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

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?

I see QDR has carefully avoided threatening court but isn't 'we require that payment is made' a misleading action?

Edit: as stated in a reply below:

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.

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!!

meishka

doubledotcom said:

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,

Thanks, I will report, will update if I hear back!

meishka

So I did get a reply back. I don't agree with it but don't feel I can go any further!

Thank you for your email requesting a review of the decision sent to you on 4 September 2025.

I have reviewed the information you provided, and do not consider that reassessment of the concerns raised is necessary.

Reason for the Decision

I understand that your concerns relate to the firm appearing to blur the lines between a criminal offence and a civil dispute. You were initially issued a Penalty Charge Notice by APCOA Parking, which stated that you had parked on private land without payment. As the car park is situated on railway assets, you were informed that this also constituted a breach of the Railway Byelaws.

QDR contacted you on behalf of its client to settle the outstanding balance and explained that, if the balance remained unpaid, it may recommend that the car park operator consider enforcement through criminal court proceedings. You have raised the defence that such proceedings cannot be pursued as a summary offence in the magistrates’ court due to the six-month time limit having passed.

QDR did not explicitly state that it would be taking legal action against you. The letter suggests that, if no resolution is reached between you and QDR Solicitors, the matter would be referred back to the Car Park operator to determine next steps. The letter does not constitute a “letter before action” and clearly states that QDR’s position is a recommendation.

The main dispute appears to be with APCOA Parking and ZZPZ, neither of which are regulated by the SRA.

doubledotcom

Yet more fobbing off. I’d send the following response:

Subject: Second request for reassessment – QDR Solicitors’ debt-recovery letters re time-expired Railway Byelaws Penalty Notice
SRA reference: [add]
Complainant: [add]
Firm: QDR Solicitors Limited

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your review response dated [insert date]. I request a further reassessment because the decision rests on factual and regulatory misunderstandings and does not engage with the specific Codes and guidance cited.

1) Factual errors going to the heart of the assessment

a) The document issued on railway land is a Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws, not a “Penalty Charge Notice” for private land. Your letter conflates a byelaw PN with a civil PCN. That error underpins the conclusion that this is merely a “civil dispute”.

b) The six-month limitation in s.127 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 expired on 15 March 2025. Post-expiry, no summary prosecution can lawfully be instituted. QDR’s letters were sent after expiry.

c) Your letter states the site operator is “APCOA Parking” and the client instructing QDR is ZZPS. ZZPS is a third-party debt chaser with no prosecutorial standing and no privity in any alleged byelaw liability. (Your letter also mis-spells ZZPS as “ZZPZ”.)

2) Mischaracterising a time-expired byelaw PN as a recoverable ‘civil balance’

QDR’s letters demand “payment of the balance” and present the sum as a recoverable debt while articulating no civil cause of action. That is capable of misleading a reasonable recipient as to the existence, nature and enforceability of any liability once prosecution is time-barred. This directly engages:

• Code para 1.2 (do not take unfair advantage),

• Code para 1.4 (do not mislead),

• Code para 2.4 (only make assertions which are properly arguable), and

• the SRA’s Conduct in Disputes guidance (do not threaten or imply proceedings where there is no proper basis; avoid oppressive debt collection of unenforceable sums).

Your response does not grapple with this point. Whether QDR said it would sue is beside the point: the use of a solicitor’s letterhead to press for payment of a non-existent civil debt is itself misleading. This also engages Principle 2 (public trust and confidence) and Principle 5 (integrity).

3) “Recommendation” of criminal proceedings does not cure the problem

Stating that QDR would “recommend” criminal proceedings to the operator, while knowing that no prosecution can now lawfully be brought, is still a threat or implication of litigation without a proper basis within the meaning of the Conduct in Disputes guidance. A client’s subjective “belief” cannot satisfy Code 2.4 where there is no properly arguable legal route.

4) Regulated status is not determinative

Your letter suggests the “main dispute appears to be with APCOA and ZZPS”, who are not SRA-regulated. The complaint is about QDR’s own conduct—a regulated firm—issuing letters that (i) misstate the legal position, (ii) press for payment of an unenforceable sum, and (iii) imply recourse to proceedings that cannot lawfully be taken. The SRA regulates solicitors’ conduct, regardless of whether their client is regulated.

What I ask the SRA to do

a) Reopen the assessment and consider whether QDR’s correspondence is misleading and/or threatens or implies proceedings without a proper basis, contrary to Code paras 1.2, 1.4, 2.4, Principles 2 and 5, and the Conduct in Disputes guidance.

b) If you decline to investigate, please state the SRA’s position explicitly on this point:
Is it acceptable for a solicitor to demand payment of a time-expired Railway Byelaws Penalty Notice as a civil “balance” while identifying no civil cause of action, and to suggest criminal proceedings after the s.127 MCA 1980time limit has elapsed?

I look forward to a reasoned response addressing these specific regulatory provisions and the factual corrections above.

Yours faithfully,