APCOA railway penalty notice - POPLA appeal

Avrastar1

Hi all, on 12/dec/24 I parked in a railway carpark and purchased an all day ticket using their app.
I returned that same day to a ticket on my window saying I had parked in a permit area without displaying a permit before the designated time (9:30 am)







I appealed the ticket on my window as the bay I parked in had nothing on the space nor a sign stating that it was a specific permit bay. They have subsequently rejected it and I now have the option to appeal to POPLA - I received an email with a PDF attachment (see below)





I have read multiple threads in the NEWBIE section, but I'm confused. Do I wait until I get something in the post before I appeal, or is the fact that I have received this via email, addressed to me and my home address in the top left corner okay to appeal?

Please could someone help concerning the appeal, I would appreciate any help you can provide.

Thank you,

DE_612183

you can appeal to POPLA using the reference you have there - check out the newbies thread and another thread ( linked there ) about railway pcns

Coupon-mad

But to win it, read the most recent months' posts in POPLA DECISIONS and find the silver bullet about APCOA landowner authority.

LDast

Ignore it and get on with your life. The PN is fraudulent. APCOA cannot prosecute anyone under railway bylaw 24(1). POPLA have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a PN, even if it were a real one.

You will receive a load of useless debt collector letters which you can safely ignore or use as kindling. Eventually they will stop.

APCOA are using unlawful language in their PN by threatening criminal prosecution. They can't. They never have and they never will. Their scam depends on low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree being so scared of the words in the PN that they pay the "fine" in order to avoid the mendacious threat of a criminal record.

You can go through all the motions suggested in the Newbies/FAQ thread and the final outcome will be exactly the same, except by ignoring them, you are not wasting your time legitimising their actions with responses.

Parking offences were decriminalised in 1991 when the Road Traffic Act was introduced. The DfT, in 2018, clarified to POPLA that they do not expect parking offences on railway property to be dealt with using railway bylaw 24(1) which is for serious bylaw breaches that require criminal prosecution. As with councils and local authorities, parking infringements should only be dealt with in the civil courts.

I will place money on the fact that APCOA have no contract with the landowner at any train station in the land that allows them to issue Penalty Notices and to prosecute them under bylaw 24(1). APCOA are only allowed to issue Parking Charge Notices, which are not criminal matters.

Not one single person who regularly advises on this site has ever seen a contract between APCOA and the railway station landowner that authorises them to issue Penalty Notices under the threat of criminal prosecution.

So, either waste your time legitimising APCOAs fake PN by responding and appealing or simply ignore them and every subsequent bit of correspondence about it. The final outcome will be nothing. Guaranteed.

TooManyPoints

"APCOA cannot prosecute anyone under railway bylaw 24(1)."

 No, but the Train Operating Company (TOC) can as they are "authorised prosecutors". There is a live thread on "ftla" at the moment which illustrates precisely this. A motorist received a "Parking Penalty Notice" informing him that he had transgressed by irregular parking in a railway station car park. It asked for £60 (£30 if paid promptly) to avoid prosecution. He ignored it and subsequently received a Single Justice Procedure Notice charging him with an offence under bylaw 14.2:

 https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/sjp-for-private-parking-ticket/

Coupon-mad

But it's important to say that no TOC has issued anything (ever) in relation to parking Penalty Notices from APCOA. Nothing happens.

APCOA are not connected to not contracted by Merseyrail. Interesting link though. I reckon the TOC will drop it.

TOCS are not great at using the SJP properly:

https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/train-fare-evasion-and-the-single-justice-procedure/

TooManyPoints

he unpaid fare issue arose because TOCs are not authorised to prosecute offences under the Regulation of Railways Act. The SJ legislation defines who are "authorised prosecutors" and it and also defines which offences they can use the SJP for. The 75,000 or so cases were prosecuted under the RoRA and that was not included among the offences the TOCs can prosecute using the SJP. Some of the charges they laid were for imprisonable offences and the SJP legislation excludes such offences entirely.

I don't see any reason why Merseyrail should not continue with their charge explained in the ftla thread. Unless, that is, they decide they cannot succeed. They might consider that possibility when they realise that to secure a criminal conviction under the charge they've laid under Bylaw 14(2) they have to prove that the defendant was the person in charge of the vehicle. They have no idea who it was and there is no legislation compelling anyone to tell them.

I don't believe they can prosecute under bylaw 14(4) which I think allows for penalty charges only. But if they could, that relies on them being able to identify the owner. In criminal proceedings they cannot rely on the assumption that a parking adjudicator would use - that the registered keeper is the owner unless proved to the contrary. They would have to prove that to the criminal standard and I don't see how they can do that either..

In short, criminal prosecutions for parking offences on railway land using the bylaws are a complete mess

LDast

The case about the 75,000 wrongful convictions was because "fare evasion" carries a potential penalty of up to 3 months imprisonment and they should not have used the SJP for crimes that could potentially lead to prison time. The SJP is only for offences that carry a maximum penalty of a fine.

That b789 poster on that thread is very well known to me and he is on a crusade to highlight the fraudulent nature of APCOA and SABA issuing PNs. My point is that APCOA cannot "initiate" a private prosecution in the magistrates court (under the SJP or otherwise). Only the TOC can do that.

If APCOA wants to enforce the PN, they can only do so by referring it to the TOC prosecutor who would then be able to prosecute it through the SJP, should they decide to do so and they are within the 6 month statute of limitation. 

A private company cannot issue a legitimate Penalty Notice (PN) under railway bylaw 14 because it lacks the statutory authority required to do so. Only the Train Operating Company (TOC) or an authorised prosecutor acting on behalf of the TOC has the legal authority to enforce railway bylaw breaches through the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) or other criminal court proceedings.

If a private parking company issues a notice purporting to be a Penalty Notice under railway byelaws, this amounts to misrepresentation. Using terms like "Penalty Notice" or implying criminal liability (e.g., referring to "prosecution" or "Magistrates’ Court") is misleading if the notice is not issued by an authorised prosecutor or TOC.

If the notice implies criminal consequences or statutory enforcement powers that the private company does not possess, it breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Also, it is making a false representation with intent to cause loss or gain which is a breach of the Fraud Act 2006 (Section 2).

A private company issuing what it claims to be a Penalty Notice under railway bylaw 14 is acting beyond its authority. Such a notice must be legally invalid, as only the TOC or its authorised prosecutor can issue and enforce Penalty Notices under railway byelaws. Any such misuse of the term "Penalty Notice" by a private company can only be considered as misleading or unlawful.

So, it all comes back to my point that APCOA, by issuing a purported PN, is in fact committing fraud. In other words, it is not a real PN but an "offered contract". An offered contract is a civil contract law matter and has nothing to do with criminal law.

The criminal extortion element is a serious issue with the potential misuse of authority by APCOA. If APCOA issues what it purports to be a PN for an alleged breach of railway bylaw 14, this can only amount to fraudulent or unlawful behaviour.

The use of language typically reserved for criminal enforcement in a notice issued by a private company, when the company lacks the authority to prosecute or enforce criminal penalties, meets the criteria for fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud by false representation occurs when someone dishonestly makes a false representation, intending to make a gain for themselves or cause a loss to another.

If APCOA falsely represents the notice as a legitimate Penalty Notice under byelaw 14, this almost certainly qualifies as fraud. The notice implies authority (e.g., potential criminal prosecution or fines), which the company does not have. The intent is to scare the recipient into paying money they do not legally owe to APCOA.

By using intimidating language such as "fine," "offence," or "criminal prosecution," APCOA exploits the recipient’s likely misunderstanding of the legal distinction between civil and criminal liability. This tactic can only be viewed as a form of extortion, as it pressures individuals into paying under the false pretence of avoiding criminal consequences. Such behaviour not only violates consumer protection laws but also constitute criminal misconduct.

Under railway bylaw 14, only the TOC prosecutor or an authorised agent can initiate criminal enforcement. If a breach of bylaw 14 occurs, the TOC decides whether to prosecute. If prosecution proceeds, it must be under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in the Magistrates’ Court.

Any fine imposed by the court is paid into the public purse, not retained by the TOC or any private contractor. APCOA issuing a "Penalty Notice" bypasses this legal framework and improperly seeks to profit directly from the alleged breach, which subverts the intention of the byelaws (to regulate conduct on railway land, not to generate private revenue) and deprives the public purse of funds that should rightfully flow through the judicial process.

The language used in a real Penalty Notice issued under criminal law must reflect the statutory framework, including the nature of the offence and potential court proceedings. A private company issuing a notice for what is, at best, an "offered contract" cannot lawfully use terms such as "Fine" which is reserved for criminal penalties, "Offence" which implies criminal wrongdoing or "Criminal prosecution" which suggests the involvement of criminal courts, which APCOA cannot initiate. In a civil contract dispute, the private company must use neutral language (e.g., "Parking Charge Notice" or "charge"), clearly explaining the basis of the claim without implying criminal liability.

Another key distinction in railway bylaw enforcement is that any fines resulting from criminal prosecutions go to the public purse. If APCOA issues a notice and retains the funds, it misrepresents the nature of the enforcement, redirects funds from their intended destination (public coffers) into private profits which clear abuse of the byelaw framework, undermining the public interest and the legal integrity of the railway bylaw enforcement system.

So, an unregulated private parking company issuing a purported "Penalty Notice" under railway bylaw 14 is acting unlawfully. Such notices are inherently fake, as only a TOC prosecutor has the authority to issue them and initiate proceedings under the SJP. Any language implying criminal liability or penalties is misleading and constitutes fraud or extortion. Furthermore, since fines under the byelaws are intended for the public purse, APCOA’s actions divert funds improperly for private gain.

This conduct should be legally challengeable, and recipients of such notices would be justified in treating them as invalid and reporting the matter to the relevant authorities.

What I would like to know, is how could I initiate the necessary action to get the appropriate authorities alerted to this fraudulent and extortionate behaviour? I would like to do so as I have the time and some resources available but short of going out and deliberately getting one of these fake PNs issued to me personally, I am at a loss.

Coupon-mad

But back on topic: this is only APCOA.

Nothing will happen in this case, so we don't want to scare the OP with all this discussion.

LDast

And that's the point. Nothing will happen whether the OP appeals or does not, because nothing can happen.

My concern is the hundreds of thousands every year that receive these far PNs and simply pay up out of fear and ignorance.

TooManyPoints

My concern is the hundreds of thousands every year that receive these far PNs and simply pay up out of fear and ignorance.

But as far as I can see (and it's not my area of expertise so I'm not saying I'm right) the parking business seems rife with such practices which aim to scare the recipients of their notices into paying up for fear of nasty consequences. 

With this particular issue I don't know why the TOCs do not employ APCOA (other parking enforcement companies are available) to issue notices on their behalf which make no pretence but simply say "We consider you've broken our parking rules. If you pay us £60 (or whatever) it will go away; if you don't we'll prosecute you.".

There would be nothing unlawful in that. The police do it all the time. They need not then get bogged down with the legal niceties that govern the issue of the various notices that go with decriminalised offences. They wouldn't need to disguise their notices as "penalty notices" or any other term which might offend those concerned with the integrity of the  decriminalised regime.

The problem they have is that they are trying to combine all the benefits of the decriminalised system (such as avoiding the tiresome business of having to properly prove their case) whilst retaining recourse to the criminal courts if their demands are not met.

What I do believe needs reining in is the suggestion by these parking companies that their own (and later, an independent) arbitration scheme is the correct way to resolve the issue. The plain fact is that these demands can only be satisfied by resorting to a criminal prosecution and to succeed with that they would have to prove their case to the criminal standard. If they don't want to do that they should ditch the parking section from their bylaws and fully embrace the decriminalised regime as owners of other locations have to.

If this OP had ignored all notices and demands, the only way APCOA could have proceeded was by way of a prosecution. They are not authorised to do that and, reading this, it seems unlikely that the TOC would take on the task from them even if they were legally able to.

We don't know who issued the original "demand for money with menaces" in the case on ftla, But whoever it was, Merseyrail seem to have had no qualms about prosecution. But they also did not queer the pitch by offering the defendant an opportunity to go to (IMO entirely inappropriate) civil arbitration.