APCOA - Railway Penalty Charge

kryten3000

BuzzingBee said:

Which appeal option for Popla would be most relatable, “I was not improperly parked?”

ALWAYS use "other".  The specific options ask too many questions before you can submit the appeal. It also implies that the appeal is being made by the driver.  

Coupon-mad

Surprised that posters aren't always reading the POPLA section (in the third post of the NEWBIES thread) which already says this.

LDast

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.

BuzzingBee

Hi guys

Just an update on this, finally received the Popla appeal decision which was rejected in favour of APCOA as expected.

ZZPS letter received literally a few days after decision (absolutely no chill!). Less than 4 weeks until the magic 6 month date.

Usually do the letters stop after 6 months or can I expect them to still come?

Also I have just changed address recently, I’m planning on updating the relevant parties in case worst case scenario they do proceed with court (which I understand APCOA don’t do court) as I stupidly disclosed driver prior to coming across this amazing forum 

Coupon-mad

You can probably expect more lies.

Yes keep your address updated but in the same reply, tell the recipient to then erase all your data and crawl back under their stone because the penalty is statute barred!

Report any solicitor who tries to chase a statute barred penalty as if it was contract law, to the SRA.

DjangoUnchained

had one of these "penalty" notices about 18 month ago. I found a brilliant appeal that was about 6 pages long, mostly talking about airport parking, i just bunged that in to the popla appeal without even changing it to railway, Apcoa withdrew, i guess that was too much guff for them to wade through.

doubledotcom

Please show us the POPLA decision. It will be interesting to see their complicity in the fraud.

ChirpyChicken

Apcoa seem to think they dont have to update details when people move.

BuzzingBee

Is it safe to share the Assessor supporting rational for decision?

Coupon-mad

BuzzingBee said:

Is it safe to share the Assessor supporting rational for decision?

Errm... of course ... have you missed the sticky thread called POPLA DECISIONS? Post it there like everyone else has done cheerfully, for more than a decade. And nobody has paid!

Don't post it without adding ten paragraph breaks. No wall of text lifted direct from the POPLA website, please. Read a few on that thread first; recent ones, don't start at the beginning. No posting the Assessor's name.

And if you want to be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like you tell the Government NOW that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. As long as it is fully independent and impartial (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your experience and the POPLA outcome that means you will now ignore all the £170 demands because a third party adding money is an outrageous scam.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it this month or in August at the latest pleeease! We will discuss it all on that thread.