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.