APCOA railway penalty notice - POPLA appeal

LDast

No one issued any original "demand for money with menaces". The PN was issued by Merseyrail and they are prosecuting it. That is the difference between a fake PN issued by APCOA and a real one issued by the TOC.

APCOA (or any private individual or company) can prosecute it, I have learnt. However, the process they are required to go through requires them to lay an information before the court and then the court would issue a summons. It would not be resolved with a SJPN.

The burden of proof is to the criminal standard and the costs are probably much higher too. Even if they are successful, no money would come back to the TOC or the prosecutor. Considering the greed of these unregulated private parking companies, could anyone here see them being so altruistic as to try a prosecution for the public god? I thought not.

Castle

LDast said:

No one issued any original "demand for money with menaces". The PN was issued by Merseyrail and they are prosecuting it. That is the difference between a fake PN issued by APCOA and a real one issued by the TOC.

APCOA (or any private individual or company) can prosecute it, I have learnt. However, the process they are required to go through requires them to lay an information before the court and then the court would issue a summons. It would not be resolved with a SJPN.

The burden of proof is to the criminal standard and the costs are probably much higher too. Even if they are successful, no money would come back to the TOC or the prosecutor. Considering the greed of these unregulated private parking companies, could anyone here see them being so altruistic as to try a prosecution for the public god? I thought not.

Given it's Xmas day, maybe

Avrastar1

Original poster here- I have now received multiple letters from debt recovery plus, the latest being notice of consideration of court action - unpaid penalty notice £170

It goes on to say, to prevent your case being passed to the creditor with a recommendation to commence court proceedings, you must pay by 9th April.

Can anyone help or provide some advice/guidance?

DE_612183

yes, don't pay - read the responses to your original post which told you to ignore debt collector letters

LDast

How on earth do you imagine that a bottom-dwelling firm of powerless debt collectors like DRP (or any other debt collector) is going to be able to take you to court over a fake penalty notice? They can't and their client, APCOA can't. Nobody can make a claim in the county court for a penalty issued under statutory law.

These scummy debt collectors are simply relying on you being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will pay up out of ignorance and fear. Ignore them. Nothing is ever going to happen over this.

If you won't report it to the police, write to your MP and suggest the following:

Dear [MP’s Name],

Re: Request for Parliamentary Intervention – Misleading “Penalty Notices” Issued by Private Parking Companies

I am writing as a constituent and the recipient of a document labelled as a “Penalty Notice”, issued by a private parking company operating on railway land. The notice strongly resembled an official statutory fine and gave the impression that I was liable for a criminal offence, with threats of further enforcement action if payment was not made. Upon closer inspection and research, it became clear that this was not a statutory or criminal penalty, but a civil parking charge issued by a private company without any legal power to prosecute or issue fines under criminal law.

This experience has raised serious concerns about the misuse of enforcement language and format by private operators who appear to be issuing what look like criminal penalties under the guise of the railway byelaws. I believe this conduct is misleading, potentially unlawful, and may amount to fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006. These notices coerce payment by creating fear of legal consequences, despite lacking the statutory basis to do so.

I have enclosed a short briefing that sets out the legal position, including the Department for Transport’s distinction between civil “Parking Charge Notices” under Byelaw 14 and criminal prosecutions under Byelaw 24(1). The briefing highlights the risks to consumers and the urgent need for clarity and enforcement.

I would be grateful if you would consider taking the following steps:

• Submitting a Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department or Department for Transport (suggested wording is included);

• Writing to the Justice Secretary and/or Home Secretary to request clarification on this issue and ask what action is being taken;

• Referring this matter to the relevant Police and Crime Commissioner and local chief constable, and asking why these notices are not being treated as potentially fraudulent;

• Raising the issue in Parliament or committee to ensure public protection and regulatory oversight.

This practice is not just a private parking matter. It involves the misuse of criminal enforcement language by private actors, leading unsuspecting individuals to believe they face criminal consequences where none legally exist. I believe this warrants urgent parliamentary attention.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this issue. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]

Then you can include the following as a briefing document for yourMP and also include a copy of your fake Penalty Notice from APCOA:

Briefing Document for MP

Subject: Misuse of "Penalty Notices" by Private Parking Companies on Statutory Land (e.g. Railway Property)

Summary: This briefing supports my letter concerning a misleading "Penalty Notice" I received from a private parking company operating on railway land. The notice resembled a statutory fine and implied criminal liability, but it became clear that it was, in fact, a civil demand issued without any lawful authority to prosecute or impose criminal penalties.

A copy of the notice is attached to illustrate the concerns raised. It demonstrates how private companies are misusing the format and language of statutory enforcement to coerce payment under false pretences.

Key Legal Distinctions:

• Byelaw 14(4)(i) creates liability for parking charges in the event of a contravention but does not specify the enforcement method. The Department for Transport (DfT) has clarified that it expects such breaches to be dealt with under civil contract law, typically through the issuance of Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) by private operators acting as agents for the railway company.

• Byelaw 24(1) provides for the criminal prosecution of byelaw breaches, but only by a Train Operating Company (TOC) or a public body with express statutory authority. Private companies have no power under this byelaw to prosecute or issue criminal fines.

The Department for Transport (DfT) has confirmed in correspondence that while it accepts the use of PCNs for civil enforcement under Byelaw 14, it does not endorse or authorise the use of "Penalty Notices" implying enforcement under Byelaw 24(1). No private operator has been granted powers to initiate criminal proceedings or issue fines with statutory force.

This position aligns with broader transport policy. Following the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991, most parking offences were decriminalised and enforcement shifted to civil law. In line with this approach, the DfT, in a 2018 response to POPLA, stated that it does not expect minor parking breaches under Byelaw 14 to be prosecuted under Byelaw 24(1). Instead, operators managing station car parks subject to byelaws are expected to enforce such matters through civil contractual mechanisms, by issuing Parking Charge Notices (PCNs)—not Penalty Notices.

To date, no unregulated private parking company, such as APCOA or SABA, has demonstrated or published any agreement or delegation showing that they have contractual authority from a Train Operating Company (TOC) or statutory landowner to issue Penalty Notices under Byelaw 24(1).

Why This Matters:

1. False Representation and Coercion: The notice I received implied I had committed a criminal offence and demanded payment directly to a private company. This is misleading and may constitute a false representation under the Fraud Act 2006, and possibly blackmail under the Theft Act 1968.

2. Funds Misappropriated: Any legitimate statutory fine would be payable to the public purse. These notices divert payments to private companies, undermining proper enforcement and eroding trust in genuine statutory penalties.

3. DfT Acknowledgement: The DfT recognises that Byelaw 14 allows for civil "ticketing" by operators, but it does not provide criminal powers. The absence of reference to Byelaw 24(1) confirms that operators lack prosecutorial authority.

4. Terminology Confusion: The use of the term “penalty” in this context is misleading. “Penalty” should be reserved for statutory fines. The correct terminology for a civil charge is “Parking Charge Notice” (PCN). The DfT's use of the term “penalty” in its own correspondence risks enabling misuse by private companies.

Suggested Actions:

I respectfully ask that you:

• Submit a Parliamentary Question such as:

"To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to prevent private companies from issuing documents purporting to be statutory Penalty Notices under railway byelaws, and whether such conduct is being investigated under the Fraud Act 2006."

• Write to the Justice Secretary and/or Home Secretary to:

  • Clarify the legal position of such notices;

  • Inquire whether this conduct is being treated as potentially fraudulent;

  • Ask whether guidance has been issued to police forces on this matter.

• Refer the matter to the local Police and Crime Commissioner and chief constable to seek confirmation of their approach to such practices.

Conclusion:

This is not merely a civil enforcement issue—it is a case of potentially criminal misrepresentation. Private parking companies are issuing documents that mimic statutory penalties, misleading recipients into believing they are liable to criminal sanction when this is untrue. I urge you to act in Parliament to ensure the law is clarified and the public is protected from these deceptive practices.

Thank you for your consideration.

Coupon-mad

Avrastar1 said:

Original poster here- I have now received multiple letters from debt recovery plus, the latest being notice of consideration of court action - unpaid penalty notice £170

It goes on to say, to prevent your case being passed to the creditor with a recommendation to commence court proceedings, you must pay by 9th April.

Can anyone help or provide some advice/guidance?

But you should be laughing at those. 

Have you missed reading the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread with the £170 threatogram pictures?