Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Why APCOA have no authority to issue Penalty Notices under railway bylaws
« on: November 04, 2024, 05:05:59 pm »
Here is an essay I posted earlier today over on MSE in response to a query I made with POPLA as to their authority to adjudicate on supposed Penalty Notices issued under railway bylaws. Their response was to point out that they had queried this with the DfT back in 2018.
Interestingly, the copy of the DfT letter they provided highlights exactly why they do not have any authority to issue PNs at all. The highlights are mine. For those interested in the lawful context, read on:
I have highlighted the part that I believe is very relevant here. In short, the DfT has said that they have no issue with a PPC issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as a "ticket/contractual charge" for a breach of Byelaws 14(1) to (3). However it makes a clear distinction to the effect that it does not expect any ability to prosecute as a criminal matter under the powers of Byelaw 24(1).
I believe that there is cross use of the word "penalty" by the person who authored the letter. The DfT’s use of "penalty" in relation to Byelaw 14(4)(i) creates confusion by implying a statutory enforcement power that does not exist in this context. The correct interpretation is that Byelaw 14(4)(i) authorises civil charges, not criminal penalties, which are solely the remit of Byelaw 24(1) and require prosecution in the Magistrates' Court.
The last sentence in the third paragraph highlights a crucial distinction between two types of enforcement actions under the Railway Byelaws:
The DfT letter, specifically in the third paragraph, does not grant any private parking operator the authority to issue Penalty Notices under railway byelaws with the weight of criminal prosecution. The "penalty" referenced in Byelaw 14(4)(i) is purely civil and contractual, and it lacks the statutory weight of criminal enforcement as outlined in Byelaw 24(1). Without explicit statutory delegation for criminal prosecution, operators cannot claim authority to issue Penalty Notices as criminal penalties. Any such attempt to imply such authority in their notices is misleading and unlawful.
In summary, the DfT’s use of "penalty" in relation to Byelaw 14(4)(i) creates confusion by implying a statutory enforcement power that does not exist in this context. The correct interpretation is that Byelaw 14(4)(i) authorises civil charges, not criminal penalties, which are solely the remit of Byelaw 24(1) and require prosecution in the Magistrates' Court.
Here is POPLAs interpretation, which as expected is weighted towards the operator, not the motorist. However, there are a couple of points that are worth noting:
They require that a PN, if issued as a windscreen ticket, can only be followed up with a Notice to Owner (NtO) under the same rules as PoFA. The operator must wait 28 days before issuing the NtO and it cannot be issued after 56 days.
The same applies to a postal PN. It must be "given" within 14 days of the alleged "offence".
Anyway, as I have already pointed out, APCOA and SABA are not authorised to issue Penalty Notices under threat of criminal prosecution. They are only "offered contracts" fraudulently dressed up as PNs.
Interestingly, the copy of the DfT letter they provided highlights exactly why they do not have any authority to issue PNs at all. The highlights are mine. For those interested in the lawful context, read on:
I have highlighted the part that I believe is very relevant here. In short, the DfT has said that they have no issue with a PPC issuing a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as a "ticket/contractual charge" for a breach of Byelaws 14(1) to (3). However it makes a clear distinction to the effect that it does not expect any ability to prosecute as a criminal matter under the powers of Byelaw 24(1).
I believe that there is cross use of the word "penalty" by the person who authored the letter. The DfT’s use of "penalty" in relation to Byelaw 14(4)(i) creates confusion by implying a statutory enforcement power that does not exist in this context. The correct interpretation is that Byelaw 14(4)(i) authorises civil charges, not criminal penalties, which are solely the remit of Byelaw 24(1) and require prosecution in the Magistrates' Court.
The last sentence in the third paragraph highlights a crucial distinction between two types of enforcement actions under the Railway Byelaws:
Byelaw 14(4)(i): This allows for a civil penalty that the owner of a vehicle may have to pay if the vehicle is parked in contravention of the parking byelaws (such as not paying parking fees or parking improperly). This "penalty" [sic] is typically issued as a Parking Charge Notice by the parking operator. The intent of this byelaw is to create a straightforward mechanism for dealing with parking violations without involving the criminal justice system.
Byelaw 24(1): This provides a separate, more formal criminal enforcement power, under which a person can be prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court for breaching railway byelaws. This is a more serious legal route that could lead to a criminal conviction, typically reserved for more severe or repeated offences rather than minor parking infringements.
Byelaw 24(1): This provides a separate, more formal criminal enforcement power, under which a person can be prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court for breaching railway byelaws. This is a more serious legal route that could lead to a criminal conviction, typically reserved for more severe or repeated offences rather than minor parking infringements.
The DfT letter, specifically in the third paragraph, does not grant any private parking operator the authority to issue Penalty Notices under railway byelaws with the weight of criminal prosecution. The "penalty" referenced in Byelaw 14(4)(i) is purely civil and contractual, and it lacks the statutory weight of criminal enforcement as outlined in Byelaw 24(1). Without explicit statutory delegation for criminal prosecution, operators cannot claim authority to issue Penalty Notices as criminal penalties. Any such attempt to imply such authority in their notices is misleading and unlawful.
In summary, the DfT’s use of "penalty" in relation to Byelaw 14(4)(i) creates confusion by implying a statutory enforcement power that does not exist in this context. The correct interpretation is that Byelaw 14(4)(i) authorises civil charges, not criminal penalties, which are solely the remit of Byelaw 24(1) and require prosecution in the Magistrates' Court.
Here is POPLAs interpretation, which as expected is weighted towards the operator, not the motorist. However, there are a couple of points that are worth noting:
They require that a PN, if issued as a windscreen ticket, can only be followed up with a Notice to Owner (NtO) under the same rules as PoFA. The operator must wait 28 days before issuing the NtO and it cannot be issued after 56 days.
The same applies to a postal PN. It must be "given" within 14 days of the alleged "offence".
Anyway, as I have already pointed out, APCOA and SABA are not authorised to issue Penalty Notices under threat of criminal prosecution. They are only "offered contracts" fraudulently dressed up as PNs.
