APCOA Penalty Notice

Admiral_Allstar

Castle said:

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

Good point.  The Site agreement / landowner authority states "This agreement extends authority to carry out parking enforcement for breaches of the advertised terns and conditions, and pursuit of unpaid parking charges.  I (the landowner) agree to provide communication regarding any potential legal proceedings and authorise APCOA Parking UK Ltd to fully act on my behalf in accordance with the AOS Code of Practice and legal proceedings".

Castle

Admiral_Allstar said:

Castle said:

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

Good point.  The Site agreement / landowner authority states "This agreement extends authority to carry out parking enforcement for breaches of the advertised terns and conditions, and pursuit of unpaid parking charges.  I (the landowner) agree to provide communication regarding any potential legal proceedings and authorise APCOA Parking UK Ltd to fully act on my behalf in accordance with the AOS Code of Practice and legal proceedings".

So: (1), They have no authority to issue Penalty notices and
(2), Is the landowner really an individual, (rather than a company)?

Admiral_Allstar

LDast said:

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.

Many thanks for your replies. I have used parts of this in my reply to POPLA.

Admiral_Allstar

So we received notification from POPLA on Friday that they have rejected our appeal.  APCOA were quite quick to get the enforcement agents before being told it was going to POPLA so I am unsure how long we have to take any next steps.

I understand that a Penalty Notice times out after 6 months, but am not sure what law states this - can anyone enlighten me?  Also, does the forum have any advice on what to do now?

Many thanks.

Gr1pr

Ignore the Popla decision

Ignore the debt collectors letters 

Let it time out after 6 months 

Sit on your hands until after the 6 months deadline, then keep on sitting on them 

If you ever receive a court claim. ( Extremely unlikely. ) Come back to this thread for guidance 

Admiral_Allstar

Gr1pr said:

Ignore the Popla decision

Ignore the debt collectors letters 

Let it time out after 6 months 

Sit on your hands until after the 6 months deadline, then keep on sitting on them 

If you ever receive a court claim. ( Extremely unlikely. ) Come back to this thread for guidance 

Many thanks.  Do you know what law statute bars a Penalty Notice?

Grizebeck

Admiral_Allstar said:

Gr1pr said:

Ignore the Popla decision

Ignore the debt collectors letters 

Let it time out after 6 months 

Sit on your hands until after the 6 months deadline, then keep on sitting on them 

If you ever receive a court claim. ( Extremely unlikely. ) Come back to this thread for guidance 

Many thanks.  Do you know what law statute bars a Penalty Notice?

Anything that can only be dealt with by a magistrates court is limited to six months

https://search.app?link=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/127#:~:text=(1)Except%20as%20otherwise%20expressly,the%20matter%20of%20complaint%20arose.&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1,sh/x/gs/m2/4

Admiral_Allstar

Grizebeck said:

Admiral_Allstar said:

Gr1pr said:

Ignore the Popla decision

Ignore the debt collectors letters 

Let it time out after 6 months 

Sit on your hands until after the 6 months deadline, then keep on sitting on them 

If you ever receive a court claim. ( Extremely unlikely. ) Come back to this thread for guidance 

Many thanks.  Do you know what law statute bars a Penalty Notice?

Anything that can only be dealt with by a magistrates court is limited to six months

https://search.app?link=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/127#:~:text=(1)Except%20as%20otherwise%20expressly,the%20matter%20of%20complaint%20arose.&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1,sh/x/gs/m2/4

Thank you very much.  Much appreciated.

LDast

You can rest safe in the knowledge that it is not even a real Penalty Notice. It is an "offered contract" dressed up to look like a Penalty Notice. It is, in fact, unlawful because of the language used in it.

APCOA (and SABA) would never try and enforce one of these fake Penalty Notices because a) they can't and b) they would be exposed as fraudulent scammers. Whilst if it were a real Penalty Notice, it would time out after 6 months, this is not a real PN.

Admiral_Allstar

Hi, just an update.  Today we have received a letter dated 30th December 2024 from ZZPS regarding this Penalty Notice.  How do I deal with?  My wife is a carer and is slightly disturbed by the claim of a potential criminal offence on the letter as it would mean her losing her job.