Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please show us what you have received (both the notice you ignored, and the 'SJP' you refer to), with personal details redacted

I received a parking charge notice (not penalty charge notice)

Can you also show us this? All the documents you have shown us so far refer only to penalties.

I may move this to the criminal forum as it does seem this is a now criminal matter (albeit one brought by a rail company) rather than a private parking charge matter.

It's a pity you discarded the original (Penalty or Parking) Charge Notice (PCN). If you are able to obtain a copy or duplicate, it would help your case.

Since your case is being prosecuted under Merseyrail Byelaw 14(2) as a criminal offence, the prosecution must prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. This means they need strong, clear evidence to demonstrate that:


If you can cast doubt on any of these points—such as showing that the signage was unclear or that your parking did not contravene any specific instruction—the prosecution may fail to meet this high standard, and you could avoid conviction.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the highest standard of proof in law and applies to criminal cases. It means that the evidence must be so convincing that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge or jury (Magistrate in this case) that the defendant committed the offence.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must prove every element of the offence to this high standard to secure a conviction. Since criminal cases often involve the risk of serious consequences, such as fines, imprisonment, or a criminal record, the law requires this stringent standard to minimise the risk of wrongful conviction.

The prosecution under Merseyrail Byelaw 14(2) hinges on whether the signage clearly communicated the parking rules. Your defence should focus on the inadequacy of the signage, the lack of obstruction, and any procedural irregularities (e.g., the shift from a civil PCN to a criminal penalty). If these issues are effectively presented, you have a reasonable chance of challenging the charge.

In this case, the V5C registration certificate only identifies the registered keeper, not necessarily the owner or the driver of the vehicle. This distinction is important, particularly in cases like yours, where liability under a byelaw is being pursued.

Registered Keeper vs. Owner vs. Driver


Who is Liable Under Byelaw 14(2)?

Byelaw 14(2) concerns the person in charge of the vehicle. This is typically interpreted as the driver at the time of the alleged offence. If the prosecution cannot prove who the driver was, they may struggle to secure a conviction because liability under the byelaw rests with the driver, not the registered keeper or owner.

Prosecution’s Argument Based on DVLA Enquiries

The charge sheet claims that DVLA enquiries confirmed you as the registered owner. However, the DVLA does not determine ownership, only the registered keeper. The term "registered owner" is incorrect and misleading. It conflates the concepts of keeper and owner, which are legally distinct.

To convict under Byelaw 14(2), the prosecution must prove that you were the driver (i.e., the person in charge of the vehicle) at the time of the alleged contravention. In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They must establish:


If they rely solely on the DVLA information to link you to the offence without direct evidence that you were driving, this leaves their case open to challenge.

One of your defence strategies would be to challenge the assumption of liability. Argue that being the registered keeper (as identified by the DVLA) does not prove that you were the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. If there is no evidence that you were driving (e.g., photographs or witness testimony), the prosecution cannot meet the criminal standard of proof.

Point out that the charge sheet inaccurately refers to you as the registered owner, which is legally incorrect. The V5C registration document explicitly states it does not prove ownership. This error suggests procedural flaws or a lack of understanding by the prosecution, potentially undermining their case.

Ask the prosecution to provide specific evidence that you were the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. If no such evidence exists, the charge cannot be sustained. Even if the prosecution proves that the vehicle was parked improperly, they must also prove that you were the person responsible.

If you can introduce doubt about who was driving, you would avoid conviction. Remember, in a criminal case, the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under Merseyrail Byelaw 14(2), the driver (i.e., the person in charge of the vehicle) at the time of the offence is liable. The prosecution must prove:


If they cannot link you as the driver beyond a reasonable doubt, the case should fail. The prosecution must prove that you were the driver at the time of the alleged offence, not merely the registered keeper. If their case relies solely on DVLA records without direct evidence, this is a significant weakness you can exploit in your defence.

Here are other points you should use in your defence:

1. Wording of the Signage:


2. No Obstruction or Hindrance:


3. Compliance with Byelaw 14(2)(iii):


All of the above is only a suggestion. IANAL and I would defer to others on here that may have legal training. If you have any legal protection insurance through your car or home insurance, you could seek legal advice but I would make sure that it is someone who is familiar with these bylaws and not just a plain vanilla solicitor.

These could be some of the challenges to your defence:

Byelaw 14(2) can be interpreted broadly to cover any deviation from the operator's instructions, even if there is no obstruction or hindrance. The court may determine that parking outside designated bays is inherently contrary to the operator's instructions.

The operator may argue that parking outside marked bays disrupts the orderly use of the car park, regardless of whether an obstruction occurred.

The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) is justified in this situation because Merseyrail Byelaws are legally enforceable regulations made under statutory authority. A breach of these byelaws constitutes a criminal offence, not a civil matter. As such, the case is handled in a criminal court rather than a civil court like the Small Claims Court.

The SJP is a streamlined method for dealing with low-level offences without requiring an in-person court appearance unless contested. It is commonly used for minor traffic offences, railway byelaws, and similar infractions. If you plead guilty, the SJP will decide your case on paper. If you contest the case or plead not guilty, the matter will proceed to a magistrates' court hearing.

Whether to plead guilty or not guilty depends on how strong you feel your case is based on the available evidence and the arguments you can present.

If you believe the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:


Pleading guilty at this stage may result in a reduced fine or penalty, as early guilty pleas often receive leniency. Also, if you plead guilty, you will avoid a trial and reduce the risk of incurring additional prosecution costs, which could be much higher if the case proceeds to trial and you are convicted. If you want to resolve the matter quickly and avoid the stress or time commitment of preparing a defence and attending court, pleading guilty simplifies the process.

However, you should consider pleading not guilty if the prosecution cannot prove that:


These weaknesses create reasonable doubt, which is enough to avoid conviction.

The use of terms like "registered owner" and reliance on the V5C creates a possible procedural flaw.

The initial issuance of a "Parking Charge Notice" (typically civil) before switching to criminal proceedings might raise procedural irregularities.

Your defence points are strong and you have valid arguments:


If you're willing to fight the case, pleading not guilty means the case will go to trial in a magistrates' court, where you will need to prepare and present your defence and potentially attend court and cross-examine witnesses.

An additional point to consider, which often crosses the mind of the defendant in these cases is "what if the judge (or magistrate in this case) asks me whether I was the driver?

In criminal proceedings, such as your case under Merseyrail Byelaw 14(2), the defendant cannot be compelled to confirm whether they were the driver. In criminal law, a defendant has the right to remain silent and cannot be forced to self-incriminate. This means you cannot be compelled to state whether you were the driver at the time of the alleged offence. The burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were the driver (i.e., the person "in charge" of the vehicle).

The prosecution must prove that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the byelaws. Also, that you, specifically, were the driver or person in charge of the vehicle at the time. If the prosecution cannot provide evidence (e.g., witness testimony, photographs, or other admissible proof linking you to driving the vehicle), they fail to meet the criminal standard of proof.

In certain civil and traffic matters, the registered keeper may be required under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide the identity of the driver when asked (e.g., for speeding on public roads). However, his does not apply in cases prosecuted under railway byelaws. There is no equivalent obligation under the Merseyrail Byelaws to identify the driver.

In some criminal cases, if a defendant refuses to answer a question or provide certain evidence, the court can draw an adverse inference under Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. However, this applies only if the defendant later relies on something in their defence that they previously refused to disclose. In your case, you are not obligated to prove anything or provide evidence identifying yourself as the driver.

So, if you were not the driver and the prosecution cannot prove who was driving, this creates reasonable doubt, which should lead to an acquittal. If you were the driver but choose to remain silent, the prosecution must rely on other evidence to prove their case.

You cannot be compelled to state whether you were the driver in this case. The prosecution must prove it. If they fail to provide sufficient evidence linking you to the offence, the court cannot convict you. This could form a strong part of your defence, particularly if their case relies solely on you being the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Having reviewed the Byelaws, there are only three mentions of the word “owner” and none of them are defined. It may be worth arguing that without a definition, perhaps the term is not definitive enough?

Does anyone have an opinion on how that fact relates to the burden of proof required in order to hold the “owner” liable? How does the prosecution evidence ‘ownership’ if all they are relying on is the fact that the vehicle has been registered with the DVLA by the defendant when the V5C specifically states that it does not prove “ownership”, only that the named person is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle.

As this is a criminal matter, we are not dealing with the ‘balance of probability’. The prosecution would have to prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that the ‘keeper’ is also the ‘owner’. How do they do that when all they are relying on is the fact that the defendant is the registered keeper?

Unless there is a legal definition of “owner”, ie. the person who ‘purchased’ or ‘financed’ the vehicle, it does not necessarily have to be the ‘keeper’ or ‘driver’, both of which are legally defined terms, at least when it comes to civil contractual matters.

Another element of the defence, in my opinion, would be some comments in a DfT response to POPLA back in 2018 when they queried whether they were allowed to offer a secondary appeal service to Penalty Notices issued by APCOA (and SABA), unregulated private parking companies, for alleged breaches of bylaw 14 at railway stations.

Whilst the issue of PNs issued by APCOA is a separate matter and one I am campaigning on because, as far as I am aware, any PN issued by APCOA is not only fake but fraudulent because it is nothing more than an "offered contract" and they have no power to bring a prosecution in the magistrates court and are therefore using unlawful language to pressure the recipient into payment into APCOAs coffers, not the public purse.

Anyway, I digress... the DfT stated the following:

The Railway Byelaws 2005 ("the Byelaws"), which regulate the use and parking of vehicles in railway station car parks, permit ticketing. Under byelaw 14(3), a person using a railway station car park must pay the parking charges which are levied by the operator.
Further, it is stated in byelaw 14(4)(i) that the owner of a vehicle may be liable to pay a penalty if it has been used, placed or left in contravention of byelaws 14(1) to (3). The ability to render a charge under byelaw 14(4)(i) is distinct from the general enforcement power in byelaw 24(1), under which a person can be prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts.

It would seem to me, that the DfT does not expect minor parking offences, which have been decriminalised since the Road Traffic Act 1991 was introduced, to be prosecuted under bylaw 24(1) which is the case here. Of course, this is in reference to an unregulated private parking company issuing a Penalty Notice. As far as I can interpret the meaning is that they expect minor parking infringements to be dealt with using the civil process and issuance of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) which is a contractual matter and not a criminal one.

For anyone interested in the DfT interpretation, I attach a link to a copy of the POPLA/DfT exchange:

Byelaws - POPLA Position and DFT Response

I have been advised by a solicitor friend with knowledge of this that the OP should send the following to the Merseyrail prosecutor:

By email to Enforcement@merseyrail.org

FAO: Deborah Warham
The Prosecutor
Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Limited

Subject: Request for Disclosure Under CPR 8.2 – Case Reference [Insert Case Number]

Dear Ms Warham,

I write in reference to the charge filed against me under Merseyrail Byelaw 14(2), as outlined in the Single Justice Procedure Notice dated 17th December 2024.

Under Criminal Procedure Rule 8.2(2), I am entitled to request details of the evidence the prosecution intends to rely on in this matter. I kindly request the following:

1. A copy of the evidence that forms the basis of the charge, including:

• Photographs or CCTV footage of the alleged parking contravention.
• Copies of signage or notices displayed at the car park at the time of the alleged contravention.
• A copy of the issued penalty notice.
• Any witness statements or reports.

2. Details of how the prosecution intends to prove the following elements:

• That I am the "owner" of the vehicle as defined by the byelaw, given that the DVLA V5C document states that it does not prove ownership.

• That the instructions or notices referred to in the charge were clear, enforceable, and visible.

3. Any other material the prosecution intends to rely on in support of its case.

This request is made to assist me in understanding the case against me and making an informed decision about my plea and defence.

I would appreciate receiving the requested materials by [Insert Date, typically 14 days from the date of the letter]. If there are any delays or issues in providing this information, please let me know promptly.

Yours faithfully,