That "Notice to Owner" from Northern Trains Ltd is misleading in law on several key points.
1. "Owner" vs. "Keeper"
The notice presumes the recipient is the "owner" of the vehicle.
However, the DVLA only provides the Registered Keeper — not the legal owner.
The V5C registration certificate itself states:
“THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP.”
Ownership is a matter of fact and evidence, not registration.
The Railway Byelaws (specifically Byelaw 14.4) make reference to the "owner" being potentially liable, but Northern Trains has no way to determine ownership from DVLA data alone.
2. Claimed Obligation to Identify the Driver
The letter says:
“You are required under Railway Byelaws to provide the name and address details of the person concerned.”
This is incorrect.
There is no statutory obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver under the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws are criminal in nature and do not create a duty to self-incriminate or to incriminate others.
This is very different from legislation like s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (used for speeding etc.), which does require driver identification.
3. Misleading Use of "Legal Action" and "Costs"
The letter threatens "LEGAL ACTION" and claims they will seek £150 in costs if they prosecute. However, they cannot impose any charge beyond the court’s sentence if convicted. The court may impose:
• A penalty (up to £1,000 max),
• A statutory victim surcharge (if applicable), and
• Prosecution costs — but only as determined by the magistrate, not the train company.
The letter implies automatic civil-style enforcement, which is false and potentially misleading.
On Monday 16th June, email the following response to DRPU@northernrailway.co.uk and CC in yourself:
Re: Notice to Owner Ref: NTLPPN006585958
Dear Sir or Madam,
I acknowledge receipt of your Notice to Owner dated 30 May 2025.
For the avoidance of doubt, I make no admission as to the identity of the driver or the legal owner of the vehicle, and I do not accept any liability as the registered keeper for the alleged contravention.
Your letter appears to rely on DVLA keeper data to assert ownership. However, as stated prominently on the front of the V5C registration certificate, “THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP”. You are therefore put to strict proof that the recipient of this notice is the owner for the purposes of Railway Byelaw 14.4, and that the vehicle was “used, left or placed” by the owner in contravention of the byelaws.
Furthermore, your letter claims that the recipient is "required under Railway Byelaws to provide the name and address of the person concerned". I am aware of no such provision in the Railway Byelaws which imposes such an obligation. You are invited to cite the specific byelaw or statutory basis on which this alleged requirement is made. In any event, I exercise my legal right not to provide such information, and I do not waive that right.
Turning to your purported evidence, you have supplied two photographs of signage alleged to be present at the time of the incident. However, both images are illegible and do not disclose the content, location, or enforceability of any stated terms. You have failed to provide any legible copy of the signage relied upon or evidence that it was capable of conveying clear restrictions to motorists. As such, you have not demonstrated what, if any, parking terms were displayed, nor that any contravention of Byelaw 14 occurred.
Accordingly, I request that you now provide:
• A legible copy of the full signage content in force at Guiseley station on 30 April 2025;
• The precise wording of the local byelaws you allege were breached;
• Clarification as to whether you rely on Byelaw 14.1, 14.2, 14.3 or 14.4;
• Evidence of who is alleged to have committed the act of “using, leaving or placing” the vehicle in breach;
• Confirmation of whether you intend to initiate legal proceedings, and if so, on what basis.
For clarity, I also note that, should you intend to proceed via prosecution under the Railway Byelaws, you will be required to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, as is the standard in all criminal proceedings. Mere keeper status or speculative inference will not suffice. I trust you will take this into account when considering your position.
Pending receipt of a substantive and evidenced response, I reserve all rights and will not be making any payment.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name or Initials, or “Registered Keeper”]
What evidence do they have to evidence their allegation of "Not parked in bay"?
The phrase “driver lodging an appeal” in the appeal section is telling — it confirms that they expect the driver to appeal, not the Keeper, reinforcing that liability must rest with the driver.
The references to “administration and court costs” may mislead a lay recipient into thinking enforcement is automatic — but it is not unless a prosecution succeeds.
After 28 days, they may request the Keeper’s details from the DVLA. A postal PPN will then be sent to the registered keeper. That letter will say the owner “may be liable” under Byelaw 14.4, but as noted earlier, the prosecutor must still prove the Keeper was the person who committed the act. If no admission is made and no payment is received, they must commence a private criminal prosecution within 6 months — which is rare.
To secure a conviction, they must prove:
• That a contravention occurred – i.e. that the vehicle was not parked in a marked bay.
• That the contravention breached an enforceable local byelaw (e.g. signage in place, properly made byelaws).
• That the defendant was the person who committed the act – usually the driver, or under Byelaw 14.4, the owner who “used, left or placed” the vehicle.
They would need photographic evidence clearly showing:
• The vehicle’s position relative to marked bays.
• Visible signage outlining the parking rules.
• Time and date-stamped images.
• Contemporaneous notes or reports by an authorised officer.
• A copy of the relevant byelaws and proof that they were properly enacted and displayed at the location.
Without such evidence, any attempt to prosecute would be open to challenge for lack of proof.
At this stage (Penalty Notice on vehicle), there is no obligation on the operator to disclose evidence. However, if it ever proceeds to prosecution, full disclosure must be provided under Criminal Procedure Rules, including all evidence they intend to rely on.
If a postal notice is received and challenged (without admission), they may or may not provide photographic evidence voluntarily. You can always insist that they provide strict proof.
Until then, you're under no obligation to request or engage, and they are not legally obliged to show you anything — but any court proceedings will fail without such proof.
One of the fundamental procedural unfairnesses of these railway byelaw penalty systems is the operator invites an appeal yet provides no evidence upfront, thereby undermining the driver or keeper’s ability to challenge the allegation meaningfully.
So, for now, you just wait and see if/when they send a postal PN.
Please provide a clear, focussed image of the Penalty Notice, including both sides if there is anything else written on the back.
This is a real Penalty Notice, not one of the fake ones issued by APCOA or SABA. However, it does time out after 6 months from the date of the alleged contravention.
For now, you do nothing. Do not respond to or engage with it. Do not name the driver. Do not pay the penalty. Do not enter into correspondence.
The operator waits to see if the driver voluntarily pays. If no payment or appeal is received, they escalate the matter.
After that window (usually around 28–35 days), Northern Trains Ltd will request the Registered Keeper’s details from the DVLA using “reasonable cause” provisions — which they're entitled to do under the Railway Byelaws enforcement model.
A postal Penalty Notice will then be sent to the Keeper. This is not a Notice to Keeper under PoFA — it's an invitation to pay a penalty, not a civil demand or contractual invoice.
The Keeper will be told they can pay the penalty or name the driver. Crucially, there is no legal obligation to name the driver. This differs from speeding tickets or statutory fixed penalties.
The letter may include warnings that failure to pay may result in prosecution under Railway Byelaws. This is legally true, but, they must prosecute within 6 months of the incident. Also, many operators do not proceed to court, especially if the driver remains unidentified.
The burden of proof for a case in the magistrates court is very much higher than for a civil case where it can be decided on the balance of probability. In the magistrates court, a case must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the criminal standard of proof.
As long as the driver is not identified, they would have great difficulty proving who the driver was. Whilst they'll huff and bluff that they can assume that the Keeper must be the driver, that is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
They will try and say that they rely on the definition of "owner" found in Section 11(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which states:
“The owner, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, and in determining, for the purposes of this Act, who was the keeper of a vehicle at any time, it shall be presumed that the keeper was the person in whose name the vehicle was then registered...”
However, this does not alter the fundamental requirement that, in a criminal prosecution, liability must still be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are four rebuttable arguments that can be used:
1.Presumption ≠ Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The quoted presumption about ownership is rebuttable and only aids the court in identifying the owner for procedural purposes. It does not displace the need to prove that the owner “used, left or placed” the vehicle in contravention of the Byelaw, as required under Byelaw 14.4.
2. Byelaw 14.4 Still Requires an Act
Even if someone is presumed to be the owner, the prosecution must still prove that the owner was the person who “used, left or placed” the vehicle in breach of the Byelaws. This is an active element, not passive ownership. Ownership alone is insufficient to establish liability without proof of that conduct.
3. Ownership ≠ Criminal Responsibility Without Conduct
There is no strict liability for merely being the owner of a car that’s parked unlawfully under these Byelaws — unlike, for example, the statutory offences involving vehicle defects or speeding where the law imposes specific keeper responsibilities.
4. Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 s.101 – Evidential Burden Still Applies
Even where presumptions exist, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt once the presumption is challenged (e.g. if the Keeper denies being the driver and no other evidence is offered).
If the Keeper does not identify the driver, and no evidence is produced linking them to the contravention, then:
• The presumption of ownership alone cannot meet the criminal standard.
• The magistrates would have to dismiss the case on lack of evidence tying the Keeper (even if assumed owner) to the act of "using or placing" the vehicle in contravention.
So, you can see why Train Operating Company (TOC) prosecutors rarely, if ever, actually take one of these cases to court.
If/when you receive a postal Penalty Notice, come back and we will advise further.