Help with railway Apcoa Fine ZZPS now involved

LillacIris

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yep - six months is nearly up.  Relax!

Just a reminder to relax. Nothing will happen.

Thank you for the reminder, taken the advice on board and just leaving it be. I have not recieved a full response from APCOA about the complaint, but they said they are reviewing the points raised and will give a full response in due course. So will see what they'll say I guess.

Thank you for all the support on this.

LDast

The point about contacting your MP is to raise awareness of this problem and to ask them to make representations on your behalf to the relevant minister or department.

Here is a template you can use. All you need to do is find out who your MP is and email it to them:

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:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

LillacIris

This is fab, thank you for the template. I shall send my MP an email this week.

Coupon-mad

LillacIris said:

This is fab, thank you for the template. I shall send my MP an email this week.

I really wouldn't. This is so much not what should be sent to MPs. It is niche and distracts from the far more important Code of Practice.

daniels102

Hi Guys, 

I dont want to break any forum rules etc, posting something irrelevant, or sidetracking the discussion etc, i posted the below on a different forum and think it may have been the wrong place, any advice on the below would be greatly appreciated! As follows:




'At my old job i used to work at a Hospital, which has a car park which is not fit for purpose, almost every morning staff who arrive after 830 have to park their cars in made up spaces, which is obviously dangerous and a hazard, but the hospital does not have enough spaces for the employees, it is a known problem they have been trying to sort (unsuccessfully) for years. I believe i parked in an area for senior staff which i was not entitled to park in.

That being the case I received several PCNs from APCOA which I did not follow up. This month I finally received a letter from ZZPS demanding i pay £130. I called them today as in the past I have had a parking charge go to court and had to pay a lot (maybe £600). I am worried about this happening again, in the past i always ignored them unless council/government.

I called them up today and they informed me that I actually have 3 others dating back to 2023 (which I had not received letters for). I very almost paid the £400 there and then and set up a DD for the £130. Apparently i cannot do this for the other 3 because they are 'at the legal stage'. The man on the phone was not very forthcoming with exactly what this means but he said they are with QDR Solicitors.



Long story short, should I now pay these if they are with QDR? I do not want to do the wrong thing, but I also think it's unreasonable that our Hospital (and the surrounding area) did not have adequate parking for staff, I get that I didnt follow the rules, but feel like fines are a little strong when people are just trying to arrive for work.

Am I in the wrong here? Should I pay them? A slightly different question but these being with QDR am I at risk of these going to the courts now?'



Thanks guys, your knowledge and advice is invaluable

Nellymoser

@daniels102 you've posted in the wrong place when looking for advice. Copy your post once you've created your own thread. Use the red circle + or Create new button.

ChirpyChicken

You should have never paid and never had any need to pay 

Coupon-mad

I called them up today and they informed me that I actually have 3 others dating back to 2023 (which I had not received letters for). I very almost paid the £400 there and then and set up a DD for the £130. Apparently i cannot do this for the other 3 because they are 'at the legal stage'. The man on the phone was not very forthcoming with exactly what this means but he said they are with QDR Solicitors.

Long story short, should I now pay these if they are with QDR? 

ABSOLUTELY NOT. And stop phoning them.

Cancel the DD immediately with your bank.  Now.  Block it as unauthorised or remove it from your approved DDs in your online banking if you can cancel it yourself..

Start a new thread of your own once you've cancelled the Direct Debit authority.  You don't ring up and you don't pay these scam PCNs.  Please read NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST. 

LillacIris

Just Small Update: Still no response regarding the complaint even though they try and respond within 14 working days which has long passed and the 28 days mark has passed as well... unless they also mean 28 working days, if that's the case than that will pass in the upcoming week. 

I have recieved a letter from QDR Solicitors, expecting to recieve another one soon.

LDast

Ignore it. It's just a debt recovery letter which you can safely use as toilet paper (in an emergency, hopefully).