APOCA Station Parking Ticket

jackfrost1

Hi All,

A windscreen ticket was recently issued to a car for which I am the keeper in a APCOA managed railway station car park.

Having some experience with these, I waited for the NTK to arrive in the post and appealed it at the last possible date - with the aim of getting to 6 months. I used the blue text as keeper from the stickie.

On the previous occasion, this was enough for APCOA to cancel the ticket. This time around they have not upheld the appeal stating, "APOCA Parking (UK) operates as an AOS approved operator, in accordance with the BPA code of practice. When parking on Railway land, the onus rests with the motorist to accept and to comply with the Railway Byelaws and the displayed Terms and Conditions of Parking".

The letter then gives two options:-

1. Pay the fine
2. Appeal to POPLA

As I understood it, there is no POPLA process available for Railway car park fines - is that still correct? If so then this is a blind alleyway.

The use of motorist in the text above seems ambiguous to me - designed to create confusion between driver and keeper. Is that the case? As keeper, there is no way I can be held responsible for this ticket is there?

Finally, is the best course of action to keep stringing this out until 6 months has elapsed? If so, what should be my next move?

Grateful for any guidance you can provide - thanks in advance.

Gr1pr

Confusion is the name of the game, but you haven't told us what the postal notice was, Penalty or Parking 

POPLA is available for either, but you should read other recent railway cases for both, especially the Popla appeal cases and the replies by Ldast, coupon mad etc 

That doesn't mean that the Popla appeal would work, especially with any penalties 

The 6 months applies to penalties, not parking charge Notices 

You need to be word specific when there are differences, especially with railway, airport and port cases

jackfrost1

Gr1pr said:

Confusion is the name of the game, but you haven't told us what the postal notice was, Penalty or Parking 

POPLA is available for either, but you should read other recent railway cases for both, especially the Popla appeal cases and the replies by Ldast, coupon mad etc 

That doesn't mean that the Popla appeal would work, especially with any penalties 

The 6 months applies to penalties, not parking charge Notices 

You need to be word specific when there are differences, especially with railway, airport and port cases

I’m sorry for not being specific - it is a Penalty Notice.

Gr1pr

jackfrost1 said:

Gr1pr said:

Confusion is the name of the game, but you haven't told us what the postal notice was, Penalty or Parking 

POPLA is available for either, but you should read other recent railway cases for both, especially the Popla appeal cases and the replies by Ldast, coupon mad etc 

That doesn't mean that the Popla appeal would work, especially with any penalties 

The 6 months applies to penalties, not parking charge Notices 

You need to be word specific when there are differences, especially with railway, airport and port cases

I’m sorry for not being specific - it is a Penalty Notice.

Which times out after 6 months, regardless of Popla decisions 

Read the long post by Ldast about it recently 

jackfrost1

Ok thank you - I will wait for the 30 days or so since the appeal to Apcoa was rejected and then issue the POPLA appeal - all with the goal of kicking the can down the road until 6 months have elapsed.

Coupon-mad

jackfrost1 said:

Ok thank you - I will wait for the 30 days or so since the appeal to Apcoa was rejected and then issue the POPLA appeal - all with the goal of kicking the can down the road until 6 months have elapsed.

There's also a possible winning POPLA point to include.  State that you do not believe that APCOA have authority from the Train Operator to issue Penalty Notices, and should have issued a Parking Charge Notice because they only have the authority for that.

jackfrost1

Hi All,

Quick update - I believe today marks the day when any claim against the driver in this case becomes invalid due to the six month limit on byelaw cases.

The POPLA appeal was submitted some time ago but have not heard anything back since I received the message that the case was being considered. If the goal was to get this over the six month limit then I guess mission achieved.

Hope someone else finds this useful

Umkomaas

You could write to APCOA with a FRO, 'Statute of Limitations now apply' message!  Well done on spinning this out.

LDast

Only you know. It is 6 months from the date of the alleged contravention.

However, as it was never a real Penalty Notice but rather an unlawful offered contract, the 6 months is irrelevant and you could still get the likes of the utterly incompetent Moorside Legal trying to threaten you with a claim under the civil process. Doesn't really matter as an APCOA fake PN could never be prosecuted under statutory criminal law and neither can an unlawful offered contract be sued in the county court.

As fr POPLA, if they were really able to adjudicate on a Penalty Notice issued under byelaws, they would have use the criminal standard of proof which is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and not their usual 'balance of probability'. As they are not really able to make these kinds of decisions, it is completely irrelevant what POPLA think.

Get your own back by submitting a formal complaint to the DVLA and show us their response when it arrives. It will probably need escalating to a level 2 response but the point is to have these all recorded as complaints for the record.

Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:

• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints

• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received”

• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details

• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note

• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence

That’s it.

The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.

For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:

I am submitting a formal complaint against APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd, an IPC AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.

While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.

The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.

I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.

Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP

Operator name: APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd
Date of PN issue: [INSERT DATE]
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]

I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by APCOA, who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.

Although APCOA may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they have used that data afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the framework that regulates how parking companies must behave once they have received keeper data from the DVLA.

The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used to pursue an unpaid parking charge in line with the Code of Practice. If a parking company fails to comply with the PPSCoP after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes unlawful, as they are no longer using it for a permitted purpose.

In this case, APCOA has breached the PPSCoP and KADOE contract in the following ways:

• They issued a Penalty Notice (PN) on railway land, falsely implying that the charge was enforceable under criminal law, when in fact they have no lawful authority to issue such penalties.

• APCOA is a private company, not a prosecuting authority, and has no statutory power to issue or enforce criminal penalties under Byelaw 14 of the Railway Byelaws 2005.

• The language and formatting of the PN misrepresented its legal status, giving the false impression that non-payment would lead to prosecution, despite the fact that no prosecution was ever initiated and the statutory 6-month deadline for laying information before a magistrate has now expired.

• The notice was in substance a civil contract offer disguised as a penalty, but no attempt was made to issue it as a civil Parking Charge Notice (PCN) under the rules of contract law.

• The appeal submitted by the Keeper was ignored, which further breaches PPSCoP requirements for responding to complaints and representations in good faith.

These are not minor or technical breaches. They show a deliberate attempt to exploit the DVLA data system to issue notices that are misleading, unauthorised, and unenforceable—amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation of enforcement powers.

As a result, APCOA is no longer entitled to use the keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for which it was provided (a fair and lawful pursuit of a charge under the Code) no longer applies.

The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action under the terms of the KADOE contract.

This may include:
• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
• Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted[/indent]

I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.

Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]