Free Traffic Legal Advice

D (defendant) is liable as driver

For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.

This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:

“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:

• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.

Please relay that back to me before we continue.”

After the mediator calls back...

If identified and authority confirmed:

“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”

If no/unclear authority:

“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”

If the mediator probes your defence:

”In what capacity are you asking that question? Are you legally trained?  If not, please refrain from offering opinions. I will be reporting any attempt to do so as inappropriate.”

All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Richard Beaden

Assessor Summary:
The appellant disputes that the operator can issued a penalty believing only the train company can. The explain that the operator cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) as the land is not relevant land. The appellant disputes that the operator can claim that the keeper of the vehicle is the owner. The appellant believes that the operator has to approach the magistrate’s court. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence.

Assessor Reason for Decision: (formatted for legibility)
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the penalty correctly and if the driver has complied with the rules of the car park.

This 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 unless the appellant can provide evidence that they were not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the offence. In this case no such evidence has been provided so I am satisfied that the appellant was the keeper of the vehicle and therefore the owner.

The appellant is correct that the operator cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) as this site is not relevant land. The operator is pursing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle under the Railway Byelaws. Section 25 of the Railway Byelaws advises that an authorised person is any person authorised by the railway operator. APCOA has provided a document confirming that the Railway operator has given it permission to issue penalties on this site.

The specific of the APCOA contract with the railway operator is not relevant to this appeal as the ticket box itself is sufficient to prove that it has been granted the relevant authority to pursue penalties. Section 14 of the railway byelaws give the operator the right to issue penalties if a motorist breaches the displayed rules on the signs on the site.

The signs on this site advise that a penalty of £100 will be issued if the driver does not comply with the rules displayed. The rules require the driver to make a valid payment for their parking. The operator has provided a list which shows that no payment was made.

The appellant is correct the operator can take the appellant to magistrate’s court to purse the penalty if it remains unpaid. This does not invalidate the penalty or mean that the operator cannot first issue it and offer an appeals process. There is nothing within the byelaws which prevents POPLA from considering the penalty as a free alternative to it having to go to court. Even if the railway operator has maintained the right to pursue the penalties in court this does not prevent APCOA from issuing the charges or pursuing them for payment.

While the appellant advises that a Freedom of Information act request has been advised of this POPLA has not been presented with any evidence in support of this claim. I also note that as it did not affect the ability of the driver to comply with the parking rules it is not relevant to the outcome of this assessment.

APCOA is a member of the British Parking Association which requires it to provide access to POPLA. A contract has been provided which confirms that APCOA has been appointment by the railway operator to issue and purse penalties. The operator can hold the keeper of the vehicle liable as the owner of the vehicle. The department for transport confirmed that POPLA could consider appeals regarding penalties on Railway Land.

If the appellant has any concerns regarding the legality of POPLA considering the PCN I recommend the appellant seeks their own legal advice. The evidence confirms that the driver failed to pay for their use of their site.

As such I must conclude that the penalty was issued correctly and refuse this appeal.

Hi Stardog, just wondering what action you took ? My son has the exact same letter from Moorside Legal so he has the same dilemma.

Thank you