APCOA / Southeastern Penalty Notices and Blue Badges

Umkomaas

skizz_b said:

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?

Private companies cannot issue Penalties. Funds raised through byelaw Penalties go to the Exchequer. 

skizz_b

Umkomaas said:

skizz_b said:

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?

Private companies cannot issue Penalties. Funds raised through byelaw Penalties go to the Exchequer. 

Thanks - seems like a gotcha in waiting. 

Just on this specific point from their previous correspondence - are we saying APCOA are not authorised to issue Penalty Notices even if this is based on a contract between the parties? 

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. 

I ask as I read elsewhere that any enforcement action through the courts must be issued by the Train Operating Company who are the party empowered to do so in statute (which potentially opens up another issue of Penalty Notices stating APCOA will pursue payment through Magistrates Court which wouldn't be the case). 

On reflection the Exchequer issue is definitely relevant given the statement "Southeastern have installed ANPR systems at our car parks to protect the public purse" - one would expect penalty revenue to be going to the Exchequer as you state, but (playing devil's advocate) I am not sure if there is a loophole on this given Southeastern is now a publicly owned TOC?

Hopefully I get a response on the specific blue badge issue and reasonable adjustments before raising this - will keep this thread updated as always and appreciate the input and knowledge of the board.

DjangoUnchained

i know its a small point but by their own rules they say if they cant know the driver they can pursue the owner. How do they know who the owner is? the regestered keeper is not necesarily th owner (as it says on the V5 the document is not proof of ownership)

skizz_b

DjangoUnchained said:

i know its a small point but by their own rules they say if they cant know the driver they can pursue the owner. How do they know who the owner is? the regestered keeper is not necesarily th owner (as it says on the V5 the document is not proof of ownership)

Quite right, and this is the point I was trying to direct them to (albeit in a convoluted way).

• They say that the recipient of the PN has been established as the owner and legally liable based on them being the registered keeper, which isn't factually correct for the reason you state.
• They then cite VERA to support this point, when the Act does the opposite (recognising the registered keeper and the owner may not be the same person).
• They finally use VERA to assert the recipient as registered keeper is assumed to be the owner unless proven otherwise. This language is (in my view) purposely confusing as it does not make clear who is responsible for this. The recipient does not have to prove they are not liable and this could be construed as inviting someone to implicate themselves or another party, which they are in their rights to not do. The burden is on APCOA to prove who the liable party is beyond a reasonable doubt. 

doubledotcom

I agree that the response is too long and much of it would be best argued if it ever went to court.

I also believe the fact that funds raised through byelaws penalties go to the exchequer are not necessarily relevant here as nowhere have APCOA made a private prosecution through the magistrates court. If they did and they were successful, the yes, any fine would go to the exchequer and they may be granted some limited costs.

There is nothing to stop APCOA acting as a prosecutor in a private prosecution. However, to do so, they would have to lay information before a magistrate and convince the magistrate that they have a valid case and only then would a summons be issued. It would never happen, because APCOA are not going to make a penny out of it.

I would concentrate on the fact that APCOA are clearly breaking the law by issuing a Penalty Notice but trying to recover the charge through the civil system. It is plain and simple fraud.

You'd be better off getting Southeastern to show their contract with APCOA and how they expect APCOA to recover any charges they make, whether by prosecuting breaches of Railway Byelaw 14 with Byelaw 26(1) or whether they are only authorised to issue Parking Charge Notices under civil contract law.

I'd place money on it that APCOA have zero authority to prosecute any byelaw breaches as penalties. Let's see the contract details. The only way that is likely to happen is if APCOA actually try to criminally prosecute privately (which I've already explained, will only happen after hell freezes over) or they actually go to trial in the County court and are put to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that authorises them to issue Penalty Notices but to enforce the penalty through contract law, which is an impossibility.

No wonder APCOA do not litigate, they'd be hung by their own petard if they ever did. So, try and get Southeastern to either reveal the contract or provide a response to the allegation that their agent is acting unlawfully.

Coupon-mad

APCOA are authorised by Southeastern to issue Penalty Notices pursuant to a contract between Southeastern and APCOA.

Thing is, the contract quite possibly doesn't say that. We've seen TOC contracts with APCOA that only say they can issue parking charge notices.

Hence why the advice is usually to appeal then appeal again to POPLA, stating that the operator doesn't have authority to issue Penalty Notices.

That's won in the past. But your PCN is cancelled already IIRC?

skizz_b

Coupon-mad said:

APCOA are authorised by Southeastern to issue Penalty Notices pursuant to a contract between Southeastern and APCOA.

Thing is, the contract quite possibly doesn't say that. We've seen TOC contracts with APCOA that only say they can issue parking charge notices.

Hence why the advice is usually to appeal then appeal again to POPLA, stating that the operator doesn't have authority to issue Penalty Notices.

That's won in the past. But your PCN is cancelled already IIRC?

That's correct - the Penalty Notice was cancelled at pretty much the first opportunity. 

The prevailing wind behind all of this is the blue badge registration issue, but as others have commented there's certainly a rabbit hole to explore with the legality of these notices in the round. It's an unfair fight at the best of times - we shall see what they come back with.

skizz_b

Well it's almost a month to the day, and Southeastern have replied. Admittedly they did send a holding response acknowledging the delay prior to this.

---

We acknowledge your concerns and appreciate your continued engagement, particularly on matters relating to legal liability, data protection, and accessibility for disabled passengers.

 

Before considering the specific points you’ve raised, it is important to note that your Penalty Notice relating to this matter has been cancelled.

 

Please find below our considered response to the specific points you have raised:

 

You are correct in stating that registered keeper and legal owner are not always the same person, and that the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 makes this distinction clear.

 

You will be aware however that our Terms and Conditions of Parking state that vehicles parked without authorisation or in breach of any of the following conditions may receive a Penalty Notice which may be issued either manually or by post:

 

1. Failure to purchase a valid parking session, APCOA Connect session or valid parking permit.
2. Failure to correctly enter your vehicle registration number when prompted online.
3. Overstaying the parking period paid for.
4. Failure to park within a marked parking bay or causing an obstruction to other users.
5. Parking in a Blue Badge Bay without displaying a valid Blue Badge.

 

Per the APCOA terms and conditions of parking…

 

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. When you use this car park, APCOA collects and processes certain data to make sure that the Parking Conditions are complied with and to enforce these where necessary. This may include obtaining the registered keeper’s name and address from the DVLA in order to send a Notice to Keeper, any related correspondence and any further notices if the Penalty Notice remains unpaid.

 

We request details of the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time the alleged contravention took place from the DVLA. Having done so we may then seek from that person details of who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time in order to pursue the Penalty Notice against that person. If no details are provided, we will continue to pursue payment of the Penalty Notice against the registered keeper.

 

We acknowledge your concern that the language used in some Penalty Notices issued by APCOA may give the impression that legal liability is automatically assigned to the registered keeper.

 

APCOA followed the process in obtaining the Owner details and sent the Penalty Notice. However, they made no effort to establish keeper details as the Penalty Notice was cancelled quite early in the process and the Blue Badge was registered on the portal.

 

Southeastern do not accept that it acts fraudulently in the issuance and enforcement of Penalty Notices, rather, as we have already imitated, Southeastern consider these practices necessary to ensure the proper and compliant use of our car parks; not least to ensure that disabled parking bays are used only by disabled customers.  As we have advised, by parking at our stations, you enter into a contract to use the car park, and agree to accept any terms of use.

 

We acknowledge your point that ANPR technology cannot determine which specific bay a vehicle has parked in, nor can it detect the presence of a displayed Blue Badge.

 

In practice, physical patrols by APCOA personnel remain an essential part of ensuring compliance. The ANPR system's role is primarily to monitor vehicle entry/exit for time enforcement and permit validation.

As we have advised, Southeastern will work APCOA to provide assistance for customers to register on APCOA’s ANPR system. Southeastern complies with, and places great importance upon, its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and considers it reasonable to require registration on the ANPR system, with assistance if requested.

 

Thank you again for raising these important issues in such a thorough and constructive manner. We remain committed to working collaboratively to resolve the concerns raised and to ensure fair and accessible service for all users of our network.

doubledotcom

What a load of nonsense. I suggest you respond to that with the following:

Subject: Formal Demand for Disclosure of Contractual Authority – APCOA “Penalty Notices”

Dear [TOC Representative],

Thank you for your response dated [insert date], which, while verbose, fails to substantively address the central issue: the legal foundation upon which APCOA is permitted to issue “Penalty Notices” in lieu of private contractual charges.

Your reply makes repeated reference to contractual terms, DVLA keeper requests, and byelaw-based enforcement—but provides no evidence that APCOA has been conferred statutory authority to issue Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaws, nor clarity on the mechanism by which such authority arises.

To that end, I require the following:

1. Disclosure of Contractual Agreement Please provide the specific contractual clause between Southeastern and APCOA that confers legal authority for APCOA to issue “Penalty Notices” under statutory powers rather than contractual “Parking Charge Notices.” This must include:

   • The express delegation of statutory functions by Southeastern (if any);

   • The scope and limitation of enforcement powers under Byelaw 14;

   • Whether APCOA is recognised by the Secretary of State or any other statutory body as an authorised prosecuting entity under the Transport Act 2000 or other enabling legislation.

2. Clarification on Enforcement Mechanism Your position attempts to conflate civil contractual recovery and statutory enforcement. As railway land is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and APCOA is not a prosecuting authority under the Magistrates’ Court framework, you are invited to clarify:

   • The precise legal status of the “Penalty Notice” sent—statutory or contractual;

   • The basis for suggesting keeper liability attaches without POFA compliance.

3. Revenue Collection Audit Trail Please confirm whether any funds collected by APCOA under these notices are paid into the Consolidated Fund (as statutory penalties are required to be), or whether they are retained by APCOA and/or Southeastern. This has material bearing on whether these notices are genuine penalties or disguised invoices.

4. Fraud Act Compliance Be advised that if a contractor, acting without lawful statutory authority, issues documents that purport to be penalty notices under criminal byelaws while pursuing civil recovery, this may constitute Fraud by False Representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Your response to this must be unequivocal and supported by documentary evidence.

You have not provided the necessary legal basis for APCOA’s operation under railway byelaws. I therefore expect the requested disclosures within 14 days of the date of this letter. Failure to do so will confirm that your operations lack transparency and regulatory oversight and will be escalated accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

doubledotcom

FOI request also sent as follows:

Dear Southeastern FOI Team,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting disclosure of documentation and information relating to the enforcement of parking regulations on Southeastern-controlled railway property, specifically in connection with APCOA Parking UK Ltd.

Please provide the following:

1. Contractual Agreement A full copy of the contract(s) between Southeastern and APCOA Parking UK Ltd, including any schedules or annexes, that set out the scope of APCOA’s authority. This must clarify:

   • The basis upon which APCOA is authorised to issue Penalty Notices;

   • Whether such notices are considered statutory penalties under Railway Byelaws or civil parking charges issued under private contract law.

2. Delegation of Statutory Powers Any clauses within the agreement(s), or separate documentation, that delegate statutory enforcement powers under Railway Byelaws (e.g. Byelaw 14) to APCOA. Please confirm whether:

   • APCOA is authorised to prosecute byelaw breaches in a Magistrates’ Court;

   • The Department for Transport or other statutory body has approved such delegation;

   • Southeastern retains prosecutorial responsibility or oversight.

3. Internal Policy or Legal Guidance Any internal guidance documents or legal opinions relied upon by Southeastern when determining APCOA’s authority to issue statutory Penalty Notices versus private Parking Charge Notices.

4. Revenue Flow Documentation Records, agreements, or policies indicating how revenue collected through APCOA-issued Penalty Notices is processed, and whether funds are paid into the Consolidated Fund, retained by Southeastern, or paid to APCOA.

Please consider this request valid under FOIA and provide the requested information in full within 20 working days. Electronic copies (PDF preferred) are acceptable.

Yours faithfully,