Penalty Notice Received While Practising in Station Car Park

Coupon-mad

ShadowNode123 said:

James_Poisson said:

You need to realise that private car parks are bandit country covered by greedy parking companies looking for cash, but also they are private land earmarked to provide parking for genuine customers where a fee may be payable basically for any time a vehicle is on site.

These rules should be spelled out in no nonsense terms and conditions and a driver is deemed to have accepted these after a short period on site.

However this does not mean that a third party greedy company can just get away with anything they like, and the reality is that the parking company like it when people break their rules it's a way of making money with a few threatening letters.

APCOA are pretty useless and benign read the newbies thread and do not divulge the name of the driver, in future use a car park with no PPC or read the T&Cs thoroughly first. 

I acknowledge my mistake and accept that I should have read the sign which states there is only a 20-minute grace period. I wrongly assumed that since I wasn’t parking but only practising bay parking, payment wasn’t required. The issue is that I received the first PN on 17th July for a contravention that occurred on 1st July. Between 1st and 12th July, I practised in the car park three times, and I have now received a second PN today. I’m expecting a third one as well.

The good news is that I had my driving test today and I passed. However, receiving these PNs are causing me a lot of stress.

Congrats!

But you couldn't ask for easier ones to see off. You got lucky, as long as you DO NOT add words to imply who was driving.

ShadowNode123

doubledotcom said:

Is it a "Penalty Notice" (PN) or a "Parking Charge Notice" (PCN)?

It is a Penalty notice (PN). how is it different from Parking Charge Notice?

Coupon-mad

It times out after just 6 months.

And the way to win these PNs at POPLA (second stage appeal) is to say that the landowner authority only allows them to issue Parking Charge Notices, not penalties.

Car1980

I acknowledge my mistake and accept that I should have read the sign which states there is only a 20-minute grace period. I wrongly assumed that since I wasn’t parking but only practising bay parking, payment wasn’t required

Don't apologise at your failure to read a massive long essay in tiny writing on a sign that I am still almost certain did not specifically state you agreed to be charged for practising driving.

The mistake is theirs. I say mistake - the clearer the signage the less money they make.

doubledotcom

Send the following as a Freedom of Information request to the Train Operating Company (TOC) that is responsible for the station where the Penalty Notice was issued:

Dear [TOC] 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 [TOC]-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 [TOC] 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 [TOC] 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 [TOC], 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, 

ShadowNode123

A bit of an update from last time:
Case Overview:
My partner is the the Registered Keeper. He received two Penalty Notices from APCOA for XX Station (Railway Byelaw land) for the same alleged contravention (no valid payment while practicing manoeuvers by myself). Both were appealed to POPLA on identical grounds, and remarkably, both were assessed by the same assessor.

The Contradiction:
Case A: SUCCESSFUL. The assessor allowed the appeal because the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was sent late. He stated: "POPLA borrowed the POFA standards... the notice needed to be received no later than 16/07/2025. As it was not sent until 17/07/2025... I must allow the appeal."

Case B: UNSUCCESSFUL. Despite identical grounds, the same assessor refused this appeal.
In the refused case (Case B), the contravention date was 01/07/2025, making the 14-day "service" deadline 15/07/2025. The NTK was issued on Saturday 12/07/2025. Under the assessor’s own "working day" logic applied in Case A:

Postage on a Saturday means the letter isn't collected/posted until Monday 14/07.

"2 working days for service" means it is deemed delivered on Wednesday 16/07.

Result: This notice was also served late (1 day past the 15/07 deadline), but the assessor failed to apply his own timing check.

Current Status:

POPLA's complaint team reviewed my complaint but rejected it, claiming they can "assume" a letter is posted on a Saturday, contradicting the "working day" logic used by the assessor in the successful case.

I have now received a Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) letter for £170.

Address Issue: I moved house on 10/03/2026. V5C/Licence were updated 11/04/2026. The DRP letter (dated 24/04) was sent to my old address; I only discovered it because my former landlord notified me.

• How much weight does "Assessor Inconsistency" hold if this reaches the Small Claims Court?

• Since this is Railway Byelaw land, is it worth defending on the basis that APCOA cannot invoke "Keeper Liability" under PoFA 2012 (as it's not "Relevant Land")?

• What is the best way to "bind" them to my new address to prevent a default CCJ while I continue to dispute the £170 fee?

Gr1pr

It wont reach any court Pofa2012 rules didn't apply back then, so Apcoa had the 7 months rule

TRUE ( in 2025, prior to Boxing Day ) , But Apcoa dont issue claims

Use the DCBL app to give them the correct address

Umkomaas

POPLA's complaint team reviewed my complaint but rejected it, claiming they can "assume" a letter is posted on a Saturday, contradicting the "working day" logic used by the assessor in the successful case.

Can we please see a copy of that?

How much weight does "Assessor Inconsistency" hold if this reaches the Small Claims Court?

It won’t reach the SCC - APCOA never sue.

What is the best way to "bind" them to my new address to prevent a default CCJ while I continue to dispute the £170 fee?

Write to APCOA’s Data Protection Officer, telling them to erase your former address and replace with your new address, and to ensure that any third party with whom they have shared your details does likewise.

Once the PCN has been issued, there is no further contact between APCOA and the DVLA, so you informing the DVLA of an address change, is not passed on to APCOA.

Bazarius

Why are you still worrying about this Penalty Notice - the time for the train operator to take it to Mags Court expired four months ago.

There’s nothing to do now. Don’t update addresses and don’t engage with them.

If they’re still writing to you, tell them their continued contact amounts to harassment and misuse of your data, given the six‑month deadline to take action has long since passed- they can’t keep threatening court action .

ShadowNode123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81990397#Comment_81990397

Please find this below:
Comments from assessor

(Successful appeal):
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the penalty correctly and if the driver has complied with the rules of the car park. This penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. When a PN is issued, the operator will pursue the owner only for the penalty charge, and will not seek to transfer liability, therefore POFA 2012 does not apply. However, whilst the operator is not looking to transfer liability from the owner, there were no set timescales in place initially, and POPLA borrowed the POFA standards when looking at Byelaws. Section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 states that operators should send the notice to keeper by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. The relevant period is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. Paragraph (6) states, "a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working days” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales”. For this to happen the notice to owner needed to have received the PN no later than 16/07/2025, as the date of contravention was 02/07/2025. However, as it was not sent until 17/07/2025, I would not have been expected to have been received until 2 working days later on 21/07/2025. As such, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

(Unsuccessful appeal):
Having reviewed this case, I can see that a penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The Byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. PoFA does not apply here however, I have seen no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the appellant is not the owner, and I am therefore going to be considering their responsibility as the vehicle owner under the Railway Byelaws. The appellant has explained that they cannot be bound by the parking rules if the rules are not brought to the attention of the driver. They have included evidence of the signage to show that the full parking rules are not clear. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case the, the evidence provided by both the appellant and the parking operator shows that the parking rules are clearly brought to the attention of the driver as they enter the site. This signs clearly explains that payment is made on arrival and the motorist is directed to review the full parking rules within the site. Furthermore, Section 19.3 of the BPA Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that there is clear and compliant signage around the site. The signage here clearly states that the failure to purchase a valid parking session would result in a £100 PN. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they seek out and comply with the rules at all times. I am satisfied that the signage here complies with the BPA. The appellant has also stated that it is unreasonable for a driver to enter the site, find the rules and decide if they wish to park or leave. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, the 5 minute consideration period would be applicable. On this occasion, the vehicle has remained on the site for 1 hour and 46 minutes. As such, the consideration period has far been exceeded. The appellant has also stated that the £100 PN is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Within the sentencing act 2020, it states that a penalty charge can be issued up to the amount of £1000. In this instance the parking operator has issued the penalty charge at £100 which is within the standard scale. Therefore, I do not consider this excessive. Further, on reviewing the signs, the penalty amount is displayed in large lettering, it is bold and stands out from the other information displayed. I consider the notice to be clear in advising of the penalty charge. The appellant has stated that the vehicle was not parked but the learner driver was practicing parking in a bay. The parking sector Single Code of Practice states that parking is "a vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land". Whilst I completely understand the driver had no intention of failing to comply with rules the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the rules to accept it, there is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the rules before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the rules, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the rules and parking. Furthermore, I note the appellant has explained that the term “Penalty Notice” is misleading and legally inaccurate. In this context, as the motorists is issuing a Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws, the term is used correctly. After considering the evidence from both parties, the private car park was used without a valid payment and therefore the rules of the site were not complied with. As such, I am satisfied the penalty notice has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

I complained to POPLA on the basis that I do not believe the assessor has correctly calculated the dates with the timescales borrowed from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Because the penalty was issued on a Saturday, it would not have been posted until the following Monday.

This was their reply:

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) covers parking charge notices issued under contract law. Whilst this legislation cannot be applied to a penalty notice issued under Byelaws, POPLA borrows the timescales from this legislation to determine that has been issued within a reasonable timeframe.

The penalty states it was issued on 12 July 2025. Whilst I appreciate this is a Saturday, there is nothing within POFA that states that we cannot assume the notice was posted on a Saturday. The ‘working days’ in POFA are only in relation to the date the notice is presumed to be delivered.

Letters can be posted on a Saturday in the UK. Therefore, I am satisfied that the assessor has made the correct calculations when making their decisions. The penalty is presumed to be delivered on the second working day after it was issued. This would have been the 15 July 2025 and the last day of the relevant period.

I have reviewed the assessor’s decision, and I am satisfied that based on the evidence provided, the outcome reached is appropriate. As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.