Help with railway Apcoa Fine ZZPS now involved

Coupon-mad

LillacIris said:

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 received a letter from QDR Solicitors, expecting to receive another one.few more soon.

Please re-post with a fresh pic of that letter, showing the date of the PN and date of that letter. Urgent please. Needed for evidence for the Government.

LillacIris

Coupon-mad said:

Please re-post with a fresh pic of that letter, showing the date of the PN and date of that letter. Urgent please. Needed for evidence for the Government.

Here's a fresh image, what evidence is this for if you don't mind me asking?

Coupon-mad

I'm on the MHCLG Steering Group helping to inform the Government to shape and finalise the incoming statutory Private Parking Code of Practice to best support motorists.

I wanted to see if QDR were chasing a PN after the 6 months is up but I see that's not until the first week of June. If you get any letters after this alleged debt is statute barred in June, please do post them here.

Nothing will happen with this PN. It's weeks from timing out and they know it!

LillacIris

I have edited the complaint and tried to take out any accusation, is this a better edit to send? Shall I adjust or comepletly take out point 2? 

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding the Legitimacy of Penalty Notice [Reference Number]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the legitimacy and enforcement of the above-referenced Penalty Notice (PN) issued by APCOA. I seek clarification on the legal basis for this penalty, particularly regarding the distinction between statutory and civil enforcement.

1. Statutory or Civil Enforcement

   APCOA appears to present this PN as a statutory penalty while enforcing it through civil recovery methods. If it is a statutory penalty under the Railway Byelaws, it should be prosecuted in the magistrates’ court. However, the use of private debt collection suggests a different legal basis. Please confirm whether this PN is being pursued as a statutory penalty or as a civil matter and explain the legal grounds for this approach.

2. Collection and Retention of Payments

   Statutory penalties issued under Byelaw 14 should be remitted to the public purse, yet APCOA directs payments to its own account. Under what legal authority does APCOA collect and retain these payments? Please also provide details of any arrangements between APCOA and the relevant Train Operating Company regarding these funds.

3. Procedural Compliance

   If this PN is issued under the Railway Byelaws, statutory procedures should be followed, including referral to the magistrates’ court. The absence of such action raises concerns about the legitimacy of the enforcement process. If APCOA considers this a statutory offence, why has the case not been referred to the court? If it is a civil matter, why was a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) not issued in accordance with contract law?

4. Request for Further Information

   To clarify this matter, I request a detailed response addressing the following:

   • The legal basis under which APCOA collects and retains payments for alleged breaches of railway byelaws.

   • An explanation of why the alleged breach has not been referred to the magistrates’ court if it is considered a statutory offence.

   • Clarification on whether this PN is a statutory penalty or a civil charge and the rationale for its enforcement method.

I expect a full response within 14 days. If APCOA does not provide satisfactory clarification, I will escalate my concerns to the relevant regulatory bodies, including Trading Standards, the Office of Rail and Road, the Department for Transport and the DVLA.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely, [Your Name]

Update: I have recieved a complaint response.

Thank you for your patience whilst this has been investigated. 

Statutory or civil enforcement
We can confirm that this Penalty Notice is issued as a civil matter. The penalty notice system is an established mechanism designed to address breaches of the railway byelaws in a way that is proportionate and fair. These notices are not intended to suggest criminal intent or prosecution at the outset but to offer the opportunity to resolve matters without escalation. Should the recipient fail to engage or resolve the matter, criminal enforcement under Byelaw 14(1) may be pursued.

The term “Penalty Notice” is used because the breach of railway byelaws, such as unauthorised parking, constitutes a potential statutory offence. This is entirely different from a private parking charge, as our notices pertain to statutory enforcement of the byelaws, which may involve criminal liability in some cases. The presentation of the notice reflects the legal process in place, and it has been reviewed and approved to ensure compliance with the applicable legal standards.

Collection and retention of payments
Penalty Notices issued by APCOA are issued on privately owned railway land on behalf of the landowner. Please note that APCOA are a services group and all revenue taken from paid Penalty Notices is passed on to the landowner.

Procedural compliance 
The claim in question is based on contract law. When the vehicle was parked on site, you willingly entered into a parking contract with APCOA. As part of this contract, it was agreed that the charge detailed on the signage would be paid should the vehicle be parked in breach of the Terms & Conditions of parking. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the Terms & Conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the Terms & Conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the Terms & Conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking their vehicle.

I would also like to point out that a contractual agreement was entered into with APCOA when the vehicle was parked on site, in which it was agreed that the terms and conditions displayed on the signage would be adhered to. Those terms and conditions included incurring a charge for failing to park within the restrictions applicable to the site. There was no obligation to park on site should the Terms & Conditions of parking not be accepted.

Kind regards, 

Coupon-mad

LillacIris said:

I have edited the complaint and tried to take out any accusation, is this a better edit to send? Shall I adjust or comepletly take out point 2? 

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding the Legitimacy of Penalty Notice [Reference Number]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the legitimacy and enforcement of the above-referenced Penalty Notice (PN) issued by APCOA. I seek clarification on the legal basis for this penalty, particularly regarding the distinction between statutory and civil enforcement.

1. Statutory or Civil Enforcement

   APCOA appears to present this PN as a statutory penalty while enforcing it through civil recovery methods. If it is a statutory penalty under the Railway Byelaws, it should be prosecuted in the magistrates’ court. However, the use of private debt collection suggests a different legal basis. Please confirm whether this PN is being pursued as a statutory penalty or as a civil matter and explain the legal grounds for this approach.

2. Collection and Retention of Payments

   Statutory penalties issued under Byelaw 14 should be remitted to the public purse, yet APCOA directs payments to its own account. Under what legal authority does APCOA collect and retain these payments? Please also provide details of any arrangements between APCOA and the relevant Train Operating Company regarding these funds.

3. Procedural Compliance

   If this PN is issued under the Railway Byelaws, statutory procedures should be followed, including referral to the magistrates’ court. The absence of such action raises concerns about the legitimacy of the enforcement process. If APCOA considers this a statutory offence, why has the case not been referred to the court? If it is a civil matter, why was a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) not issued in accordance with contract law?

4. Request for Further Information

   To clarify this matter, I request a detailed response addressing the following:

   • The legal basis under which APCOA collects and retains payments for alleged breaches of railway byelaws.

   • An explanation of why the alleged breach has not been referred to the magistrates’ court if it is considered a statutory offence.

   • Clarification on whether this PN is a statutory penalty or a civil charge and the rationale for its enforcement method.

I expect a full response within 14 days. If APCOA does not provide satisfactory clarification, I will escalate my concerns to the relevant regulatory bodies, including Trading Standards, the Office of Rail and Road, the Department for Transport and the DVLA.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely, [Your Name]

Update: I have recieved a complaint response.

Thank you for your patience whilst this has been investigated. 

Statutory or civil enforcement
We can confirm that this Penalty Notice is issued as a civil matter. The penalty notice system is an established mechanism designed to address breaches of the railway byelaws in a way that is proportionate and fair. These notices are not intended to suggest criminal intent or prosecution at the outset but to offer the opportunity to resolve matters without escalation. Should the recipient fail to engage or resolve the matter, criminal enforcement under Byelaw 14(1) may be pursued.

The term “Penalty Notice” is used because the breach of railway byelaws, such as unauthorised parking, constitutes a potential statutory offence. This is entirely different from a private parking charge, as our notices pertain to statutory enforcement of the byelaws, which may involve criminal liability in some cases. The presentation of the notice reflects the legal process in place, and it has been reviewed and approved to ensure compliance with the applicable legal standards.

Collection and retention of payments
Penalty Notices issued by APCOA are issued on privately owned railway land on behalf of the landowner. Please note that APCOA are a services group and all revenue taken from paid Penalty Notices is passed on to the landowner.

Procedural compliance 
The claim in question is based on contract law. When the vehicle was parked on site, you willingly entered into a parking contract with APCOA. As part of this contract, it was agreed that the charge detailed on the signage would be paid should the vehicle be parked in breach of the Terms & Conditions of parking. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the Terms & Conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the Terms & Conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the Terms & Conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking their vehicle.

I would also like to point out that a contractual agreement was entered into with APCOA when the vehicle was parked on site, in which it was agreed that the terms and conditions displayed on the signage would be adhered to. Those terms and conditions included incurring a charge for failing to park within the restrictions applicable to the site. There was no obligation to park on site should the Terms & Conditions of parking not be accepted.

Kind regards,
 

It can't be a byelaws penalty (a fine) AND also "issued under contract law" (i.e. terms & conditions agreed by parking).

The DVLA reminded PPCs not to muddy these waters a few years ago, and the BPA CoP used to have a decent Appendix about Railway Byelaws cases and how PPCs must not switch between the stance of 'byelaws PN' and 'contractual PCN'.

That Appendix was lost with the Joint Code.

LDast

We can confirm that this Penalty Notice is issued as a civil matter.

Their response is absolutely damning — it destroys their own case on multiple levels and exposes clear unlawful/illegal practices.

First, they openly admit that the Penalty Notice is being issued "as a civil matter", not a true statutory penalty enforced under the Byelaws. That is fatal. A Penalty Notice under the Railway Byelaws should either be prosecuted properly in a Magistrates’ Court or not be issued at all. You cannot simply call it a "Penalty Notice" (which implies a statutory penalty) and then treat it like a civil contractual claim. That is deceptive and misleading, falling into fraud by false representation.

Second, they claim that the Penalty Notice relates to a contractual agreement entered into with APCOA. This admission completely contradicts their earlier claim that the breach is of the Railway Byelaws. You cannot claim a statutory offence and simultaneously claim a private contract breach — they are completely different legal frameworks. It is either a breach of statute (criminal law) or a breach of contract (civil law). Trying to have it both ways is legally nonsense and strongly suggests deliberate deception.

Third, they justify their use of the term “Penalty Notice” on the basis that "it may involve criminal liability in some cases". This is utterly misleading in this context. In their own letter, they admit that in your case, the matter is being pursued civilly, not criminally. Therefore, continuing to brand it as a "Penalty" while demanding payment civilly is a false representation designed to coerce payment under a misleading impression of liability. Again, this is a textbook example of fraud by false representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

Fourth, they admit that "all revenue from paid Penalty Notices is passed to the landowner", but they provide no evidence that payments are passed to the public purse. If this was truly a statutory penalty for a Byelaw breach, any fines should go to the public purse or be handled according to public statutory procedures, not treated as private revenue between APCOA and a private landowner. That further proves this is not true statutory enforcement.

Fifth, their reliance on "opportunity to read terms and conditions" is the language of private parking enforcement, not statutory penalty enforcement. It completely undermines any claim that they are enforcing Byelaws properly. It shows that they are using Railway Byelaws as a smokescreen to mask what is in reality a straightforward private parking charge dressed up as a criminal penalty to intimidate motorists.

In simple terms, APCOA's letter admits that they are issuing something that looks like a criminal penalty, but treating it in reality as a civil debt. They are issuing a misleading demand for money under false pretences, knowing full well that most recipients will be deceived by the language used. That is fraud, plain and simple!

In legal terms their response is disastrous for them. It can and should be used as evidence to support a formal fraud complaint to the police. They have confessed to a practice that matches the key ingredients of fraud: false representation, intention to cause gain, and causing a person to act under a misapprehension of their legal obligations.

Their response also fully supports an argument that APCOA is in breach of consumer protection law under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Their response letter is catastrophic. It proves everything I have been saying about the illegitimacy of their Penalty Notices.

You should also report APCOA to the DVLA immediately because their misuse of DVLA keeper data is not just a technical or minor breach — it strikes at the heart of the trust that allows private companies to be given access to personal information in the first place.

By accessing DVLA data under the pretext of enforcing parking terms fairly and lawfully, but then using that data to send misleading Penalty Notices that wrongly suggest criminal liability, APCOA is abusing the privileged access granted to them. This is a breach of the fundamental conditions of the KADOE contract, specifically the obligation to use data only for lawful, proportionate, and non-misleading enforcement purposes.

Every day that APCOA continues this practice, they are unlawfully using personal data to intimidate motorists into paying money they are not legally obliged to pay. Reporting them immediately increases the chance of the DVLA investigating quickly, suspending their access, and protecting other motorists from being misled in the same way.

In simple terms, it is not just about your case — their misuse affects thousands of other motorists. Immediate action could help stop APCOA from continuing to exploit DVLA data unlawfully.

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) Limited, a BPA AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.

While APCOA may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data — through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP and the KADOE contract — renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP and KADOE contract together form part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms.

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 APCOA’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) Limited
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 Parking (UK) Limited, 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 Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the regulatory framework that governs how parking companies must behave once they have received DVLA data.

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 Code after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes unlawful.

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

• APCOA obtained my data for the stated purpose of enforcing a breach of the Railway Byelaws. They issued a document entitled "Penalty Notice" that uses language suggesting criminal prosecution under the Byelaws. However, in formal correspondence, APCOA admitted that they are not enforcing this matter as a statutory criminal penalty, but instead pursuing it as a civil contractual claim. Despite this, the Penalty Notice continues to imply that criminal enforcement is a real and immediate risk.

• The misleading use of statutory language on a civil demand amounts to a false representation made to induce payment. The motorist is given the impression that failure to pay could lead to criminal prosecution, when in fact, no such action is intended or available to APCOA. This constitutes unlawful misuse of my DVLA data for purposes other than those for which it was provided.

These are not minor breaches. APCOA’s actions show a clear disregard for the PPSCoP requirements of transparency, fairness, and lawful use of keeper data. Their misuse of personal data to issue misleading Penalty Notices is a serious breach of the KADOE contract and of consumer protection law.

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 responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. I therefore request that the DVLA investigates this breach and takes appropriate enforcement action under the KADOE contract.

This may include:

• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against APCOA
• Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted

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

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

1505grandad

Would the landowner/contracting entity also be implicated in the alleged fraud?

LDast

Yes, the landowner or the contracting entity could also be implicated in the alleged fraud, depending on what they knew or should have known.

If the landowner or Train Operating Company authorised the use of misleading "Penalty Notices", or allowed the private operator to issue them while knowing they falsely implied criminal liability, then they could be seen as complicit in the fraud. They could be accused of facilitating the deception, benefiting from the illegal activity, or failing in their duty to prevent abuse of legal authority on their land.

Even if they did not know, they could still be criticised for negligent oversight. If they appointed the private parking operator and allowed them to act as their agent without proper control, they might still be indirectly responsible for the fraud that is taking place. At the very least, it would show a failure of governance and oversight.

If the landowner or Train Operating Company receives a share of the money collected from these fake Penalty Notices, that makes the situation much worse. Financial benefit from a fraudulent scheme could also expose them to allegations of handling criminal property, even if they claim not to have known the full details.

In short, yes, the landowner or contracting entity could be caught up in the fraud, especially if they authorised the notices, failed to supervise their contractors properly, or profited from the payments. This shows that the problem is not just one private company acting badly, but could involve larger organisations failing in their legal and ethical responsibilities.

LillacIris

Thank you so much for all the responses and help. I need to digest all the infromation provided, it's a completly new world for me. I will make a complaint to DVLA, thank you for providing the instructions on how to do that and a template that I can use, it's extremly useful!  

LDast

@LilacIris has kindly sent me a copy of the email from APCOA with their damning admission. I have already used a redacted copy of that in an appeal to POPLA for another APCOA Penalty Notice and put them on notice that the so-called “Penalty Notice” issued by APCOA is a fraudulent legal instrument. It is neither a valid Parking Charge Notice under civil law nor a valid Penalty Notice under statutory law. APCOA has now damningly admitted, in writing, in relation to a different case (this one), that:

• The Penalty Notice is deliberately styled to mimic statutory enforcement under Railway Byelaws.

• However, APCOA pursues these charges as private civil debts, not through the magistrates' courts.

• APCOA further admits that monies collected from these so-called "Penalty Notices" are retained privately and not paid into the public purse, contrary to the lawful handling of true statutory penalties.

• APCOA simultaneously claims that these notices create a civil contract between the motorist and APCOA, despite branding the notices as statutory penalties.

• APCOA has therefore admitted that these notices are based on a hybrid and fraudulent legal characterisation, designed to mislead recipients.

This behaviour constitutes fraud by false representation (section 2, Fraud Act 2006) and unlawful demands with menaces (section 21, Theft Act 1968).

Should POPLA proceed to assess, validate, or otherwise engage with this unlawful Penalty Notice despite now being fully aware of APCOA’s fraudulent practices, it risks direct complicity and will be reported to the DVLA, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), and the police.