Most private parking charges work like this. A camera reads your registration, the operator asks the DVLA who the vehicle is registered to, and a Notice to Keeper lands on your doormat. You were not necessarily driving. It does not matter, because Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 lets them pursue you anyway.
That power has a boundary, and most people never find out where it is.
Schedule 4 only works on what the Act calls relevant land. Land where parking is controlled by byelaws is excluded. On that land, an operator can pursue the person who was driving, but it cannot make the registered keeper pay for a driver it cannot identify.
Station car parks on the networks below are byelaw land.
The four networks, and the law behind each
Each of these transport authorities makes its own byelaws under its own legislation. In each case the byelaws make it a breach to park where charges are made without paying, allow the operator to recover clamping and removal costs from the owner, and make a breach an offence carrying a fine on the standard scale. That combination is what takes the land outside the keeper liability rules.
| Network | Byelaws | Made under |
|---|---|---|
| London Underground, Overground, DLR, Elizabeth line | Transport for London Railway Byelaws | Greater London Authority Act 1999, Schedule 11, paragraph 26 |
| Croydon Tramlink | Tramlink Byelaws | Croydon Tramlink Act 1994, section 46 |
| Tyne and Wear Metro | Metro Byelaws | Tyneside Metropolitan Railway Act 1973, sections 58 and 62 |
| Nottingham Express Transit | NET Byelaws 2014 | Nottingham Express Transit System Order 2009, article 53 |
None of those four Acts is the one the government amended in December 2025, which is why these car parks kept a protection that National Rail station car parks lost. The background to that is in our guide to the December 2025 station car park law change.
How to tell whether it is really transport land
This is the part that decides whether the argument is available to you, and it is a question of fact, not law.
- Look for displayed byelaws. Byelaw land usually has them posted somewhere on site, often near the entrance or the ticket machine.
- Read the signage for a transport authority name. Transport for London, Nexus, NET or the tram operator appearing on the terms board is a strong indicator.
- Ask who owns it, not who runs it. A private firm operating the car park under contract does not take the land outside the byelaws. These byelaws generally define the operator to include anyone the transport authority authorises.
- Watch for car parks that merely sit next to a station. Plenty belong to a council, a developer or a retail park. Council car parks are a different system with different rules and a different appeal route.
What this argument actually gets you
Two honest limits, because a letter built on a misunderstanding of either will fail.
It defeats keeper liability, not the charge. If the operator can identify the driver, it can pursue the driver in contract. What it cannot do is convert a charge against an unknown driver into a charge against you because your name is on the V5C.
It is not a substitute for the ordinary grounds. A good letter runs the byelaw point and then, separately, puts the operator to proof on whether any contract was formed at all and whether it has authority from the landowner to issue charges there. If the byelaw point is answered, those still stand.
There is also no obligation in civil law to tell a private parking company who was driving. Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 creates that duty for specified road traffic offences such as speeding. It has no application to a private parking charge. Naming the driver voluntarily hands the operator the one thing this argument denies them.
Charged at one of these car parks?
The letter names the byelaws and the enabling Act for your network, answers both December 2025 Orders before the operator raises them, and puts the operator to proof on contract and landowner authority.
Not every tram network works this way
It would be convenient if the rule were “trams and metros are byelaw land”. It is not.
Manchester Metrolink and West Midlands Metro both have byelaws, made under their own local Acts, and neither is affected by the December 2025 changes. But their parking byelaws are aimed at parking that causes an obstruction, not at parking without paying, and neither carries the cost recovery provision the other four have. An operator would argue that the liability is in respect of obstruction rather than in respect of parking, and that is a genuine argument rather than a bluff.
The answer turns on the wording of each system's own byelaws. That is why the four networks in the table are named specifically rather than described as “light rail”.
What to do if you have been charged
- Identify the network and the landowner. This decides whether the argument is available at all.
- Check the date on the notice and diarise the deadline. Appeal windows are short and missing one costs you rights that cannot be recovered.
- Photograph the site before anything changes.
- Do not name the driver.
- Do not pay the discounted amount while you are deciding. Paying ends your right to challenge.
The byelaw argument is unusual in that it turns on which Act a set of byelaws was made under, and on wording that most appeals teams will never have read. That cuts both ways. Cited precisely, with the byelaw numbers and the enabling Act, it is difficult to brush aside. Asserted loosely as “this is byelaw land”, it invites a one line rejection, and the operator will not tell you which part you got wrong.
The letter for this
Tube, Tram and Metro Station Car Parks. No Keeper Liability
Written for this specific ground, with the law cited and the evidence demands built in. Complete the placeholders and send it.
Included free with the letter
- Your Charge Was Issued on Byelaw Land
Frequently asked questions
Does this mean the charge is cancelled?
No, and it is important to be straight about that. It means the operator cannot make you liable simply because you are the registered keeper. If the operator can identify who was actually driving, it can pursue that person in contract. What the byelaw point removes is the shortcut: the ability to turn a charge against an unknown driver into a charge against the name on the V5C.
How do I know whether the car park is really transport land?
Look for byelaws displayed on site, which byelaw land usually has, and read the signage for the name of the transport authority. Then think about who runs it. Many car parks beside a station belong to a council, a developer or a retail park instead, and some are run by a private operator on land the transport authority does not own. Photograph the entrance, the terms board and any byelaw notice on the day you deal with the charge, because signage changes and a photograph taken later proves nothing about the day you parked.
The car park is run by a private company, not the transport authority. Does that break the argument?
Not by itself. These byelaws generally define the operator to include a person or body authorised by the transport authority to act as operator, so a contracted car park firm working on that land is usually inside the byelaws rather than outside them. What matters is whose land it is, not whose name is on the ticket machine. That said, it is a point the operator may take, so the land question is worth nailing down with photographs.
I got the charge at a National Rail station. Does this apply to me?
No, not since 26 December 2025 in England and Wales. Two statutory instruments that day put National Rail station car parks back inside the keeper liability rules. Do not send a letter arguing byelaw land for a National Rail car park: it wastes the reply you get. Your grounds are signage, the Notice to Keeper timing and content, landowner authority and whether the charge is a fair term.
What about Manchester Metrolink or West Midlands Metro?
Those two are weaker and we do not recommend running the same argument there. Their byelaws are aimed at parking that causes an obstruction rather than at parking without paying, and neither carries a cost recovery provision of the kind the other networks have. An operator would say the liability is in respect of obstruction rather than parking, and that is a real argument. The wording of each system's own byelaws decides the answer, so this is not a case where "it is a tram, so it must work".
Do I have to tell them who was driving?
No. There is no obligation in civil law to identify the driver to a private parking company. Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 does create that duty, but only for specified road traffic offences such as speeding, and it does not apply to a private parking charge. Naming the driver hands the operator the one thing the byelaw point denies them.
Could this change again?
It could. The December 2025 Orders show the Department for Transport is willing to legislate on exactly this point, and the same amendment could in principle be applied to other byelaws. Nothing has been proposed for the four networks above at the time of writing, but if you have a charge on one of them, it is not a reason to sit on it.
This guide explains the law in England and Wales as it stands on 9 August 2026. It is general information, not legal advice about your particular charge.