Railway Bylaws (E +W) and POPLA

[BGB]

Parking on railway land in England and Wales is covered by the Railway Byelaws 2005.

Insofar as these relate to parking, they are set out below:

14. Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking

(1) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign.

(2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway:
(i) in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or
(ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person.

(3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place.

(4) In England and Wales
(i)The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

(ii) Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an Operator or authorised person.

(iii) The owner of the motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that

(iv) the costs incurred by an Operator or an authorised person for this may be recovered from the vehicle’s owner.

(v) The power of clamping and removal provided in Byelaw 14(4)(ii) above shall not be exercisable in any area where passenger parking is permitted unless there is on display in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped and/or removed by an Operator or an authorised person.

24. Enforcement
(1) Offence and level of fines
Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale...

(4) Notices
No person shall be subject to any penalty for breach of any of the Byelaws by disobeying a notice unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court before whom the complaint is laid that the notice referred to in the particular Byelaw was displayed."

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) is used to establish keeper liability on private land where this is "relevant land" 

The relevant section of PoFA states:

"56 Recovery of unpaid parking charges

Schedule 4 (which makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle in certain circumstances) has effect."

Schedule 4 states:

"1(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and
(b)those charges have not been paid in full."

"2(1)In this Schedule—
“...relevant land” has the meaning given by paragraph 3"

"3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control." [Emphasis added].

Land covered by the railway byelaws is clearly covered by statutory control, and is therefore not relevant land and therefore S.1 clearly does not apply.

[BGB]

PoPLA recently issued the following:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103752

"Case officer findings:

The appellant’s case is that the operator cannot pursue them as the keeper due to the byelaws in place at the railway station. The appellant states that the signage at the site is inadequate. The appellant states that the operator does not have the sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The appellant states that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

For the purposes of this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle has been identified. As such, the operator has stated that they are pursing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle. The appellant has stated that they believe the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 cannot be used, in relation to a parking event that has taken place on this land, to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, as there are Byelaws applicable to the land in question. The operator has confirmed this, and states that the site is governed by the Railway Byelaws and Contract Law. The operator states that it is therefore pursuing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle, under the Railway Byelaws. Under Section 14 (4) (i) of the Railway Byelaws, it states that “In England and Wales: The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number LLNNLLL, parked in the car park at 13:21. From the photographs provided, there is no pay and display ticket visible on the windscreen of the vehicle. As the vehicle was observed at 13:21 with no ticket visibly displayed, and no online payment having been registered, the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Byelaws 1-3 under Section 14 of the Railway Byelaws and Contract Law states that “(1) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign. (2) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway: (i) in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or (ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person. (3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place”. From the evidence provided in relation to byelaws, I am satisfied that the operator has pursued the owner correctly, in accordance to these statutory provisions. The appellant has appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has not disputed that they are the owner of the vehicle. As such, the owner is presumed to be the registered keeper unless they prove otherwise. For the purpose of this appeal, I will work on the basis that the appellant is therefore the owner of the vehicle. The appellant states that the signage at the site is inadequate, and there is no proof of a breach. The photographic evidence provided of the vehicle clearly shows that there is no ticket visible from the windscreen. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states “vehicles must clearly display a valid parking pay and display ticket face up in the front windscreen at all times or drivers must have paid for parking by using the pay by phone service prior to leaving their vehicle unattended”. The signage further states that “The following charges are payable for the parking of vehicles contrary to the above terms and conditions of use”. In addition, the operator has provided a site map showing the signage in location at the car park, and also outlined signage in relation to the appellant’s vehicle. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I am satisfied that the operator has placed signage prominently in order to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions. The appellant states that the operator has no contract with the landowner to enforce parking control at the site. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a letter confirming that they have the authority to regulate parking control and enforcement on the land, providing it is compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. Upon review of the document provided, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to operate on the land. In their appeal, the appellant has informed that the operator has failed to provide them with a calculation of loss to prove that the charge is a pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has therefore stated that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I should remind the appellant that the operator is pursuing them, as the owner, for parking charges incurred under the Railway Byelaws. As such, the charge is a penalty, applied under applicable law, and not a charge as part of a consumer contract. As a result, there is no requirement for the operator, acting as the agent of the landowner with the authority to issue a penalty, to justify the amount requested. Under section 24 (1) of the Railway Byelaws it states that “Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and, with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”. Level 3 of the standard scale is £1,000, therefore the £100 requested by the operator falls within the level of the penalty to be applied for a contravention of the Railway Byelaws. I note that the operator has provided evidence that a payment has been made for the vehicle registration LLNNLLL, however, the payment was not made until 18:17, at which time the PCN had already been issued. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, it is clear that the no payment has been made for the appellant’s vehicle to park at the time the PCN has been issued. The operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the site, and that the driver of the vehicle has not complied with these. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly."

To summarise the relevant points:

"The appellant’s case is that the operator cannot pursue them as the keeper due to the byelaws in place at the railway station...."For the purposes of this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle has been identified. As such, the operator has stated that they are pursing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle. The appellant has stated that they believe the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 cannot be used, in relation to a parking event that has taken place on this land, to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, as there are Byelaws applicable to the land in question. The operator has confirmed this, and states that the site is governed by the Railway Byelaws and Contract Law. The operator states that it is therefore pursuing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle, under the Railway Byelaws."  "...the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Byelaws 1-3 under Section 14 of the Railway Byelaws and Contract Law..." "...From the evidence provided in relation to byelaws, I am satisfied that the operator has pursued the owner correctly, in accordance to these statutory provisions. The appellant has appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has not disputed that they are the owner of the vehicle. As such, the owner is presumed to be the registered keeper unless they prove otherwise. For the purpose of this appeal, I will work on the basis that the appellant is therefore the owner of the vehicle...." "...I should remind the appellant that the operator is pursuing them, as the owner, for parking charges incurred under the Railway Byelaws. As such, the charge is a penalty, applied under applicable law, and not a charge as part of a consumer contract...." "...The operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the site, and that the driver of the vehicle has not complied with these. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly...."

[The Bald Eagle]

Talk about exceed your authority.

Bye-laws establish CRIMINAL offences and as far as I know the only people who can sit in judgment of someone for committing a CRIMINAL offence are the ones appointed by Her Majesty the Queen.

[Ewan Hoosami]

From M'learned BGB's reproduction of the Byelaws:

24
(4) Notices
No person shall be subject to any penalty for breach of any of the Byelaws by disobeying a notice unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court before whom the complaint is laid that the notice referred to in the particular Byelaw was displayed."


I'm loving how a private limited company (POPLOL) now class themselves as a court. Would anyone care to hazard a guess as to what type of court this might be?



Even more worrying:

Level 3 of the standard scale is £1,000, therefore the £100 requested by the operator falls within the level of the penalty to be applied for a contravention of the Railway Byelaws.

Are we then to understand that POPLOL would be happy to award £1000 to a private wea$el?

 

[BGB]

My correspondence with ISPA

Dear Director

Please see the attached questions regarding the use of POPLA to assess cases bought by operators acting for Railway Companies acting under the Railway Byelaws 2005.

Whilst this case notes a specific case, the highlighted and numbered questions refer to the issue of how POPLA deals with cases involving parking on land on which the Railway Byelaws apply, which is clearly a matter of general public interest.

Please acknowledge receipt of this communication.

Kind Regards

BGB

--------------------

Railway Byelaws and POPLA

I refer to a recent decision at POPLA in which an adjudicator determined that a motorist was liable for a penalty, imposed upon a motorist by a private parking company, in respect of a location in which railway byelaws are in effect.

Assessor: Sophie Taylor
Parking Company: Met
Date of Parking Incident: 10 September 2015
Vehicle Registration Number LLNNLLL

POPLA stated:

“The appellant has stated that they believe the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 cannot be used, in relation to a parking event that has taken place on this land, to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, as there are Byelaws applicable to the land in question. The operator has confirmed this, and states that the site is governed by the Railway Byelaws and Contract Law. The operator states that it is therefore pursuing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle, under the Railway Byelaws. Under Section 14 (4) (i) of the Railway Byelaws, it states that “In England and Wales: The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area”.”

The Railway Byelaws 2015 are clear that:

24“ (4)  Notices
No person shall be subject to any penalty for breach of any of the Byelaws by disobeying a notice unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court before whom the complaint is laid that the notice referred to in the particular Byelaw was displayed.” [Emphasis added]

Since the operator itself is quite clear that it “is… pursuing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle, under the Railway Byelaws” it is taking the role of “the Court”. [Emphasis added]

1.  Under what authority does POPLA assume the role of “the court”?

2.  Since POPLA has assumed the role of the court, would you please advise what training POPLA assessors have in passing judgment in criminal matters?

POPLA stated:

”Level 3 of the standard scale is £1,000, therefore the £100 requested by the operator falls within the level of the penalty to be applied for a contravention of the Railway Byelaws.” [Emphasis added]

POPLA, assuming the role of a court is passing judgement upon the appellant.  The judgment displays no information on how the level of penalty has been calculated.  Indeed it appears that the level of the penalty has been decided by the operator.  Having apparently assumed the responsibility from the court for passing judgement, it appears that POPLA has not followed the statutory guidelines in effect for determining the level of the penalty.

3.  Since POPLA has assumed the role of the court, would you please advise by what authority POPLA can disregard all guidance issued to the court regarding the level of the penalty to be applied.

The judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis [UKSC 2015/0116] is clear that:
”The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it.” The charge in Beavis was £85. [100]
Also:
“the actual level of charge for overstaying (£85) are common in the UK provides support for the proposition that the charge in question is not a penalty.”
The charge demanded in the case above was £100.  The POPLA adjudicator noted: “Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and… may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”. Level 3 of the standard scale is £1,000, therefore the £100 requested by the operator falls within the level of the penalty to be applied for a contravention of the Railway Bylaws.”

It is not clear what level of charges the assessor can judge as reasonable. The penalty of up to £1000 is over 12 times what Supreme Court considered to be “neither extravagant nor unconscionable”.
 
4a. Can the adjudicator claim that a charge over 12 times that set out by the Supreme Court is “neither extravagant nor unconscionable”? 
4b. If so, can you please confirm that POPLA adjudicators are suitably legally trained to individually further radically interpret the seven Supreme Court Judges’ decision?

In the alternative, the penalties (up to £1000) set out in the railway byelaws are set out by Parliament. 

5. Does POPLA claim the power to overrule Parliament and the Judiciary and set out what penalties apply to criminal matters?

POPLA stated:
”I should remind the appellant that the operator is pursuing them, as the owner, for parking charges incurred under the Railway Byelaws. As such, the charge is a penalty, applied under applicable law, and not a charge as part of a consumer contract.”

The burden of proof for criminal cases is “beyond reasonable doubt”.  The burden of proof in civil cases is “on the balance of probabilities”.

6.  Can POPLA confirm that it considers evidence in cases of penalties under the Railway Byelaws to the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”?

It may be the case that despite the operator and POPLA making frequent references to “penalties” and “byelaws”, including
”I should remind the appellant that the operator is pursuing them, as the owner, for parking charges incurred under the Railway Byelaws. As such, the charge is a penalty, applied under applicable law, and not a charge as part of a consumer contract.”

that this case was considered as a contractual matter. POPLA stated:

“The operator has provided a letter confirming that they have the authority to regulate parking control and enforcement on the land, providing it is compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.”

The British Parking Association Code of Practice is clear that:
“14 Misrepresentation of authority
14.1  You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority.
14.2  You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’,‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.
14.3  The abbreviation ‘PCN’ is also used to mean a ‘penalty charge notice’ in the regulated environment. Unless you have previously defined a PCN as a ‘parking charge notice’ on your signs and notices, you must avoid using the term ‘PCN’ to avoid confusing drivers about the nature of your parking enforcement.“

7. Has POPLA advised the BPA Ltd of this breach of its Code of Practice?
--------------------

Dear BGB

Thank you for your email. Our director is currently on leave and I'm replying in her absence.
As you may be aware, ISPA is not an appeals body and cannot review or overturn an individual appeal. ISPA looks at the fairness and consistency of the PoPLA appeals service as a whole.
Please could you confirm if you are the appellant?
I shall pass the complaint to one of our Independent Assessors who will look at the process applied to the appeal and consider if this was fair and also consider the points you made. If you could possibly scan and send a copy of the decision this would be very useful.
If you are the appellant we will get back to you with an indication of our assessment but this may take between 8 to 12 weeks.

Kind regards
Nicola
--------------------
Dear Ms Mullany

I am not the appellant however I understand that the appellant will be complaining to POPLA directly.  As previously stated, I consider that POPLA is now making judgement in criminal law matters, which a matter of major public interest.

I attach a copy of the decision, number NNNNNNNNNN

I will await you response.
Kind Regards
BGB
--------------------
Dear BGB,

Thank you for your email. PoPLA operates an appeal service which is an alternative to the courts. A motorist can choose to make an appeal to PoPLA about a parking notice, it is a choice not a requirement that the motorist appeals.

PoPLA will issue a decision on the facts presented by both parties. It will take account of any relevant laws including Byelaws. But it is not enforcing any prosecution under the Byelaws. Any decision made is only a binding decision on the parking operator if the complainant accepts it. If a motorist doesn't want to accept the decision they do not have to. PoPLA is not operating within a criminal justice system as suggested nor is it acting as a court of law.

I hope this clarifies the approach taken by PoPLA.

In the meantime I have forwarded the decision notice to our independent assessor. She will report to the board on any issues raised by this complaint but as you are not the appellant we won't be writing to you with our views on any issues specific to this case.

Best wishes
Nicola Mullany
------------------
Dear Ms Mullany

I am sorry, but I must take issue with your statement.

You state that “PoPLA is not enforcing any prosecution under the Byelaws.”  PoPLA stated “The operator states that it is… pursuing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle, under the Railway Byleaws… It states that... the owner of any… vehicle… left… in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty…  From the evidence provided in relation to byelaws I am satisfied that the operator has pursued the owner correctly, in accordance with these statutory provisions… I should remind the appellant that the operator is pursuing them, as the owner for parking charges incurred under the Railway Bylaws. As such, the charge is a penalty and not a charge as part of a consumer contract….”

PoPLA is clear that the charge is a penalty and not a charge as part of a consumer contract.  It is therefore clearly operating outside its remit to consider charges based upon contract.

PoPLA is holding the owner liable.  Any contract can only be between the driver, or the keeper (provided that it is relevant land, which land covered by railway byelaws in not). The Protection of Freedoms Act does not provide any means to transfer liability to the owner.  The provision doing so is the railway byelaws, which are a matter of criminal law.  Any alleged breach of the byelaws is a matter for a magistrates court.

This matter is a matter of public interest.  PoPLA cannot hide behind the idea that all parking matters are between the motporist and the parking company yet at the same time claiming to be operating as some kind of responsible body whilst remaining secret in operation.  My questions in my original e-mail (apart from the last) relate to PoPLA policy, not a individual case.

Kind Regards
BGB
-------------------
Dear BGB

Thank you for your email.

I can only repeat:
PoPLA isn't enforcing a prosecution;
It's decisions aren't binding on the motorist; and
I have forwarded your complaint to our independent assessor who will report to the board.

Best wishes

Nicola Mullany

So there we have it.

PoPLA says:

 “[… I should remind the appellant that the operator is pursuing them, as the owner for parking charges incurred under the Railway Bylaws. As such, the charge is a penalty and not a charge as part of a consumer contract….”  "...I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly."."

IPSA says...

"I can only repeat:
PoPLA isn't enforcing a prosecution "

[prjohnsonnn]

I have a case in with POPLA right now on this very issue but taking it a step furtehr forward.  See the FOI request where Mr Bostock has managed to get the DfT recently to put in writing that NO body other than a Court can make any award under Railway Byelaws 14.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/311011/response/766513/attach/html/4/F0013227%20Reply.pdf.html

This raises the stakes massively in the general PPC / collecting monies under Byelaws issue and is the basis on which we should appeal to POPLA from hereon in ie on the basis that the DfT have confrmed that a PPC have no authroriy to issue a 'charge' (non fine/penalty) under Byelaws then the amounts and tickets are simply unenforceable.

[prjohnsonnn]

apologies - correct link now attached showing the DfT final confirmation

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/311011/response/770331/attach/html/2/F0013227%20Follow%20Up%20Reply.pdf.html

[Ewan Hoosami]

Dear BGB

[...] Any decision made is only a binding decision on the parking operator if the complainant accepts it. If a motorist doesn't want to accept the decision they do not have to[…]
I hope this clarifies the approach taken by PoPLA. 


No no no no no! Privately advising a single complainant whilst keeping the valuable snippet hidden from general public consumption rather does not clarify anything you dumb fecking bint. There are those of us that are 'in the club', so to speak, but the general uninformed public are not made aware of this important piece of information anywhere in the whole sorry process. Mr Average presents what in his mind are valid appeal grounds and he is treated to this load of tosh,



POPLOL (with the apparent blessing of ISPA) offer the appellant some free legal advice,

"As your appeal was not successful, we would consider the parking charge as effective. It is advised that you now pay your parking charge."

"In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the parking charge should be made within 28 days."

 

[BGB]

I've just found this decision from 'old' PoPLA.  Its an airport, but the principle is the same.

"The appellants case is that the airport is covered by byelaws and therefore falls outside the description of relevant land.  The appellant states that any breach can only be subject to action in the magistrate's court and additionally notes that she was not the driver on the date of the contravention.

Carefully considering the evidence before me the operator states that the Notices are not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act and the only way they can pursue the appellant is as driver of the vehicle.  The appellant has not admitted to being the driver of the vehicle on the date of the contravention and liability has not been established by the appellant...  Accordingly this appeal must be allowed."

And now new PoPLA, from above.

"The appellant’s case is that the operator cannot pursue them as the keeper due to the byelaws in place at the railway station....For the purposes of this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle has been identified. As such, the operator has stated that they are pursing the appellant as the owner of the vehicle. The appellant has stated that they believe the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 cannot be used, in relation to a parking event that has taken place on this land, to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the keeper of the vehicle, as there are Byelaws applicable to the land in question. The operator has confirmed this, and states that the site is governed by the Railway Bylaws... The appellant has appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle... For the purpose of this appeal, I will work on the basis that the appellant is therefore the owner of the vehicle...." "...I should remind the appellant that the operator is pursuing them, as the owner, for parking charges... "...The operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the site, and that the driver of the vehicle has not complied with these. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly...
"

Compare and contrast.

[BGB]

POPLA have apparently adjourned consideration of all byelaws cases.

"POPLA has decided to adjourn all cases on which the parking operator has asked the motorist to make a payment in respect of alleged breach of Byelaws. This is following complaints to POPLA and ISPA that POPLA has no authority to look at these appeals. We are considering our position and will contact you again in due course.
 
Your case concerns Byelaws and is affected by the adjournment. During this time, you do not need to take any further action.

We do not anticipate the cases to be adjourned for more than two months from today. Parking operators should not pursue payment while the cases are adjourned."

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5519668

[Edit] Now confirmed on the PoPLA website.

[scalyback]

Parking operators should not pursue payment while the cases are adjourned.

Let's wait and see how that one plays out.......

[The Bald Eagle]

And once they have sorted this mess out, perhaps they will address the issue of traffic authorities/councils using private parking weasels to enforce on public land.