point… I blame ChatGPT.

Thank you for the help. Six months limit is May so will ride it out until then.