IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

I have read pages and pages but I am at a brick wall with Saba PCN

Options
2»

Comments

  • LDast
    LDast Posts: 2,496 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    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
    Coupon-mad Posts: 152,071 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Times out in 6 months. 

    Cannot be pursued in the county court.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.