Free Traffic Legal Advice

Responses from agencies like the CMA are often measured in months (if you're lucky). They're often over burdened and underfunded to deal with the volume of work.

Unsuccessful because POPLA/operator assumes keeper means owner. Considering the vehicle is on a lease, that's factually incorrect.

Guess I'm just waiting this out and hope APCOA really doesn't or can't take this further. Their window closes in April.
I'll keep this updated.

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.

Let's be clear on this; the original notice isn't really a 'penalty notice' - it's actually a dressed up Parking Charge Notice.

POPLA continue to contradict themselves at every turn.

The term 'owner' isn't convenient for them so, at a stroke, they change the word 'owner' to 'keeper' even  though they know that the two terms have clearly defined meanings - there is no legal authority for the assessor to do this but he recognises the impossibility of the parking operators position if he doesn't wave his magic wand.

There's absolutely no legal requirement for the keeper to identify the vehicle owner.

Furthermore, one has to ask why anyone would ever appeal to POPLA in the first place if this really was a 'Penalty Notice' since POPLA would have no legal standing in getting such a statutory notice cancelled as they don't have the judicial powers required.

POPLA's involvement demonstrates that the notice is really a Parking Charge Notice which is issued in breach of the Code of Practice.

It will cost APCOA around £9,000 if they want to pursue this through the correct channels - any fine will go to the public purse.

Draft something up to show us. I'd be writing a formal complaint asking why they have passed your personal details on to debt collection agency, when they originally contacted you seeking to recover a penalty for what they were claiming was a criminal matter (breach of byelaws). I would be instructing them to cease processing your personal data, telling them they should instruct Debt Recovery Plus to do the same, and seeking confirmation that they have self-reported to the Information Commissioner's Office about them breaching your data protection rights.