Apcoa - parking on railway car park, over stayed the 20 mins allowed

meishka

Hi I think i've messed up! Tried to follow all the threads re disputing the notice and the appeal has been rejected. This is what I said

I dispute your 'penalty charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement
The car park is a railway asset where byelaws apply, the keeper cannot be held liable under the PoFA 2012
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date
If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

They have rejected it on the grounds as below

At the time the ANPR cameras observed the vehicle they noted that it had used the car park without a valid payment,
therefore it was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of the car park and a Penalty Notice was issued. It is the
motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they read the terms and conditions on the signage in the car park and that they have a
valid payment for the entire time that they use the car park.
In response to your comments, we can confirm that this Penalty Notice was not issued under the conditions laid out in the
Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.
Please note, this is a Penalty Notice issued on Railway land as a breach of the terms and conditions of parking has
occurred, and you have confirmed to us that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and therefore you are
liable for this Notice.
The Railways byelaws state:
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.

Where do I go from here? Did I do wrong by calling it a Penalty Charge and not notice?

Shall I appeal to POPLA?

Gr1pr

Its either a Penalty Charge, PN , or a Parking Charge Notice, PCN , your wording was irrelevant 

There is no going wrong, apart from if the driver was outed. !

Apcoa have rejected it so study other APCOA popla appeals and appeal to Popla, but near the deadline 

Your aim is to string this out past the 6 months deadline 

No blabbing about who was driving , there is no keeper liability on railway land 

Its a game, so play to the final whistle, don't be concerned in what they say, we won't be 

LDast

Whilst APCOA claim it is a "Penalty Notice", it is nothing of the sort. It is an "offered contract" fraudulently disguised as a Penalty Notice.

APCOA’s Penalty Notice is nothing more than a fraudulent attempt to extract money from recipients. If it were genuine, it would clearly state the authority (e.g. Train Operating Company or National Rail) under which APCOA is empowered to issue it. Instead, this 'offered contract' is a venal attempt to solicit payment to avoid supposed prosecution—a prosecution APCOA has no authority to pursue in the magistrates’ court. Any legitimate penalty would be payable directly to the appropriate authority, with any fines directed to the public purse, not APCOA’s pockets.

Personally, I wouldn't even bother responding apart from reporting them to Action Fraud. They will never, ever prosecute this in the magistrates court as their fraud would be exposed. I have never seen any prosecution of a Penalty Notice issued by APCOA in the magistrates court, irrespective of the 6 month statute of limitations. If anyone has, please show us here.

A bylaw penalty cannot be tried as a civil contract dispute in the county court. APCOA will never attempt to do so as that would also expose their unlawful scam. Hence, why APCOA are not "litigious" and rely on the gullibility of the recipients of their fake Penalty Notices to bribe them.

POPLAs involvement is complicit in the fraud. They have no authority to adjudicate on a Penalty Notice issued under bylaws. Even if APCOA did have the authority to issue real Penalty Notices, any appeal to them, if rejected and the recipient wanted to dispute it, it would then have to be disputed in the magistrates court and if the recipient lost, the penalty would have to be paid directly to the authority who is responsible for enforcing the bylaws and any additional fine would be paid to the public purse, not APCOA.

By issuing a fraudulent PN, APCOA are committing a criminal offence. They are using language in the fake PN that would never be allowed in a PCN or any other form of contract under civil law. Use of words such as "criminal", "penalty", "fines" and so on, they are trying to intimidate the recipient into paying the "penalty" directly to APCOAs own coffers. In other words, they are trying to coerce the recipient into bribing them.

I have now managed to get this looked into by an investigative reporter for a major national broadsheet.

meishka

Thank you Ldast for that detailed explanation

KeithP

In response to your comments, we can confirm that this Penalty Notice was not issued under the conditions laid out in the
Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

Those words in their reply state that they are not trying to use POFA to transfer any driver's liability to the Registered Keeper.

...you have confirmed to us that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and therefore you are liable for this Notice.
The Railways byelaws state:
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.

Whatever the Railway Byelaws may say, there is nothing anywhere that states that a Registered Keeper is the owner of a vehicle.

In fact, the front page of my vehicle's Registration Document(V5c) states the opposite quite clearly...

Coupon-mad

Just let it time out. 6 months and it dies out.

meishka

Well Popla have rejected my appeal as below. I have 7 days to submit a reponse. What sort of response do you think I should put or do I ignore now?

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 15/09/2024 at 15:38 and exited at 16:24 that day, remailing on site for 46 minutes, having parked without a valid parking session or RingGo session as instructed. The appellant appealed to APCOA denying liability and refusing to name the driver. The appeal to APCOA was rejected as: a) This is a Penalty Notice issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. 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 46 minutes, a payment to park should have been made or exemption obtained. e) Terms and conditions of parking on site state: f) 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 valid payment made for this vehicle to be parked on site on the date in question. g) As no payment had been made to park, and the appellant had listed no other points in their appeal, their appeal was rejected. h) 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 has cited POFA 2012. This is a Penalty Notice issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. As such, it has not been issued under the conditions laid out in POFA 2012. The relevant Landowner authority can be viewed in Section F of this pack. 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.

Gr1pr

Ignore it and let it time out after 6 months  ( EDIT ,   or respond using what Ldast has given you below first. )

Any response is that you have no keeper liability 

POPLA dont appear to understand the issues, as reported in other railway threads on here 

LDast

Please show us this:

The relevant Landowner authority can be viewed in Section F of this pack.

If they have provided a copy of the actual contract that specifically states that they are "authorised" to issue "Penalty Notices" on behalf of the actual "authority", the Train Operating Company (TOC), Southwest Trains, I will eat my hat.

I suspect they have done usual ruse which is to provide a simple signed (unverifiable) statement that they have authority to operate at the station. I would bet money on the fact that any actual contract between APCOA and Southwest Trains does not specifically give them the right to issue PNs, only PCNs.

So, please show us this "landowner authority" they have provided in Section F of their operator response pack.

meishka

In section F theres just a lot of photos of the signage etc so dont think thats it but will post that if you need? In section G there is this but it doesnt copy and paste very well, not sure I can attach as a pdf??

Section G • Other evidence Site Agreement / Landowner’s Authority Landowner Agreement Purpose Where a Parking Operator is to manage parking on privately owned Land, it is important that the Parking Operator and the Landowner are both clear about the approach the Parking Operator intends to take, the Conditions of Parking they will apply, the regulatory constraints within which they are working, and the respective responsibilities of the Landowner and the Parking Operator in respect of the management of the Land. Hence, the purpose of this document is: a) to confirm that the Landowner has appointed the Parking Operator to manage the Land. b) to confirm that the Landowner has been informed and has properly considered the issues relating to management of the Land when appointing the Parking Operator including all Conditions of Parking (e.g. restrictions, parking tariffs and parking charges, and exemptions) to be applied by the Parking Operator to third parties in managing the land c) to confirm the identity of the Landowner d) to confirm that the Landowner has been provided with a copy of The Code and is aware of the obligations of all parties under The Code; and e) to confirm that all provisions relating to the Conditions of Parking (including restrictions, parking tariffs and parking charges, and exemptions) to be applied by the Parking Operator to third parties in managing the Land are complete and accurately and consistently cover the Parking Operator’s duties under the contract under which the Parking Operator is to manage the Land. This document is not intended to create any new legal relationship between the Landowner and the Parking Operator outside the contract under which the Parking Operator is to manage the Land. This document may be disclosed on request (e.g. from those appealing against a notice of parking charge) and will form part of the checks undertaken by the conformity assessment body when accrediting the Parking Operator. Landowners may wish to reserve the right to approve release. Definitions “Land” means “Landowner” means “Parking Operator” means “The Accredited Parking Association” or “APA” means Address: Brockenhurst station Station Approach Brockenhurst Hampshire SO42 7TW Telephone: 0345 222 4224 Site Map – See Annex A below. Name: South Western Railway The Landowner is deemed so if they are the legal occupier of the Land. Name: APCOA Parking (UK) Limited Address: Wellington House. 4-10 Cowley Road. Uxbridge. Middlesex. UB8 2XW Telephone: 01895 272500 British Parking Association’s APA or Accredited Approved Trade Association (ATA) Operator Scheme. Whichever is prevailing. “The Code” means The Code of Practice made by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up and Housing Communities in accordance with the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 (which can be viewed at Private Parking Code of Practice - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) or the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice (which can be viewed at AOS Code of Practice January).Whichever is prevailing. “The Conditions of Parking” means Appointment of the Operator The parking terms, conditions and restrictions set out for the Land as indicated by the signs located throughout the car park. In accordance with The Code, South Western Railway can confirm that the Parking Operator has been appointed to manage the Land included in this agreement, in accordance with the Conditions of Parking as detailed in Annex A below. I, South Western Railway that I understand the Parking Operator is required to act in accordance with The Code when managing the Land and attest that I have been provided with a copy of the most recent version of The Code. I, South Western Railway understand that the Parking Operator is the creditor for all notices of parking charge issued and has discretion about how they are enforced, including proceeding cases through the County Court. In consideration of the above, I, South Western Railway have directed the Parking Operator to manage the Land, and can confirm that I have considered with the Parking Operator: • The needs of the users of the Land. • The hours/days on which the Land may be occupied. • The obligation of the Operator to apply consideration and grace periods in accordance with The Code. • That the Parking Operator is working, in compliance with The Code and is a member of an Accredited Parking Association. • The Condition of Parking that are to be applied by the parking Operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers. • Arrangements and exemptions for loading/unloading and deliveries. • Any reputational issues that may arise for the Landowner. • The means by which the relevant obligations are to be applied by the Operator. For example, the use of cameras. • The Equality Act 2010, including arrangements for drivers with disabilities and whether any concessions apply, including extended dwell times. • The requirements of the Accredited Parking Association to which the Parking Operator belongs. • The statutory obligations applying to the Parking Operator. • The responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs • That the Parking Operator may be required to supply a copy of this agreement on request to authorised bodies so that the relationship with the Landowner can be detailed. • The Landowner’s expected involvement and responsibilities e.g. for building maintenance, lighting, information signs, seeking planning consent for signs, and the size and spacing of parking bays. • The Parking Operator’s approach to the handling of appeals to notices of parking charges including site specific appeals criteria to be applied by the Parking Operator. APCOA Parking (UK) Limited is appointed to manage the Land from April 2018 until August 2024. Annex A Land: Brockenhurst station Station Approach Brockenhurst Hampshire SO42 7TW The conditions of Parking: Penalty Notice Amount: £ 85.00 Reduced to £50.00 if paid within 14 days of issue. Days/Hours of Enforcement: Method of Enforcement: 24 hours a day / 7 days a week x Automatic Number Plate Recognition - ANPR Mobile CCTV Enforcement Self - Ticketing x Parking Attendant x Penalty Byelaws Consideration/Grace Period: Consideration Period N/A Grace Period 20 minutes Responsibilities: Installation and maintenance of: signage: Landowner x Parking Operator Surface markings and bay size: x Landowner Parking Operator Lighting: x Landowner Parking Operator CCTV: x Landowner Parking Operator ANPR cameras or associated technology: x Landowner Parking Operator Planning Consent for Signs: x Landowner Parking Operator Site-specific appeals criteria to be applied by the Parking Operator: Sharing Landowner details: Can Landowner/occupiers’ details be provided to motorists who request them? x Yes No Sharing Agreement: Can this agreement to be released to motorists who request sight of it? x Yes No Additional Information: TARIFFS: Off-peak ticket: £4.30 PerHour ticket: £1.40 Peak ticket: £8.60 Weekly ticket: £34.30 Monthly ticket: £121.10 Quarterly ticket: £363.30 Semi Annual ticket: N/A Annual ticket: £1,211.00 RingGo Code 2016 Staff & Contractors must register on Portal which is run by SWR - register.anpr@swrailway.com

LDast

I would also suggest you copy and paste this into the POPLA webform for your response to the operators evidence pack:

1. Lack of Explicit Authority to Issue a Penalty Notice:

While APCOA cites Railway Byelaws in their Penalty Notice (PN), they fail to clarify whether they have been explicitly authorised by the Train Operating Company (TOC)—the statutory body responsible for enforcement under Railway Byelaws—to issue such a notice. A genuine Penalty Notice issued under Railway Byelaws must come from the appropriate prosecuting authority, typically the TOC. APCOA has not demonstrated, either in the PN or their evidence pack, that they have been delegated the authority to issue Penalty Notices as an agent of the TOC.

This omission renders the PN invalid because a private parking company cannot issue a statutory penalty without explicit and documented authority from the body empowered to enforce Railway Byelaws.

2. Unlawful Misrepresentation of Legal Authority:

The Penalty Notice mimics the format and language of a statutory penalty but is issued by an unregulated private parking company. This creates the impression of statutory authority where none exists.

Without clear evidence of delegation from the TOC, APCOA’s use of statutory language and references to criminal prosecution constitutes a misrepresentation of their legal powers. This breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which prohibit misleading practices that give a false impression of legal rights or obligations.

3. Clarification of Department for Transport (DfT) Guidance on Railway Byelaws:

The Department for Transport (DfT) has explicitly clarified that enforcement under Railway Byelaw 14(4)(i) (charges for parking contraventions) is distinct from prosecutorial powers under Byelaw 24(1), which are reserved for criminal matters. The DfT states:

“The ability to render a charge under Byelaw 14(4)(i) is distinct from the general enforcement power in Byelaw 24(1), under which a person can be prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court.”

This guidance makes it clear that parking-related contraventions should not be prosecuted as criminal offences under Byelaw 24(1). Instead, parking contraventions on railway land are to be addressed through civil enforcement mechanisms, such as a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which operates under civil contract law.

Importantly, parking offences on land under statutory control have been decriminalised for many years, and the DfT's position reflects this distinction. The DfT’s guidance indicates that Railway Byelaw 24(1)—designed for criminal matters such as fare evasion or trespass—should not be applied to parking breaches.

APCOA, as a private and unregulated parking company, lacks the statutory authority to issue Penalty Notices (PNs) that suggest criminal liability under Byelaw 24(1). If parking contraventions are to be enforced at all, they must be dealt with under civil contract law via a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). APCOA’s Penalty Notice fails to meet this standard because a) it purports to impose statutory liability for a parking contravention but lacks the necessary prosecutorial authority and b) it conflates civil and criminal liabilities, misleadingly implying that a failure to pay may result in criminal prosecution, which is not supported by statutory law.

The Penalty Notice issued by APCOA is therefore invalid because it attempts to use statutory legal mechanisms for an offence that has long been decriminalised, contravening both DfT guidance and established enforcement practices.

4. APCOA’s Failure to Provide Evidence of Delegation:

APCOA refers to "landowner authority" in their statement but provides no evidence that the TOC has explicitly authorised them to issue Penalty Notices, rather than Parking Charge Notices in their name. If APCOA is acting on behalf of the TOC, they are required to provide unambiguous evidence of this authority in the Penalty Notice itself. The absence of such evidence suggests that the Penalty Notice is not issued under valid statutory authority, but rather as an "offered contract" under civil law—yet it is framed in misleading statutory terms. In other words, it is a suggestion that the recipient bribe APCOA to the tune of £100 or face a criminal prosecution, which they are unable to actually do.

5. Invalid Format and Nature of the Penalty Notice:

As the appellant believes that the fake Penalty Notice is indeed an "offered contract," it cannot compel the recipient to pay or impose criminal liability. The format and language used, however, falsely imply that non-payment may lead to criminal prosecution, which is both misleading and unlawful.

Conversely, if the Penalty Notice is not fake and is issued under Railway Byelaws, it must clearly establish the statutory basis for the penalty, including the name and authority of the issuing body within the notice itself. APCOA has failed to meet this requirement.

Conclusion:

The Penalty Notice issued by APCOA is invalid and unenforceable for the following reasons:

i. APCOA has not demonstrated that they have the requisite authority from the Train Operating Company to issue statutory Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaws.

ii. The Penalty Notice unlawfully conflates civil and criminal liabilities, misleading recipients into believing they are subject to criminal prosecution.

iii. Department for Transport guidance makes it clear that breaches of Railway Byelaws in relation to parking should not be addressed through authorised prosecution but as civil Parking Charge Notices (PCN) issued under civil contract law. The Penalty Notice fails to meet either standard.

iv. APCOA’s evidence pack does not provide proof of landowner (TOC) delegation that authorises them to issue Penalty Notices on railway land. They are put to strict proof of the actual wording of the contract with the TOC.

v. POPLA, whilst having no actual authority to adjudicate on a statutory penalty matter, is therefore requested to uphold this appeal and order APCOA to cancel the fake Penalty Notice. Allowing such notices to stand would set a dangerous precedent for the misuse of statutory language by private parking operators and puts POPLA and the BPA under scrutiny for their complicity in this matter.