APCOA / Southeastern Penalty Notices and Blue Badges

doubledotcom

I have now had my FoI request responded to and I have a copy of the contract between Southeastern and APCOA. There are some interesting points. The contract is very long and runs to about 150 pages.

One of the most interesting points is this:

Penalty Notices are currently issued under byelaw 14 but this is expected to change in November under instruction from the Department for Transport.

This is the content of their response:

Thank you for your correspondence of 21 July 2025 in which you requested the following information:

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.

I have processed your request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). I can confirm that Southeastern Trains holds some of this information I have addressed each part of your request below.

1. Please find attached a copy of the contract, I have withheld some information from the contract under s43(2) of the FOIA (commercial prejudice) and some information under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data). I have explained the reasons for this in more detail below, and for clarity information withheld under s40(2) is redacted in black and information withheld under s43(2) is redacted in blue. In answer to the specific points, you asked about the contract:

• APCOA are members of the British Parking Association (BPA), and as such are authorised to issue penalty notices. The contractual agreement requires that they enforce parking.

• Penalty Notices are currently issued under byelaw 14 but this is expected to change in November under instruction from the Department for Transport.

2. APCOA does not prosecute byelaw breaches in the magistrates’ courts, we have not delegated prosecution of this power. Southeastern retains prosecutorial responsibility.

Therefore we do not hold information for this part of your request.

3. This information is not held, we do not have any internal guidance documents regarding APCOA’s authority to issue penalty notices, these are issued in accordance with the BPA guidelines.

In accordance with the contract, funds are collected by APCOA and then passed to Southeastern – we receive the full £60 or £100 depending on how quickly the penalty is paid.

Funds are paid to APCOA and then passed to Southeastern – if passed to a debt collector, further charges are applicable, but these are charged by bailiffs.

There then follows some gumph about why some bite are redacted etc.

These are some observations that are problematic with the response:

the FoI team is attributing far too much “authority” to the BPA. BPA membership doesn’t authorise anything in law; APCOA’s authority comes from (i) the Railway Byelaws and (ii) the contract with Southeastern. The contract itself makes that clear.

Authority to issue PNs flows from the contract + byelaws, not from the BPA. The contract says APCOA’s patrollers “shall issue Penalty Notices … in accordance with the Railway Byelaws”; prosecutions are a Customer (Southeastern) function, with any APCOA-run prosecutions only if the Customer later requires it in writing. That is the legal footing.

Appeals and signage: the contract asks APCOA to handle first-stage appeals using BPA best-practice guidelines and to design signage consistent with “Good Industry Practice (BPA)”—but it also requires a rail-industry independent appeals body (IAB) for the second stage and mandates Byelaws-compliant signage so enforcement is “conducted under the Railway Byelaws.” These clauses use BPA as a benchmark for practice, not as a source of legal powers.

Contract governance: beyond the BPA namechecks, the general duties clause is unequivocal—APCOA must “manage and enforce car parks in accordance with Railway Byelaws,” and signage must say the car park is governed by the Railway Byelaws and state the penalty level. Again, nothing about the BPA authorising PNs.

Appeals and signage: the contract asks APCOA to handle first-stage appeals using BPA best-practice guidelines and to design signage consistent with “Good Industry Practice (BPA)”—but it also requires a rail-industry independent appeals body (IAB) for the second stage and mandates Byelaws-compliant signage so enforcement is “conducted under the Railway Byelaws.” These clauses use BPA as a benchmark for practice, not as a source of legal powers.

Here is a link to the actual contract: Southeastern/APCOA contract

doubledotcom

The contract locks the scheme to the Railway Byelaws with TOC-controlled prosecutions and a rail-industry IAB. APCOA’s Notices that (a) route byelaws PNs to POPLA, (b) threaten APCOA-led court action, (c) imply APCOA is the creditor, or (d) conflate byelaws penalties with civil PCN concepts, do not comply with those contractual requirements. 

Here’s a line-by-line analysis of the back page of an APCOA PN, focusing on what breaches the Southeastern–APCOA contract (and what looks legally problematic). I’ve grouped the text exactly as it appears on the notice.

"HOW TO PAY"

“A delay in payment… may result in APCOA… instructing a Debt Collection agency… and/or APCOA may also proceed with Court action against you.”

Breach/misleading: On this contract, prosecutions are a Customer (Southeastern) function. APCOA can only run prosecutions if Southeastern first gives written notice requiring it. A standing threat that APCOA will bring “Court action” (civil or criminal) is not the agreed route. 

Also, all debt-collection letters sent “on behalf of the Customer” are subject to Southeastern’s final editorial approval. If this stock wording was approved, it exposes the TOC; if it was not, it is a clear performance failure. 

"HOW TO APPEAL"

APCOA portal + 28-day window

OK contractually: The contract requires APCOA to host payment/appeals portals and place those web addresses on the PN; a 28-day appeal window is contemplated. 

“We will provide you with the details to lodge an appeal to Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA).”

Breach/mis-specification: The contract requires the second-stage appeal to a recognised rail-industry independent appeals body (IAB) familiar with enforcement under the Railway Byelaws—not a private-land scheme. Unless Southeastern has formally designated POPLA to act as its rail IAB, naming “POPLA” on a Byelaws PN is inconsistent with the contract’s IAB requirement. 

(A stray reference to “POPLA costs” elsewhere in the commercial schedules doesn’t override the explicit rail-IABrequirement in the enforcement section.) 

“USEFUL INFORMATION”

“An offence was committed by breaching Byelaw 14…”

Problematic phrasing: Whether an offence has been committed is for a court to determine. A PN may assert a suspected breach, but stating the offence as a concluded fact is potentially misleading. (Contractually this is also risky because all customer-facing wording on this subject must be approved by the Customer (TOC) and in plain English.) 

Owner/keeper liability paragraphs (DVLA/‘owner presumed to be the registered keeper’ etc.)

Largely accurate in principle: Byelaw 14 allows owner liability and presumes the owner to be the registered keeper unless proved otherwise. (No contract breach here.) However, this is  not prosecutable as long as the driver is not identified.

“If the Penalty Notice remains unpaid, APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd is entitled to pursue you through the Magistrates’ Court by way of a private criminal prosecution for payment of the Penalty Notice.”

Breach/misleading: Again, prosecutions are to be managed by Southeastern, with APCOA only prosecuting if Southeastern instructs and delegates. A blanket statement that APCOA “is entitled” to prosecute does not reflect the contract and misstates APCOA’s standing. 

“The notice… was an invitation… to avoid the need for a private criminal prosecution… You can now either pay… or appeal… you cannot do both.”

The “invitation to settle” idea is conventional for Byelaws PNs. The “you cannot do both” restriction is an APCOA policy point; the contract doesn’t require that exact wording. Not a breach by itself, but the surrounding APCOA-led prosecution threats remain inconsistent with the agreement. 

“COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE”

Generic service wording. No obvious contract breach. (Remember: all such communications are still subject to Customer approval.) 

The main (obvious) non-compliances/misstatements

APCOA-led “Court action”/“private criminal prosecution” threats — inconsistent with Customer-managed prosecutions; APCOA can only prosecute if formally required by Southeastern. 

POPLA named as the escalated appeals body — contract requires a rail-industry IAB familiar with Byelaws enforcement, not a generic private-land body. 

Assertion of guilt (“an offence was committed”) — not a contract clause breach per se, but misleading; and all such wording is under Customer editorial control, which engages TOC liability if approved. 

Could be problematic for the TOC

Governance & liability: The contract vests prosecutions with Southeastern and requires Customer approval over debt/PN communications. Using stock text that (a) puts APCOA in the prosecutor’s seat and (b) routes appeals to POPLA conflicts with the agreed enforcement architecture and exposes the TOC to challenge. 

Money/standing: PN revenue is Customer revenue (100% paid over weekly; held on trust for the Customer). That background makes APCOA’s “we will take you to court” posturing look even less defensible.

doubledotcom

Even if the TOC wanted to prosecute, as long as the driver is not identified, they have absolutely no way to do so. They can’t use Byelaw 14(4) to bridge the gap. Under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), if the TOC has no evidence that the named defendant (the Keeper) was the “person in charge” at the time of a Railway Byelaw 14(1)–(3) breach, the case should not result in a conviction.

What happens:

1. Filing under SJP
   The TOC files a written charge naming the keeper. The court issues a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN).

2. Paper scrutiny by the Single Justice
   Before convicting on the papers, the Single Justice must be satisfied there is evidence of each essential element, including identity of the offender (the person in charge). ANPR + DVLA keeper data is not evidence of that element. If identity evidence is missing, the Single Justice should not convict; the case is commonly (a) listed for an open-court hearing or (b) marked for review/withdrawal.

3. If listed in open court
   The prosecutor must still call admissible evidence proving the defendant was the person in charge beyond reasonable doubt. With none, the bench should uphold a “no case to answer” submission at the close of the prosecution case and dismiss.

4. Why 14(4) doesn’t help
   Byelaw 14(4) (“owner may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed”) creates an administrative/financial liability pathway for a penalty; it is not a criminal offence and does not deem the owner/keeper to be the offender for 14(1)–(3). It cannot be used to convict the keeper in a criminal prosecution when the driver is unknown.

5. Realistic prosecutor options if identity cannot be proved

• Discontinue/withdraw the SJP case before hearing.

• Seek an adjournment only if there is a concrete, proportionate line of further enquiry (e.g., a genuine recognition witness to locate). Without that, pressing on risks an abuse-of-process argument.

• Do nothing further and allow the six-month summary time limit to make further action impracticable.

Bottom line

If the prosecutor can’t identify the person in charge and has no admissible linkage evidence to the named keeper, the SJP should not end in a conviction; any attempt to proceed will fail at the first proper judicial checkpoint.

Byelaw 14(4) lets them ask the keeper to pay the penalty, but unless they can prove in court who was ‘the person in charge’ for a byelaw 14(1)–(3) offence, they can’t compel payment or convict the Keeper.

kryten3000

What exactly is the DoT planning to change in November?

doubledotcom

I suspect they are going to require their unregulated private parking contractees to only be able to issue PCNs under civil contract law and not PNs under statutory criminal law.

Coupon-mad

kryten3000 said:

What exactly is the DoT planning to change in November?

doubledotcom said:

I suspect they are going to require their unregulated private parking contractees to only be able to issue PCNs under civil contract law and not PNs under statutory criminal law.

FOI to the DFT needed? Ask for a copy of all communications, meeting minutes, decisions about what must change and why and a copy of the 'instructions' around this and who these were sent to (all TOCs?):

"Penalty Notices are currently issued under byelaw 14 but this is expected to change in November under instruction from the Department for Transport."

doubledotcom

That FoI request has already been sent.

Coupon-mad

Thought it might. Interesting. Thanks!