hi I received this letter today and I would like to appeal but I thought I would get advice first before I do go ahead. please see letter attached to this post. let me know if I need to add anything else more. Thanks in advance
https://ibb.co/5hCZZ8nC
The rear of the letter you posted, please.
Just appeal ONLY as the Keeper. There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The location is not "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA 2012 (for now), which means that if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the
unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the registered keeper. ECP cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, ECP will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Blackheath Station is not 'relevant land', yet!
If Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Railway Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because ECP is not the station owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for ECP’s own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
You appeal to POPLA, no hurry, see for example
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ecp-shell-gatwick-alleged-overstay/msg98233/#msg98233Your argument is the same, that this was not “relevant land” for the purpose of PoFA at the time, so the liability can not be transferred from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
It’s simpler than this example because if you were parked in the station car park on railway land, that’s reason enough. You don’t have to dig through maps.
You should construct a simplified version of this appeal and post it here so we can advise you further. If you’re lucky, ECP will give up similarly.
Im just about to do the appeal, would it fall under 'I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.' or 'other'?
Given that you are the keeper, the first option would be incorrect. Choose 'Other'. Do you not wish to share a copy of your proposed appeal here for feedback?
Thank you here’s my draft:
POPLA Appeal - Non-Relevant Land (Railway Byelaws)
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I am not liable for this charge because the location in question- Blackheath Station car park, London is railway land subject to statutory control under the Railway Byelaws. As such, it is not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Accordingly, keeper liability cannot apply and Euro Car Parks Ltd (“ECP”) has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.
1. The Land Is Not “Relevant Land” Under PoFA
Schedule 4, Paragraph 3 of PoFA expressly excludes land that is subject to statutory control, including land governed by Railway Byelaws.
Blackheath Station is a railway station, and its car park forms part of the operational railway estate. Car parks at railway stations are subject to the Railway Byelaws, regardless of whether parking management is outsourced to a private company.
This point alone is determinative. Where Railway Byelaws apply, PoFA cannot be used to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
2. “Private Land” Does Not Mean “Relevant Land”
ECP appears to rely on the incorrect assumption that because the site is described as “private land,” PoFA applies.
This is legally wrong.
Land can be privately owned yet still be excluded from PoFA if it is subject to statutory control. Train station car parks are a well-established example of this. POPLA has consistently recognised that railway land is not relevant land for PoFA purposes.
3. Failure to Demonstrate Keeper Liability
ECP has failed to demonstrate that the site is relevant land. The burden of proof rests entirely with the operator.
They have provided:
no evidence that Railway Byelaws do not apply,
no confirmation from the landowner or rail authority,
no statutory instrument showing that byelaws have been disapplied to this specific site.
In the absence of such evidence, POPLA must conclude that the land is under statutory control and PoFA does not apply.
4. Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
Despite PoFA being inapplicable, ECP issued a Notice to Keeper asserting keeper liability.
This is a breach of PPSCoP Section 8.1.1(d), which states:
“The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language states the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”
ECP has issued a misleading Notice to Keeper in a location where keeper liability is legally impossible.
5. Failure to Properly Consider the Initial Appeal
I raised the issue of non-relevant land in my initial appeal. ECP’s rejection was a generic response referring only to ANPR images, signage, and length of stay. It made no attempt whatsoever to address the land status or the applicability of PoFA.
This indicates that my appeal was not properly considered and further undermines the operator’s position.
Conclusion
The site is railway land subject to Railway Byelaws
It is not relevant land under PoFA Schedule 4
Keeper liability cannot apply
The Notice to Keeper is misleading and non-compliant
ECP has failed to meet its burden of proof
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal.
It might be worth a line or two highlighting the date of the alleged contravention.
Railway land is now "relevant land", but, importantly, wasn't at the time this event took place. For clarity, it may be worth pointing this out.
Also worth noting that the NtK is not PoFA compliant as there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the outstanding charges.
I've just received an email to say my appeal has been withdrawn
Thank you so much for your help!
Winner x 1
View List