APCOA Penalty Notice

Admiral_Allstar

Hi

My wife received a Penalty Notice from APCOA (Not a PCN).  We did appeal as registered keeper but APCOA rejected.  APCOA appeal was as per the blue template here **NEWBIES!! PRIVATE PARKING TICKET? OLD OR NEW? **READ THESE FAQS FIRST!** Thankyou! — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Due to holidays etc we are now beyond the 28 day limit to appeal to POPLA.  From this forum I understand the Penalty Notice expires after 6 months.  Can we still appeal to POPLA?  If not what should we do?

Details:

Contravention Date: July
Appeal date: July
Appeal rejection date: August


Many thanks.
Mark

LDast

It will time out. APCOA are not litigious. Ignore any and all debt collector letters and get on with your life. 

Coupon-mad

"Appeal rejection date: 9th August".

But the POPLA Code will still work today.  They work for 33 days.

Admiral_Allstar

Many thanks both.

Admiral_Allstar

So an update.  I made the POPLA appeal.  Apologies for the long post.  It is divided into Sections B and F of APCOA's comments to POPLA then my proposed reply to POPLA.

APCOA evidence sections are:

 

A – evidence checklist

B – Case summary and Penalty Notice details.  Detailed below.

C – Copy of penalty notice & notes

D original representation and rejection

E – Images, plans etc

F Other evidence.  Detailed below.

 

Section B states:

Case Summary and PN details 

XXXXXXX

SWNNNNNNNN

Full rate

 

Origin	ANPR
Legislation	POFA
Issued by	RA001
Location	Grateley Station Approach (ANPR)
Company	South West Railways
Contravention	01 - Use of Private Car Park without making a valid payment
Vehicle	XXXXXXX - XXXXXX
Contravention date	DDD, D MMM YYYY TT:TT

 Parking Policy

APCOA have had a contract in place with South West Railways since 20/09/2018. Please find a copy enclosed. It has been redacted to ensure the privacy of the landowner.  This is currently valid until 19/09/2022.

All vehicles parked at this site must be parked within a valid and marked bay

Bays are marked with white or yellow lines

No parking is allowed on yellow lines or in an area with hatched markings

A valid permit must be displayed in numbered bays, or a valid payment made as instructed in regular bays at the payment machine, RingGo pay by phone service, or at rail ticket office.

Terms of parking are sign posted upon entry to, throughout and along all exit routes of this car park.

Penalty charge notice was issued electronically, to the vehicle.

 

STATEMENT AND OTHER EVIDENCE

The terms and conditions set and displayed for this car park, clearly state that:

 

This car park is Railway Land operated by South West Trains, where APCOA have been issued landowner authority to enforce on their behalf against any vehicle parked in breach of their terms set. 

A tariff and terms and conditions are offered upon signage displayed and brought to the adequate attention of the motorist. The signage is laid out in a simple format to communicate the tariff payable, the terms of parking, and the amount payable if there is a breach. The signage further details other actions we may take. As per the BPA code of practice states, signs are conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

Having purchased parking or by remaining in the car park, these terms are accepted, and all vehicles must be parked in line with them. 

Terms and conditions are displayed upon entry to this site, within, adjacent to all pay and display machines and along all exit routes. 

At the time this notice was issued, this vehicle was monitored by ANPR to have entered the car park on xx/xx/xxxx at xx:xx and exited at xx:xx that day, remaining for xx minutes, having parked without a valid parking session or RingGo session as instructed.  

The appellant appealed to APCOA confirming that they are the Keeper and denying liability.

The appeal to APCOA was rejected as:

a)       This is a Penalty Notice issued for a breach of the Railway Bylaws and as such, Keeper liability applies. 

b)      A valid payment allocated to the VRM in question was not detected by the ANPR cameras for this vehicle to be parked on the day in question, through the RingGo payment application. 

c)       As this site is monitored by ANPR, payment must be made as instructed upon the tariff board displayed within. The payment must be allocated to the VRM of the vehicle being parked. 

d)      The contravention is ‘Use of Private Car Park without making a valid payment’. The vehicle parked over the allowed 20 minutes to drop off and pickup. As the vehicle was on site for XX minutes a payment to park should have been made

e)      The appellant did not state that a payment to park had been made. Below is a screenshot of the RingGo payment system. It confirms that there was no payment made on the date in question. Removed as includes car reg.

 

f)        As no payment had been made to cover the parking event, and the appellant had listed no other points in their appeal, their appeal was rejected.

g)       It is the driver’s responsibility to source, read and understand the terms of parking displayed prior to leaving their vehicle unattended. The vehicle should have left the parking location if this was not possible.

 

The motorist has appealed to POPLA on further grounds.

The appellant references PoFa 2012. This is a Penalty Notice issued for a breach of the Railway Bylaws. It has not been issued in accordance with PoFA 2012.

The appellant mentions confusion regarding Penalty Notice and Parking Charge Notice. Please see Section C of this pack for the compliant Notice to Keeper.

The appellant states that there was a change in the alleged breach. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Bylaws. The Bylaws state: 

  

Section F provides the Landowner Authority.

Our ANPR cameras are peripherals attached to a central computer system. The computer’s clock is kept accurate using the internet. The date and time stamps on the ANPR images are accurate and consistent as they are provided by the computer system and not the peripheral. We are confident that we conduct the necessary checks and tests to ensure ANPR quality.  

The vehicle entered onto private land in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Signage at the site is adequate, and a tariff and terms of parking are given.

For the reasons given above, APCOA believe this notice was issued correctly, and should stand. 

 

Section F states:

Site Agreement / Landowner’s Authority

 

 

My proposed comments to POPLA regarding APCOA’s evidence are:

Dear Adjudicator, I detail below my response to APCOA’s evidence

 

1.      APCOA maintain that they claim under Railway Byelaw 14 their case summary states the legislation is POFA.  They continue to obfuscate the legislation which underpins their case.

2.      APCOA state that the signage is displayed, brought to the motorist’s attention and by remaining in the car park the terms are accepted.  If the driver never exited the vehicle how can they view the terms as the font is too small to read the terms & conditions.  Indeed the signage nearest the vehicle only has “Pick Up & Drop Off Only” legible from the vehicle.

3.      APCOA continue to claim that the breach is under Byelaw 14 but still do not identify which specific byelaw under this group, no reference to the statutory instrument or any information relating to the alleged breach of the byelaw.

4.      Point 3 above notwithstanding, Railway Byelaw 14 only confers liability to the owner of a vehicle.  As I am the registered keeper, and a DVLA Form V5C clearly states that Form V5C is not proof of ownership it is evident that DVLA’s records do not hold the owners’ details.  I am only dealing with this as I am the Registered Keeper, not the driver or owner.  Thus, APCOA’s claim that Keeper liability applies (point a in section A “Case Summary and PN Details”) is mis-leading and untrue.  In fact, as per my appeal the BPA’s Code of Practice Appendix G, Para 5.4 (version 9) explicitly states that a “Penalty Notice must not…Refer to keeper or driver liability (as this is not relevant and will confuse the owner about the situation in which they find themselves)”.

5.      APCOA contradict themselves between who is liable as point a in section A “Case Summary and PN Details” states Keeper liability applies (in dispute as point 4 above) whilst point g in section A “Case Summary and PN Details” states the driver is responsible for sourcing, reading and understanding the terms and conditions.

6.      APCOA have provided a copy of their contract for parking enforcement.  This contract expired on 19th September 2024.  As such, I believe it is no longer in force.

KeithP

Did you notice this in APCOA's comments?...

 Parking Policy

APCOA have had a contract in place with South West Railways since 20/09/2018. Please find a copy enclosed. It has been redacted to ensure the privacy of the landowner.  This is currently valid until 19/09/2022.

19/09/2022... are we there yet?   

Castle

OP
Check the Landowner's contract to see if they are allowed to issue Penalty Notices.

Coupon-mad

Castle said:

OP
Check the Landowner's contract to see if they are allowed to issue Penalty Notices.

Good point.  We saw one that only allowed them to issue PARKING charge notices (completely different).  A winning point.

LDast

Here is a suggested alternative appeal for use in future to POPLA for  APCOA (and SABA or others that issue "Penalty Notices" (PN) rather than "Parking Charge Notices" (PCN) at railways stations:

Appeal to POPLA: Penalty Notice Issued by APCOA Under Railway Bylaw 14

Appellant (Keeper): [Your Name]
POPLA Reference: [Your Reference Number]
Penalty Notice Reference: [Penalty Notice Number]
Date: [Date]

---

Introduction

I am appealing a Penalty Notice (PN) issued by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd at a railway station for an alleged breach of Railway Bylaw 14. The Penalty Notice has been issued incorrectly for the reasons outlined below, and I request POPLA to apply its authority over APCOA’s procedural failures and order the cancellation of the PN.

---

1. Lack of Jurisdiction of POPLA Over Statutory Penalties

The Penalty Notice was issued under Railway Bylaw 14, which governs statutory breaches on railway land. Railway land is not “relevant land” under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and as such, APCOA cannot enforce this matter under civil law or PoFA. Penalty Notices (PNs) for bylaw breaches are statutory penalties and must be enforced via criminal prosecution in a magistrates’ court, not via civil appeal processes like POPLA.

However, APCOA has chosen to exploit POPLA’s civil appeal system to pursue this Penalty Notice, which is both misleading and improper. POPLA does not have jurisdiction over statutory penalties like this one, and I request that POPLA recognise this procedural failure and order the Penalty Notice be cancelled.

---

2. APCOA’s Attempt to Profit from Statutory Penalties

A critical point is that any fines imposed under Railway Bylaw 14 must go to the public purse—not to APCOA. APCOA’s actions in offering POPLA as the appeal forum are a clear attempt to circumvent the correct legal process for financial gain. By using a civil appeals process rather than the statutory route of prosecution in a magistrates' court, APCOA is attempting to profit from payments that should legally go to the public purse, not into their pockets.

This represents a corrupt and mendacious abuse of process. By offering POPLA as a route of appeal for this Penalty Notice, APCOA is effectively avoiding the statutory framework that ensures penalties serve the public good, rather than enriching private operators. Their greed is further highlighted by the fact that, had this Penalty Notice been properly handled as a statutory penalty, APCOA would not financially benefit from any fine imposed.

This manipulation of the process to turn statutory penalties into a revenue stream for APCOA is both unethical and unlawful. POPLA must not allow itself to be used in this way and should order the cancellation of the Penalty Notice on these grounds alone.

---

3. Improper Use of Appeals Process: Civil vs. Statutory Enforcement

APCOA’s Penalty Notice concerns a statutory breach under Railway Bylaw 14, yet they have offered a civil appeals process through POPLA. Enforcement for breaches of Railway Bylaws is governed by statutory law, and any penalties should be pursued through criminal prosecution, not through civil appeal routes like POPLA.

This shows a serious misapplication of the law. By offering an appeal through POPLA for a statutory penalty, APCOA has demonstrated a procedural failure and has acted in a way that undermines the legal enforcement of Railway Bylaws. This conflation of civil and statutory processes is a fundamental flaw in APCOA’s handling of the matter, and POPLA should use its authority to ensure this Penalty Notice is cancelled.

---

4. Improper Assumption of Keeper Liability

Railway Bylaw 14 refers to the owner of the vehicle, not the Keeper. APCOA has attempted to transfer liability to me, the Keeper, under the incorrect assumption that the Keeper is automatically the owner. The V5C registration document, which APCOA is likely relying on, clearly states that it does not prove ownership. APCOA has provided no evidence to show that I, as the Keeper, am also the owner.

Since the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply to this land, APCOA cannot rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable. Their attempt to enforce this Penalty Notice against me, the Keeper, is procedurally flawed and legally unsound. This Penalty Notice should be cancelled as a result.

---

5. Putting APCOA to Strict Proof of Contract With the Landowner

APCOA’s authority to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Bylaw 14 must be established by a valid contract with the landowner or Train Operating Company (TOC). I put APCOA to strict proof that:

• A valid contract exists between APCOA and the landowner (or TOC), allowing them to operate at this location.
• This contract specifically gives APCOA the authority to issue Penalty Notices (PNs) under Railway Bylaw 14, not just Parking Charge Notices (PCNs).

Without such proof, APCOA has no legal standing to issue Penalty Notices for statutory breaches, and the PN should be cancelled as it has been issued unlawfully.

---

6. Bypassing the Correct Enforcement Mechanism

Railway Bylaw 14 provides that any breaches must be enforced through criminal prosecution in a magistrates’ court. APCOA’s attempt to enforce this Penalty Notice through civil procedures, such as an appeal to POPLA, is a clear attempt to bypass the correct legal process.

By offering the opportunity to appeal to POPLA, APCOA is avoiding the scrutiny and higher burden of proof required in a magistrates' court, which further highlights their financial motive in misapplying the enforcement procedure. This clear abuse of the appeals process should not be allowed, and POPLA must order the cancellation of the Penalty Notice.

---

7. Application of POPLA’s Authority Over APCOA’s Procedural Failures

While POPLA does not have jurisdiction over statutory penalties, it does have the authority to ensure that BPA Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) members follow the correct procedures. APCOA, as a member of the BPA, has failed to follow the proper statutory enforcement process by treating this Penalty Notice as if it were a civil Parking Charge Notice.

APCOA’s attempt to corrupt the process for their own financial benefit is an abuse of their role as an operator. I request that POPLA exercise its authority to hold APCOA accountable for this misconduct and order the cancellation of the Penalty Notice.

---

Conclusion

In summary:

1. The Penalty Notice (PN) issued by APCOA under Railway Bylaw 14 is a statutory penalty, and POPLA does not have jurisdiction over it.
2. APCOA has attempted to corrupt the process by using a civil appeal system to improperly profit from statutory penalties that should be paid to the public purse, not to APCOA.
3. APCOA has no legal basis to hold me liable as the Keeper under Railway Bylaw 14.
4. APCOA must provide strict proof of its authority to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Bylaw 14 through a valid contract with the landowner or TOC.
5. APCOA’s misuse of the civil appeals process to avoid the correct statutory enforcement mechanism is a clear procedural failure.
6. I request that POPLA apply its authority over APCOA’s procedural failures and order the cancellation of the Penalty Notice.

For these reasons, I request that POPLA instruct APCOA to cancel the Penalty Notice.

LDast

In addition to the POPLA appeal for these Penalty Notices that are issued, here is a complaint (not an appeal) that should be sent to APCOA which can then be followed up with a complaint to the BPA. Hopefully this will put pressure on both the operator and the BPA to come clean and own up to their abuse of process and the law.

This would be the complaint to APCOA (or any other operator that issued PNs rather than PCNs:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Formal Complaint Regarding Penalty Notice Issued Under Railway Bylaw 14
Penalty Notice Reference: [Your Penalty Notice Number]

I am writing to lodge a formal complaint regarding the Penalty Notice (PN) issued to me by APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd for an alleged breach of Railway Bylaw 14. My complaint concerns both the manner in which this Penalty Notice has been issued and the improper appeals process that APCOA has offered, which appears to be designed to circumvent the correct statutory procedures for financial gain. I request that APCOA investigate this matter and respond as part of your formal complaints procedure so that I may escalate this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) if necessary.

1. Misuse of Appeals Process

The Penalty Notice issued relates to an alleged breach of Railway Bylaw 14, which is a statutory penalty, not a civil matter. Despite this, APCOA has misleadingly offered a civil appeals process through POPLA, a service designed to handle disputes relating to Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) for civil breaches of contract on private land.

Statutory penalties issued under Railway Bylaw 14 must be enforced via criminal prosecution in a magistrates' court, where any fines imposed would go to the public purse. The attempt to channel this Penalty Notice through a civil appeals process is a clear procedural failure that not only misrepresents the legal status of the Penalty Notice but also improperly involves a body (POPLA) with no jurisdiction over statutory matters.

2. APCOA’s Attempt to Profit from Statutory Penalties

I also wish to express my concern regarding what appears to be a deliberate attempt by APCOA to profit from statutory penalties. As you are aware, any fines imposed for breaches of Railway Bylaw 14 must be paid to the public purse, not to APCOA. By offering a civil appeals process, APCOA seeks to sidestep this requirement and benefit financially from payments that should not be theirs to collect.

This misuse of the appeals process demonstrates a corrupt practice that places private profit above statutory enforcement. I find this particularly egregious, as APCOA has no lawful basis to profit from statutory penalties issued under Railway Bylaw 14. Such actions undermine the integrity of the legal framework governing railway land and raise serious questions about APCOA’s adherence to its responsibilities as a member of the BPA.

3. Improper Assumption of Keeper Liability

Railway Bylaw 14 refers to the owner of the vehicle, not the Keeper. The Penalty Notice has been issued to me as the Keeper, with no evidence provided to support APCOA’s assumption that I am also the owner. The V5C registration document, which you may be relying on, explicitly states that it does not prove ownership. APCOA’s decision to pursue the Keeper for a statutory penalty demonstrates a further misunderstanding or misuse of the legal framework.

4. Request for Strict Proof of Authority to Issue Penalty Notices

As part of my complaint, I request that APCOA provide strict proof of its contractual authority to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Bylaw 14. Specifically, I require:

• A copy of the contract between APCOA and the landowner or Train Operating Company (TOC), proving APCOA’s authority to operate at this location.
• Evidence that this contract expressly permits APCOA to issue Penalty Notices (PNs), not just Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), under Railway Bylaw 14.

Without such proof, APCOA has no legal standing to issue Penalty Notices, and this Penalty Notice must be withdrawn.

---

Request for Resolution

In summary, I request the following actions from APCOA:

1. Immediate cancellation of the Penalty Notice based on the procedural failures outlined above.
2. A formal response acknowledging APCOA’s misapplication of the appeals process, as well as any steps taken to address the issues raised.
3. Confirmation of your authority to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Bylaw 14, including contractual evidence of your right to do so.

Should APCOA fail to resolve this complaint to my satisfaction, I will escalate the matter to the British Parking Association (BPA), as I believe APCOA’s actions represent a serious breach of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

I look forward to your prompt response, in line with your formal complaints procedure.

Yours faithfully,

Should they not cancel the PN or fail to respond adequately to the issues raised in the complaint, then a complaint to the BPA can be issued and it will be interesting to see their take on the issue. All this could be used as evidence in any complaint to the complainants MP and, of course, in any subsequent litigation, should it ever get that far (unlikely with APCOA).

Here is a suggested BPA compliant:

British Parking Association (BPA)
AOS Compliance Team
[Email Address for BPA]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Formal Escalation of Complaint Against APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd
APCOA Penalty Notice Reference: [Your Penalty Notice Number]
POPLA Reference: [Your POPLA Reference, if applicable]

I am writing to formally escalate my complaint regarding APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd after exhausting their internal complaints procedure. I believe that APCOA has violated the BPA Code of Practice, acted outside its authority, and failed to follow proper legal procedures regarding the issuance and handling of Penalty Notices (PNs) for alleged breaches of Railway Bylaw 14.

1. Background and Complaint Summary

I received a Penalty Notice (PN) from APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd for an alleged breach of Railway Bylaw 14 at [location] on [date]. I lodged a formal complaint with APCOA on [date], raising several concerns about their handling of the Penalty Notice, which they failed to resolve. APCOA’s response did not address the key issues outlined in my complaint, and as a result, I am escalating the matter to the BPA.

---

2. Key Issues in My Complaint

The core issues I raised with APCOA, which remain unresolved, are as follows:

a. Misuse of Appeals Process and Jurisdictional Error

APCOA incorrectly offered the civil appeals process through POPLA for a statutory Penalty Notice issued under Railway Bylaw 14. Railway Bylaw penalties must be enforced through criminal prosecution in the magistrates’ courts, where any fines imposed are payable to the public purse, not APCOA. APCOA’s use of POPLA to handle a statutory Penalty Notice is a clear violation of the proper enforcement procedure and an attempt to bypass legal requirements for financial gain.

b. Improper Financial Motive

APCOA appears to be improperly profiting from statutory penalties by treating Penalty Notices as though they are civil Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). Under Railway Bylaw 14, fines should go to the public treasury, but by using POPLA, APCOA is seeking payment that would go directly to their own account. This is a corrupt and mendacious misuse of the system, in clear breach of the BPA’s ethical standards and Code of Practice.

c. Improper Assumption of Keeper Liability

APCOA pursued me as the Keeper of the vehicle, despite Railway Bylaw 14 referring to the owner of the vehicle. The V5C registration document, which APCOA relied upon, does not prove ownership. APCOA has provided no evidence to support the assumption that I, as the Keeper, am the owner, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of their enforcement powers under the law.

d. Failure to Provide Contractual Authority

In my complaint, I requested strict proof from APCOA of their contractual authority to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Bylaw 14. APCOA has not provided any evidence that they have been authorised by the landowner or Train Operating Company (TOC) to issue Penalty Notices, nor have they shown that they are empowered to issue statutory penalties, not just civil parking charge notices. This lack of transparency is highly concerning and suggests a further breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

---

3. Request for BPA Investigation and Resolution

I am formally requesting that the BPA investigate APCOA’s handling of this matter in line with its Code of Practice and that appropriate sanctions be applied if APCOA is found to have violated the Code or acted outside its authority. Specifically, I request that the BPA:

1. Investigate APCOA’s misuse of the POPLA appeals process for a statutory Penalty Notice, including whether APCOA is improperly profiting from statutory fines.
2. Review APCOA’s handling of statutory penalties under Railway Bylaw 14 to determine whether they have followed the appropriate legal procedures.
3. Require APCOA to provide evidence of their authority to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Bylaw 14, including a copy of their contract with the landowner or Train Operating Company.
4. Apply sanctions or penalties against APCOA as necessary to ensure compliance with the BPA’s Code of Practice and ethical guidelines.

I have attached copies of my complaint to APCOA, their response, and all related correspondence for your review. I trust the BPA will take appropriate action to investigate this serious matter.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response and a resolution to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Hopefully, this will start to put the necessary pressure on both the operators and the BPA in cases where they are issuing PNs rather than PCNs. It would be interesting to read both APCOAs and the BPAs thinking on this.

Admiral_Allstar

KeithP said:

Did you notice this in APCOA's comments?...

 Parking Policy

APCOA have had a contract in place with South West Railways since 20/09/2018. Please find a copy enclosed. It has been redacted to ensure the privacy of the landowner.  This is currently valid until 19/09/2022.

19/09/2022... are we there yet?   

I did - I beleive it is a typo as the copy of the site agreement / landowner authority states 19th Spetember 2024.