Hi @b789 I would appreciate some information on which legislation indicates that revenue obtained from 'railway byelaws' need to be collected by the Railway Operator ('RO') and not their agent such as APCOA.
I have been looking at some legal sources and cannot find any reference that indicates there is such an intent. This includes some authoritative texts such as,
Halsbury's Laws of England > Railways and Tramways (Volume 86 (2023)) > 1. Railways(1) > Historical and Administrative Context > (iii) Railway Byelaws > 11. Provision for the making of byelaws under the Railways Act 2005.
I am hoping to get some references to the view which enforces that APCOA cannot bring legal proceedings on behalf of the rail operator.
Especially since historical caselaw demonstrates,
- A and D below: A railway company is not a public authority in controlling vehicular activity at the station.
- B below: Any legal actions against a railway company must differentiate where they are acting as a public body (not when they are performing a private function).
- C below: Railway operators are permitted to use byelaws to maximise revenues and become financially independent (they could argue that if APCOA was not performing parking enforcement then it would place additional financial burden on the railway operator).
- [E] below: Railway companies/operators giving contracts to a private company was merely ancillary to the provision of railway services and was not part of its body function and was not statutorily underpinned and contained no sufficient public law element to be amenable to judicial review.
Some relevant extracts from case law mentioned above:
A:
A railway company is not a public authority within the meaning of that term as used in the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893, s 1.
Swain v Southern Railway Co [1939] 2 All ER 794
B:
Only actions directly linked to public duties are protected under the Public Authorities Protection Act, courts provide a clearer demarcation for plaintiffs seeking redress against public entities.
So actions covered under a private contractual obligation are not related to those acts performed by execution of a public duty or authority[/u]
Bradford Corporation v. Myers (53 SLR 776)
C:
Railway operators are permitted to use byelaws to maximise revenue.[/u][/u][/u]
Jones and another v First Greater Western Ltd - [2013] EWHC 1485 (Ch),
[2014] LLR 16, [2013] All ER (D) 166 (Aug)
- Charging to comply with terms at a site is justifiable if it has valid intentions, such as improving layout, alleviate congestion etc.
- Commercial opportunities can be exploited to raise revenue.
Quoting the case above:
[209] Moreover, I am of the view that FGW would have wished to introduce the scheme, even if none of the revenue derived therefrom, or merely a very minimal part of it, was used to improve facilities for taxi drivers and taxi users of BTM. It was the commercial opportunity which FGW felt it could and should exploit. Why should it not generate some income from those who traded from its premises, in the same way as it charged shopkeepers or store holders?
[397] The scheme introduced is, in my judgment, necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued. The Claimants are not being denied access to BTM. Tthey are being asked to sign up to terms and conditions of appropriate behaviour and asked to pay, currently, some £400 for the privilege of earning up to £24,500 on that land, on the Claimants' own calculations. The Defendant is not simply pocketing the money. The significant costs of implementing and policing the scheme and monitoring and policing the ranks were referred to in the evidence as, indeed, have been the intentions to improve the layout, the facilities and to alleviate the congestion, all ultimately, in my judgment, to the benefit of taxi drivers, as well as others.
D:
An operator of a railway station was not acting as a public authority in respect of the control of vehicular access to private land, notwithstanding that the land was the station approach.
Jones v First Great Western Ltd [2013] EWHC 1485 (Ch), [2013] 4 WLUK 599
E:
Great Western Trains Co Ltd, giving the contract to do so to one particular company, was merely ancillary to the provision of railway services and was not part of its body function and was not statutorily underpinned and contained no sufficient public law element to be amenable to judicial review.
R v Great Western Trains Co, Ltd, ex parte Frederick, (QBD, Popplewell J, 19 May 1997),
At para [53] Applying the factors and tests from those cases, any claim that the Defendant is carrying out a 'public function' when controlling access to its land at the station approach must fail. The Defendant is a private company limited by shares, and lessee of that land. Whatever arguments one might make about the running of trains and similar core functions of the railway industry being of a public nature, and therefore the Defendant being a 'hybrid' body with some 'public functions; (but cf the Railtrack case below), the control of vehicular access to private land consisting of a station approach is par excellence a private act and private aspect of the Defendant's operations.”