Recent Penalty notice from APCOA Station car park

Gr1pr

As above, but the proposed appeal above seems ok to me , I wouldn't elaborate or add anything else 

Only you know the date on the postal PN , so its easy to count 26 days from that date for the appeal submission date 

LDast

If they don't cancel the Penalty Notice and issue you a POPLA code, here is a suggested POPLA appeal that should make them squirm. As with any PN, timing it out is the other aim, so making the POPLA appeal on the 32nd day from the appeal rejection date:

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

I also suggest that the following complaint (not an appeal and separate from the appeal) at some stage late in the process as it will further delay anything being processed (not that APCOA ever actually litigate):

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,

Umkomaas

@LDast - I like both above. 👆👆

1505grandad

Should complaints be sent to DVLA re data obtained under KADOE  -  under what reasonable cause?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/kadoe_service_contract_informati/response/1683411/attach/4/FOIR8718 annex 1.pdf

For the Provision of Vehicle Keeper Data using the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) Service 

""B2. Purpose For Which Data Is Provided

B2.1. The DVLA shall provide each requested item of Data to the Customer

via the KADOE Service for the Reasonable Cause of enabling the Customer to:

a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the ATA

Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 of the

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (as amended) (where the vehicle was

parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date);"

Castle

1505grandad said:

Should complaints be sent to DVLA re data obtained under KADOE  -  under what reasonable cause?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/kadoe_service_contract_informati/response/1683411/attach/4/FOIR8718 annex 1.pdf

For the Provision of Vehicle Keeper Data using the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) Service 

""B2. Purpose For Which Data Is Provided

Yes; they can't use KADOE for Penalty Notices and they can only use the RK's details once.

Money_man123

Thanks for all your amazing advise. Ive got loads to play on now and will definatly use said templates and string this out. Question, If the initial appeal is rejected by APCOA and i then proceed 30 days later with POPLA appeal. What happens if POPLA reject my appeal ? surly that is the end and i cant go on appealing and I either have to pay the full penalty of £85 or ask them to take me to court ? how does this move to a six month time out ?

Gr1pr

You would slowly reply with question after question to any debt collectors letters etc, or IGNORE the debt collectors letters past the 6 months deadline from the penalty notice incident date 

Penalty notices should be dealt with by the TOC at magistrates court, not by APCOA in Civil Court, so its a game of chicken, but it will inevitably time out if you fail both appeals 

There are a few TOC,s that issue penalties and enforce them, it was on the news recently regarding the unfair and flawed prosecutions, but any of them using APCOA or NCP etc are not following that route 

Umkomaas

If POPLA reject your appeal, you ignore it, you do not pay APCOA (no one does here).  The POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant. You just ride through the silly debt collector letters that likely follow. Highly unlikely that you receive anything further direct from APCOA. Then, at the 6 month expiry point, write to APCOA, and tell them to 'go forth and multiply'!

Coupon-mad

You just ignore them for the final weeks.