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.
