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

doubledotcom

Since ZZPS is not a prosecuting authority, and APCOA cannot prosecute directly, this letter constitutes a breach of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct as it implies greater legal power than actually exists.

If they were at all competent, they should be fully aware that the deadline expired 15th March 2025, meaning prosecution is now time-barred. QDR are knowingly participating in the misrepresentation of a civil debt when no enforceable debt exists, so you should file a complaint to the SRA.

The SRA is primarily concerned with whether solicitors and law firms are acting in a way that upholds the SRA Principles and complies with their Codes of Conduct. While the SRA does not mediate private disputes, it is interested in patterns of conduct where:

• A solicitor misleads consumers or abuses their legal position,

• A solicitor acts in a way that diminishes public trust in the profession, or

• A solicitor is involved in the unlawful or unethical pursuit of a debt.

In this case, QDR Solicitors are in breach of these expectations on the following grounds:

1. Misleading or False Representations

QDR are demanding civil payment in relation to a Penalty Notice issued under Railway Byelaws, long after the 6-month prosecution deadline under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 has expired. Unless APCOA has secured a conviction and fine via a magistrates’ court — which they have not — there is no enforceable debt.

Presenting this criminal matter as if it gives rise to a civil liability is misleading, particularly when the correspondence is sent on solicitor-headed paper, which may cause a lay recipient to wrongly believe that legal proceedings are possible or imminent.

While QDR have not yet explicitly threatened legal action, and therefore have not crossed the threshold of issuing a misleading Letter Before Claim, the SRA has previously expressed concern over solicitors participating in debt recovery practices that misrepresent the legal position — including using their status to pressure consumers in cases where no cause of action exists.

2. Improper Use of Legal Process for Intimidation

SRA Principle 2 – “act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession”

Using the perceived authority of a solicitor’s letterhead to pressurise a consumer into paying a demand which is not legally enforceable can amount to an abuse of process.

In particular, acting on behalf of a debt collection agency (ZZPS) — who themselves are not a party to any statutory enforcement process — makes QDR’s involvement especially questionable.

3. Breach of SRA Guidelines on Unenforceable Debts

In 2018, the SRA reminded solicitors that:

"Where solicitors are instructed to pursue debts, they should take care not to mislead or apply undue pressure, especially where there is no real prospect of legal action being taken."

This applies to unenforceable or statute-barred claims, which is precisely this situation.

You would not report to the SRA merely because you disagree with QDR. But the core of the complaint is that:

• QDR Solicitors are knowingly demanding civil payment for a criminal matter that is time-barred from prosecution,

• They are misleadingly presenting this as a civil “debt”,

• They are acting on behalf of a third party (ZZPS) with no legal standing,

Therefore this meets the threshold for regulatory concern about conduct likely to undermine public trust in the profession.

Go for it.

meishka

Thank you so much, very interesting and consise, I had no idea.  I will def report it! 

Coupon-mad

Yes please do. Nothing to lose.

Please use the exact words by @doubledotcom and upload to the SRA a copy of the original PN (both sides) and that misleading letter which is way past the limitation deadline and is trying to extract a statute barred PN by pretending it is a PCN.

meishka

Disappointed to receive this today from SRA

Following our assessment, we do not consider that QDR Solicitors has breached our Standards and Regulations.

We understand that QDR Solicitors is acting on behalf of ZZPS, a debt recovery
agent, in relation to a penalty notice issued by APCOA. While the original notice may
have been issued under criminal legislation, the correspondence from QDR appears
to relate to a civil claim for payment, which their client believes is owed.
Solicitors are permitted to act on behalf of clients in pursuing debts they believe to be
valid. The enforceability of such debts is a legal matter and not one the SRA can
adjudicate on. If the debt is disputed, the appropriate forum for resolution is the court.
The court will determine whether the claim is legally enforceable and whether any
procedural or statutory limitations apply.
We have reviewed the tone and content of the correspondence and do not consider
that it constitutes a breach of our Standards and Regulations. While solicitor-headed
letters may carry authority, their use in debt recovery is not prohibited, provided the
content is not misleading or threatening.
We have not seen evidence that QDR Solicitors has acted dishonestly,
misrepresented the legal position, or breached our rules.

QDR have stopped sending those letters though!

Coupon-mad

meishka said:

Disappointed to receive this today from SRA

Following our assessment, we do not consider that QDR Solicitors has breached our Standards and Regulations.

We understand that QDR Solicitors is acting on behalf of ZZPS, a debt recovery
agent, in relation to a penalty notice issued by APCOA. While the original notice may
have been issued under criminal legislation, the correspondence from QDR appears
to relate to a civil claim for payment, which their client believes is owed.
Solicitors are permitted to act on behalf of clients in pursuing debts they believe to be
valid. The enforceability of such debts is a legal matter and not one the SRA can
adjudicate on. If the debt is disputed, the appropriate forum for resolution is the court.
The court will determine whether the claim is legally enforceable and whether any
procedural or statutory limitations apply.
We have reviewed the tone and content of the correspondence and do not consider
that it constitutes a breach of our Standards and Regulations. While solicitor-headed
letters may carry authority, their use in debt recovery is not prohibited, provided the
content is not misleading or threatening.
We have not seen evidence that QDR Solicitors has acted dishonestly,
misrepresented the legal position, or breached our rules.

QDR have stopped sending those letters though!

How can the SRA think it's OK to chase statute barred penalties and reinvent them as PCNs?!

doubledotcom

I would press back at that fob-off response from the SRA:

Request for review – QDR Solicitors’ debt-recovery letters re time-expired Railway Byelaws Penalty Notice

SRA reference: [add if you have one]
Complainant: [your name]
Firm complained of: QDR Solicitors Limited

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your outcome letter. I respectfully request a review because material points appear to have been overlooked and, with respect, the conclusion is inconsistent with the SRA Principles, Codes of Conduct, and your Conduct in Disputes guidance.

1. Misleading as to the existence and nature of any liability

The Penalty Notice (PN) was issued under the Railway Byelaws. Liability to pay a “penalty” under those byelaws arises only upon summary conviction in the magistrates’ court. Separately, section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 imposes a six-month time limit to institute prosecutions; that period expired on 15 March 2025. There is no conviction and no criminal fine payable.

Despite this, QDR’s letters demand “payment of the balance” as if a civil debt exists. No civil cause of action is identified. Presenting a criminal PN (now time-barred from prosecution) as a civil “debt” capable of recovery risks misleading a reasonable recipient about both status and enforceability. This engages Code paragraphs 1.2 (do not take unfair advantage), 1.4 (do not mislead), and 2.4 (only make assertions which are properly arguable). Your Conduct in Disputes guidance also flags threatening or implying litigation where there is no proper legal basis as unacceptable.

2. Threatening or implying litigation where there is no proper basis

Your letter records that the correspondence “appears to relate to a civil claim for payment, which their client believes is owed”. Respectfully, a client’s belief is insufficient for regulatory purposes. The test is whether there is a properly arguable legal basis to characterise a time-expired, byelaw-based PN as a civil debt. QDR’s letters do not articulate any such basis, and none is apparent. Your guidance on debt recovery warns against unjustified claims and oppressive practices, particularly attempts to pursue unenforceable sums.

3. Use of solicitor letterhead to pressurise payment

Using a solicitor’s letterhead to pursue payment of a sum that is neither a criminal fine (no conviction) nor a recognised civil debt creates a real risk of misleading by implication. This undermines public trust and engages SRA Principles 2 (public trust and confidence) and 5 (integrity).

4. Acting on behalf of a third party with no standing in the alleged liability

QDR act for ZZPS, a debt collection agent that is not a prosecuting authority and is not a party to any byelaw-based liability. The involvement of a third party with no standing heightens the risk that the correspondence misrepresents the legal position. Solicitors should satisfy themselves that there is a proper legal foundation for demands they advance.

Evidence enclosed

1. Copy PN and relevant signage extracts showing reliance on Railway Byelaws.

2. Timeline confirming expiry of the six-month prosecution period on 15 March 2025.

3. Copies of QDR/ZZPS letters highlighting characterisation of a “balance due” and the omission of any civil cause of action.

4. My original complaint and your outcome letter.

What I ask the SRA to do

a) Reopen the assessment and consider whether QDR’s letters are misleading and/or threaten or imply proceedings without a proper basis, contrary to Code paragraphs 1.2, 1.4 and 2.4 and the Conduct in Disputes guidance.
b) If you remain minded not to investigate, please state the SRA’s position explicitly on whether it is acceptable for solicitors to demand payment of time-expired Railway Byelaw PNs as civil debts without articulating any civil cause of action.

Yours faithfully,

meishka

Thats brilliant! However they do say this too. Also seems a bit unfair!

 Under our rules, you do not have the right to appeal or review this decision.

1505grandad

Perhaps get your MP involved as well  -  perhaps they may contact the Justice Secretary!!