APCOA / Southeastern Penalty Notices and Blue Badges

skizz_b

Hi all

Posting as I’d welcome the forum’s view on a specific issue relating to parking at stations and the use of blue badges to access disabled parking bays.

For many years a disabled occupant of my vehicle has been able to access free parking at our local station by displaying their blue badge when parking. This is until recently, where I received a Penalty Notice alleging the contravention of ‘Use of private car park without a valid payment/permit’, which was a surprise to me as the vehicle was parked at the station as normal on this date. 

I’ve since established that Southeastern and APCOA now mandate that any user wishing to access free disabled parking must register on a web portal to access this service. There was no signage at the station indicating this change was coming or that it was now in force, save for very small print on a couple of signs around the car park. My belief is this is being enforced now due to ANPR cameras recently being activated at the station.

I’m expecting a few more of these to come through in the coming days - for all the reasons outlined elsewhere my view is these Notices are non-compliant given Railway Byelaws and some of the basics are not included on the notice itself. I have submitted an appeal on this basis.

What I am specifically posting about today is my view that these changes are not compliant with the Equality Act. The basic structure of my argument is as follows:

1. Individuals with protected characteristics under the Act must have equitable access to services compared with those in non-protected groups. This is a legal right and further, such individuals under the act have a legal right to access any ‘reasonable adjustments’ provided by the landholder/client/operator to remove barriers to accessing said services - in this case, disabled parking bays.
2. Previously, parking in a bay and displaying a blue badge was an acceptable means of accessing this service. At the time of the alleged contravention, the vehicle was parked in this manner and met the previous contractual arrangement. 
3. Signage at the car park now stipulates that disabled passengers MUST now be registered on a new portal to access this service. This contravenes the Act because service providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled people are not disadvantaged compared to other groups. This means taking steps to remove barriers that protect disabled individuals from accessing services on an equal basis to others, and failure to do so could mean the service provider is unlawfully discriminating against disabled people. 
4. This is plainly the case here where individuals in non-protected groups are able to access parking services either online (making payment on a website, through an app), by telephone (either through a phonecall or text message), or in person by paying at a Ticket Vending Machine. Disabled individuals have no access to in-person service provision as displaying a blue badge no longer allows access to the service - they are mandated to register on the portal online to do so.
5. This represents an unnecessary barrier to individuals with a protected characteristic accessing the service and no reasonable adjustment has been put in place for these individuals to access the service provision in-person despite those in non-protected groups still being able to do so under these changes. 

The effect of these new arrangements is that they deny a disabled person their statutory right to access a service and use a reasonable adjustment without penalty, and the evidence is the Penalty Notice I received which is illegal under the Act. The crux of the issue relates to in-person access to services, and unless a reasonable adjustment is put in place to enable this the new arrangements will remain non-compliant.

As part of the appeal, I have raised a formal complaint on this basis to APCOA, Transport Focus and Southeastern’s Managing Director. The initial view of the MD is that an Equalities Impact Assessment was completed and ANPR technology reads number plates and cannot identify the presence or absence of a blue badge. A fuller response is being provided but this does not address the issues raised and more highlights why implementation of this approach is short sighted. 

Said EIA is here: https://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/-/media/goahead/southeastern/documents/car-parking/set-eqia-form-anpr-car-parks-2025.docx

While the EIA notes disabled people will be impacted by the changes, it does not capture the specific issues raised or recognise that the service can no longer be accessed with an in-person provision. Under “How will the new ANPR system impact Blue Badge holders?", it states: 

“Blue Badge holders already have the option to register up to 10 cars on the APCOA Blue Badge Portal. This will ensure vehicles will be automatically exempt from enforcement. Blue Badge holders should continue to display their blue badge to avoid a penalty notice being issued. APCOA undertakes physical patrols of the car parks, which includes checking for customer compliance with allocated Blue Badge parking areas, so a visible check of the displayed Blue Badge by the patroller is the best on-site checking process. Seeing Blue Badges on display deters other customers from abusing the spaces - this reassures other Blue Badge customers that spaces are not being abused by non-Blue Badge customers.” 

Essentially I’d like to gather any thoughts on things I may have missed - I expect the Penalty Notice(s) to be cancelled anyway, but this is now a point of principle as I know many people will just pay these requests for payment which were not only unfair already, but are also now targeted at an extremely vulnerable group which is unacceptable. The EIA also highlights these arrangements are commonplace with many other operators.

Thanks for your collective wisdom!

kryten3000

APCOA, so they will cancel or auto withdraw at POPLA stage with the "no keeper liability" argument being used for appeals.

This requirement to register is so they don't have to send an attendant round the car park and can rely on ANPR instead.  Not a terrible idea on the surface but you are right to point out that a single method of getting registered is not compliant.  There should be alternatives on offer.

Coupon-mad

Totally agree and I covered this EA discrimination only yesterday:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81475192/#Comment_81475192

It is undoubtedly unfair/discriminatory & illegal.

doubledotcom

You need to confirm whether this was issued as a Penalty Notice (PN) for a breach of Railway Byelaw 14 or a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a breach of contract under civil law.

skizz_b

doubledotcom said:

You need to confirm whether this was issued as a Penalty Notice (PN) for a breach of Railway Byelaw 14 or a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a breach of contract under civil law.

Thanks - per the original post it was issued as a Penalty Notice. From the PN:

This Penalty Notice has been issued to the above-mentioned vehicle which was parked on Railway Assets (Railway Property) in breach of the Railway Byelaws (“Byelaws”) as displayed in the signage at the location. 

It further states An offence was committed by breaching Byelaw 14 and having identified that an offence occurred, your data has been released by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as our client has reasonable cause (under Regulation 27(1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002). DVLA records indicate that you were the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the office. You are legally liable for this offence as the owner even if you were not the driver at the time.  

skizz_b

kryten3000 said:

This requirement to register is so they don't have to send an attendant round the car park and can rely on ANPR instead.  Not a terrible idea on the surface but you are right to point out that a single method of getting registered is not compliant.  There should be alternatives on offer.

Just to add on this specific point - southeastern’s argument is likely to be that they have alternative options buried in the small print on their website. These are specifically the option to email or call to be registered on said system. 

My argument remains the same that there is still no in-person provision which is available to those in non-protected groups. You are also still reliant on having a working mobile phone or internet to access the service (i.e. you can’t get parking for free if your phone has no battery). 

The other issue is if you register on arrival you are also reliant on APCOA quickly processing a registration. This involves:
- Signing up to the site
- Registering your vehicle details and sending photos of your entitlement (Blue Badge) 
- Submitting a further request for a permit to be issued to the vehicle, which again requires you to submit photos of your Blue Badge
- Wait for the permit to be issued. There is no specific time on the site specifying how long you can expect to wait, but this step has taken over 24 hours in some cases based on research. 

Unnecessary barriers put aside, it is entirely possible a ‘contravention’ will occur even if all reasonable steps are followed. It is also impossible to do this if you board a train - the signage does not state you need photos of your blue badge to register, only that you need to register. So you could easily board a train and attempt to register, but find it is impossible to do so until you return to your car because the signage was unclear and there is no in-person option to register. 

doubledotcom

If you push APCOA about the status of their fraudulent PN, you can easily get them to incriminate themselves as this will be the response you receive:

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.

In my opinion, this conduct borders on fraud. It appears to involve false representation of legal status to obtain payment under false pretences. In other words, it is simply an attempt to extort money under false pretences.

They first claim it’s a statutory matter that could lead to criminal prosecution, then say it’s a private contract. It can’t be both.

On top of that, they call it a “Penalty Notice” – a term that normally means a criminal or statutory fine – but the payment is collected by APCOA, a private company, not by the Train Operating Company or a court. That’s very misleading.

This suggests they are using official-sounding language to frighten people into paying, when in reality this is just a private demand that looks like a fine. It can only be seen as misrepresentation under consumer protection law.

APCOA needs to make up its mind. If it’s a real penalty under railway byelaws, it must go through a magistrates’ court. If it’s a civil matter under contract law, then it can’t involve threats of criminal prosecution or use the term “penalty notice.”

They can’t have it both ways. This behaviour is arguably misleading enough to raise questions under the Fraud Act 2006. It appears to involve deliberate misrepresentation with the intent to profit. Whether that constitutes fraud is something that should be investigated by the police.

Coupon-mad

APCOA PNs can be won at POPLA by saying that the landowner authority only allows them to issue contractual PCNs. That has worked.

skizz_b

doubledotcom said:

If you push APCOA about the status of their fraudulent PN, you can easily get them to incriminate themselves as this will be the response you receive:

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.

In my opinion, this conduct borders on fraud. It appears to involve false representation of legal status to obtain payment under false pretences. In other words, it is simply an attempt to extort money under false pretences.

They first claim it’s a statutory matter that could lead to criminal prosecution, then say it’s a private contract. It can’t be both.

On top of that, they call it a “Penalty Notice” – a term that normally means a criminal or statutory fine – but the payment is collected by APCOA, a private company, not by the Train Operating Company or a court. That’s very misleading.

This suggests they are using official-sounding language to frighten people into paying, when in reality this is just a private demand that looks like a fine. It can only be seen as misrepresentation under consumer protection law.

APCOA needs to make up its mind. If it’s a real penalty under railway byelaws, it must go through a magistrates’ court. If it’s a civil matter under contract law, then it can’t involve threats of criminal prosecution or use the term “penalty notice.”

They can’t have it both ways. This behaviour is arguably misleading enough to raise questions under the Fraud Act 2006. It appears to involve deliberate misrepresentation with the intent to profit. Whether that constitutes fraud is something that should be investigated by the police.

This is particularly useful, thanks - and thanks also to others who have commented. A litany of errors on their part before you even get to the discrimination that has occurred and continues to do so- what a mess.

I'll await their response and will update - suspect this won't be the last time this happens given they've turned ANPR on at nearly 50 stations recently...

skizz_b

Update - correspondence from APCOA today. Apparently they both decided to cancel the notice and were told to do so. 

We have carefully reviewed your appeal and the evidence provided, taking into consideration all the points you have raised and, on this occasion, we have decided to cancel this Penalty Notice.

We have been instructed by Southeastern Trains Ltd (SET) to cancel this Penalty Notice. As this Penalty Notice has been cancelled, there is no further action required by you at this time. I understand that SET will be in contact with you shortly if they have not done so already.

I can see that you have registered your Blue Badge via the Blue Badge Portal, and that your vehicle 'XXXXXXX' is covered to park at XXX Station Car Park, and other APCOA managed Southeastern Sites for Free. Whilst your Blue Badge has been registered on the Portal, please continue to display this in your vehicle when parked on-site.

For others in a similar situation, hopefully this serves as precedent that APCOA will cancel Penalty Notices in a similar situation where a registration takes place after the event or evidence of entitlement is provided retrospectively. I await the response from Southeastern in relation to the wider issues raised.

kryten3000

This is exactly how retrospective proof of eligibility should work - Outright PCN cancellation with nothing to pay.