APCOA / Southeastern Penalty Notices and Blue Badges

doubledotcom

While you have their ear, perhaps you should ask this person who is sending you their excuses, if they are going to stand by this statement:

The notices issued by APCOA at Southeastern stations under ANPR are Penalty Notices issued pursuant to Railway Byelaw 14, not Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued under civil contract law. APCOA are authorised by Southeastern to issue Penalty Notices pursuant to a contract between Southeastern and APCOA. A Penalty Notice issued under the Byelaws is issued to the owner of the vehicle, even if they weren’t the driver at the time, therefore the information provided by APCOA in their Penalty Notice is correct.

You can use the following in your response:

Given that Southeastern asserts these notices are issued strictly under Railway Byelaw 14 and not under civil contract law, could Southeastern please explain why its agent, APCOA, in correspondence questioning their apparent pursuit of these Penalty Notices under civil contract law, has stated the following:

• That the notice is a “civil matter”;

• That “the claim is based on contract law”, formed when the vehicle was parked on site;

• That a “contractual agreement was entered into” with APCOA, with liability arising from breach of those contractual terms.

If the Penalty Notice truly arises under Byelaw 14, which regulates parking on railway land, and is enforceable via criminal prosecution under Byelaw 24(1)—which provides that any breach of the byelaws is a criminal offence punishable by a fine—how does Southeastern justify APCOA simultaneously invoking civil contract law principles typically associated with Parking Charge Notices (PCNs)?

Does Southeastern accept that this conflation of criminal and civil enforcement may mislead recipients as to their legal rights and obligations, and that doing so could fall within the scope of fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006?

Furthermore, if this approach is found to be misleading or unlawful, does Southeastern accept that it may be vicariously or secondarily liable for the actions of its agent? And in the event that no clear and legally coherent response is provided, should I understand that Southeastern is content for the matter to be referred to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) for regulatory scrutiny?

Umkomaas

Castle said:

Umkomaas said:

The notices issued by APCOA at Southeastern stations under ANPR are Penalty Notices issued pursuant to Railway Byelaw 14, not Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued under civil contract law. APCOA are authorised by Southeastern to issue Penalty Notices pursuant to a contract between Southeastern and APCOA. A Penalty Notice issued under the Byelaws is issued to the owner of the vehicle, even if they weren’t the driver at the time, therefore the information provided by APCOA in their Penalty Notice is correct.

Ask them to confirm that APCOA passes on the proceeds of the Penalty Charge to the Exchequer.

SE Trains Ltd t/a Southeastern are subject to the FOIA.

The option for the OP once SE Trains have made their statement. 

Castle

Umkomaas said:

The option for the OP once SE Trains have made their statement. 

And a request to DVLA to ascertain what reason(s) APCOA gave when requesting the OP's details.

skizz_b

Update - sent by return.

____________________________________________________________________________

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence dated 20 June 2025. 

While I appreciate you setting out your view, this response does not address all of the queries in my complaint and has raised further issues.

Legal Basis for Penalty Notices - Legal Liability

Your correspondence confirms that notices issued by APCOA are Penalty Notices issued pursuant to Railway Byelaw 14, not Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued under civil contract law. You confirm that APCOA are authorised by yourselves to issue Penalty Notices per the contract agreement between the two parties, and Penalty Notices issued under the Byelaws are issued to the owner of the vehicle, even if they weren’t the driver at the time. It is your view that the information provided by APCOA in their Penalty Notice is correct.

Firstly, I should again highlight there are factual errors in the Penalty Notices being issued. Under ‘Useful Information’ the notice states:

DVLA records indicate that you were the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the offence. You are legally liable for this offence as the owner even if you were not the driver at the time. For further clarification, the owner, in relation to a vehicle means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c.22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered, therefore you are legally liable for this offence as the owner even if you were not the driver at the time.

The Penalty Notice cannot establish legal liability as it is issued to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, who is not the owner. Stating the recipient is legally liable does not make this fact.

Firstly:

• DVLA records indicate that you were the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date of the offence. You are legally liable for this offence as the owner even if you were not the driver at the time.

This statement is factually incorrect as it is well established the owner of the vehicle is not always the registered keeper, so they cannot have established the recipient’s legal liability for the offence based on sending a Penalty Notice to the registered keeper. 

Secondly, the below attempts to use the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) to add credibility to their assertion of liability given the Act is in statute.

• ‘For further clarification, the owner, in relation to a vehicle means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c.22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered, therefore you are legally liable for this offence as the owner even if you were not the driver at the time.

This has the opposite effect, as you will be aware that VERA clearly distinguishes between the “owner” and the “registered keeper” of a vehicle and that while the registered keeper is the person officially recorded with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the owner is the person who holds legal title to the vehicle. The Penalty Notice cannot twice state that the recipient is legally liable for the offence, citing an Act which disproves this assertion.

To clarify, the Registered Keeper:

• Is the individual the DVLA recognises as being in charge of the vehicle.
• Is responsible for ensuring the vehicle is taxed and insured.
• Is the recipient of official communications from the DVLA and other enforcement agencies.
• Is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle.

The Owner:

• Is the person who holds legal title to the vehicle. 
• Is typically the person who purchased the vehicle or received it as a gift.

Ownership is distinct from the registered keeper status and is not determined by the DVLA registration. In fact, the DVLA states on registration certificates: “This certificate is not a document of title. The fact that a certificate is issued does not affect the legal ownership of a vehicle.” 

There are also many scenarios where the registered keeper and owner differ, including:

• Leased or hired vehicles, where the lease or hire company is usually the registered keeper, the individual leasing or hiring the vehicle is the user, and in some contexts the individual lessor or hirer or the vehicle may be considered the legal owner - in others, the lease or hire company is considered the legal owner.
• Company cars, where an employee may be the registered keeper of a company car while the company is the legal owner of the vehicle.

With this considered, it is impossible for the recipient of a Penalty Notice to be considered legally liable as the owner in all circumstances but APCOA states this as fact on the basis of details received by the DVLA. The Penalty Notices claim they have established that the recipient is legally liable under VERA, but the Act disproves this and recognises the opposite - specifically that the registered keeper and owner of the vehicle can be two different people and holding the details of the registered keeper does not equate to holding the details of the owner. 

Thirdly, it is concerning that APCOA asserts the recipient of the Penalty Notice - established as the registered keeper and not always the owner - is legally liable unless the contrary is proved. You have already stated that Penalty Notices are issued under Railway Byelaw 14 which means that if the matter is pursued through the Magistrates Court:

• The prosecuting authority must prove the defendant’s legal liability, i.e. that they committed the offence;
• The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, and a Magistrate must be sure of the defendant’s guilt to convict;
• The burden of proof falls on the prosecution throughout the case, and the defendant does not have to prove their innocence.

Per my previous correspondence and given Penalty Notices are issued under Railway Byelaw 14, under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 land governed by Railway Byelaws is considered ‘not relevant land’ - therefore, not only is the recipient of any Penalty Notice not legally obligated to identify the driver or the owner, the registered keeper is also not automatically liable for any ‘Penalty Notice’. 

The wording referring to legal liability unless the contrary is proved is therefore factually incorrect, as if APCOA or Southeastern are not able to prove who the driver or owner committing an offence was beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no demonstrable legal liability and the matter will be doomed to fail as well as being a complete waste of the Court’s time due to there being no established legally liable defendant. 

One could reasonably conclude this wording is designed to prompt the recipient to proactively identify a potentially liable defendant or scare the recipient into paying these Penalty Notices, relying wholly on the fact some people may not be aware of their rights or obligations. This is compounded by repeated statements that the recipient has been established as legally liable, which is particularly problematic given we are discussing the most vulnerable people in society as part of this complaint. 

Does Southeastern therefore accept that these conflations of ownership and legal liability with the recipient being the registered keeper may mislead recipients as to their legal rights and obligations, and that doing so could constitute fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006?

Legal Basis for Penalty Notices - Criminal vs Civil Contract Law

You have already confirmed these notices are issued under Railway Byelaw 14 and not civil contract law. With this considered, could Southeastern explain why APCOA continually uses language relating to civil contract law in issuing and pursuing these notices once challenged. In correspondence challenging pursuit of these Penalty Notices, APCOA have stated on multiple occasions:

• Penalty Notices are issued as ‘a civil matter’;
• The claim is based on ‘contract law’ formed when the vehicle was parked on site;
• That ‘a contractual agreement was entered into with APCOA, with liability arising from breach of those contractual terms.

APCOA further confuse this in the Terms and Conditions they have jointly published with a Southeastern letterhead - https://www.apcoa.co.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/UK/Terms_and_Conditions_of_Parking_-_Southeastern.pdf

You will see APCOA state at the start of this document - which has a joint letterhead with Southeastern -  “This car park is on private Railway owned land and operates under Railway Byelaws. Acceptance of these terms and conditions of parking is a condition of entry to this car park.” The document also states “By parking you have entered into a contract which includes your agreement to your information being processed as part of the contract for you to use this car park.”

This is clumsy language at best, and deliberate obfuscation at worst. If as you state the Penalty Notice arises under Byelaw 14 which regulates parking on railway land, and is enforceable by criminal prosecution under Byelaw 24(1) - which provides that any breach of the byelaws is a criminal offence punishable by a fine - how does Southeastern justify APCOA simultaneously invoking civil contract law principles typically associated with Parking Charge Notices? And again, does Southeastern accept that this conflation of criminal and civil enforcement may mislead recipients as to their legal rights and obligations, and that doing so could fall within the scope of fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006?

Data Protection and Use of ANPR

 

Your response states: 

• Southeastern have installed ANPR systems at our car parks to protect the public purse, and to ensure that disabled car parking spaces are only used by disabled customers.

You will be aware in his correspondence of 1 June Steve White, Managing Director of Southeastern, stated:

• A full Equalities Impact Assessment has been completed to support the introduction of ANPR and various reasonable adjustments have been put in place noting that ANPR technology reads number plates and cannot identify the presence or absence of a blue badge.

Your correspondence also contradicts this statement, as you are aware physical ‘Blue Badges’ are the accepted means of demonstrating entitlement to park in these spaces:

• The EqIA recognised that the introduction of ANPR at station car parks would require Blue Badge holders to register their vehicle(s) through the APCOA Blue Badge Portal, as the system identifies vehicles by number plate rather than physical badges.

Which is correct? My understanding is that ANPR cannot ascertain what space a vehicle has parked in or whether any occupant has a specific entitlement to reserved space (for example disabled bays), so how is ANPR able to ensure disabled car parking spaces are only used by disabled customers? 

EqIA and Compliance with the Equality Act 2010

Unfortunately I feel the responses to the specific - and most important - issues I raised regarding disabled users of your services have not received a proper response. It mostly reiterates information that has already been shared three times without stating whether - and how - Southeastern and APCOA will respond. 

Your correspondence states the EqIA recognises new barriers have been put in place and that the EqIA is flexible and designed to be adapted over time. Save for some odd references to payment for services (as you noted disabled passengers are able to access free parking), there are no specifics on how you will resolve the specific issues raised - though you do take time to state why the suggestions I made are disproportionate and are not a reasonable adjustment you can facilitate.

You will be aware that under the Public Sector Equality Duty public bodies - and private companies carrying out public functions must consider and be responsive to the impacts of policies on people with protected characteristics. It appears that save for some nice words about EqIAs there is no intent to make any adjustment to resolve this issue, so what action is going to be taken to resolve this specific issue given I am aware many other disabled passengers are raising this issue with yourselves? 

You state “We are committed to supporting customers in registering their Blue Badge through our ANPR system. We alongside APCOA will provide assistance for customers to register.” What does this mean in practice?

With this in mind, please could you explicitly state whether it is Southeastern’s view that this system - and the adjustments you made to previous arrangements to put the new system in place - are compliant with the Equality Act 2010. I have stated a strong case as to why they are not, that is yet to be firmly rebutted rather than reiterating what has happened previously. Please could you also set out the specific action you will be taking - if any - to resolve the barrier to accessing services in-person at stations and what support will be provided beyond the current arrangement of pointing people at a sign.

Umkomaas

Too long, in my view.  Over 2,000 words, I doubt you'll get any sensible or comprehensive response. 

Did you ask them to confirm whether penalties paid to APCOA are transferred to the Exchequer?  I don't see it in the verbiage. 

skizz_b

Umkomaas said:

Too long, in my view.  Over 2,000 words, I doubt you'll get any sensible or comprehensive response. 

Did you ask them to confirm whether penalties paid to APCOA are transferred to the Exchequer?  I don't see it in the verbiage. 

We'll see. All I've had back so far are nice words that avoid the specific problems I've summarised, so to enable me to get them to agree or disagree the argument needs to be set out in full rather than assuming they will fill in the gaps.

I've not included the Exchequer point it as it's not really core to the original purpose of my complaint.

Umkomaas

skizz_b said:

Umkomaas said:

Too long, in my view.  Over 2,000 words, I doubt you'll get any sensible or comprehensive response. 

Did you ask them to confirm whether penalties paid to APCOA are transferred to the Exchequer?  I don't see it in the verbiage. 

We'll see. All I've had back so far are nice words that avoid the specific problems I've summarised, so to enable me to get them to agree or disagree the argument needs to be set out in full rather than assuming they will fill in the gaps.

I've not included the Exchequer point it as it's not really core to the original purpose of my complaint.

Let us know. 

The Exchequer point is front and centre of this entire scam with Railway 'Penalty' Notices.  You seem to have underestimated it.  SE Rail and APCOA need to be painted into a corner!

Coupon-mad

I agree with @Umkomaas

The overly wordy (and incorrect) rant about penalty notices is the wrong angle.

skizz_b

Coupon-mad said:

I agree with @Umkomaas

The overly wordy (and incorrect) rant about penalty notices is the wrong angle.

What specifically is incorrect?

skizz_b

Umkomaas said:

Let us know. 

The Exchequer point is front and centre of this entire scam with Railway 'Penalty' Notices.  You seem to have underestimated it.  SE Rail and APCOA need to be painted into a corner!

Potentially, as I'm not up to speed on the background save for it being mentioned in this thread. What is the argument?