APCOA Parking PCN - Guildford Station Long Stay

fleshytomato

Hi all, I've been reading lots of posts on this forum for the past few months, for personal interest, and now becuase a family member has a PCN...

Basically I'm starting to doubt my self wether the wording of the appeal below was actually correct... My understanding at the time was the land the car was parked on is railway land, but the parking charge they issued has no mention of it being on railway land, like the rest of the letters from APCOA I've seen on this forum for notices on railway land.

They ignored every part of my appeal, and just responded with oh you didn't pay, so the parking charge was correctly issued.

It's got to the point where the next stage is a POPLA appeal, and all the posts about POPLA appeals on this forum I have found so far, I've noticed that the PCN refers to railway bylaws in the original PCN, where as this one does not.

And the line about 24 hour session doesn't seem to have helped as the person reading my appeal seems to have come to the conclusion we paid and have evidence. The driver seems to think they paid but they can't find any evidence to prove it.

Wondering if anyone can advise? Thank you!

Car was issued a PCN at Guildford station long stay, on the PCN it's called 'Guildford - Long Stay Station View' on 08/11/2025. The photos show a yellow PCN under the windscreen wiper, this was no where to be found when the driver returned to the car.

18/12/2025 a letter comes through the door for the registered keeper advising of a Parking Charge. This is the first time the registered keeper learned about the charge.

The registered keeper sends this appeal on 18/12/2025 to APCOA:

I appeal as keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.

You have issued a confusing PCN because the location is a railway car park and dependent on ownership will be administered either under railway bylaws or the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). In this situation you have not made clear if you are operating under railway bylaws or under the POFA "relevant land" concept.

In the event the location is relevant land, your notice does not contain the mandatory warning required by POFA paragraph 9(2)(f) and it is now too late for you to deliver a POFA-compliant notice to keeper. 

In the event the location is railway land, under bylaws you are unable to transfer the driver’s liability (if any) to me because the location in question is not ‘relevant land’ as defined in Schedule 4 to POFA.

You have failed to deliver your 'parking charge' within adequate time, the charge letter was only delivered today, the 18th December 2025 to the keeper. The date stated on the letter is the 8th November 2025, the date the pictures of the vehicle were taken, despite APCOA allowing 24 hours after the parking session ending to pay, showing you have issued a charge during the period of time when a driver would still have been able to pay for parking and not receive any spurious charges from yourself.

Please either cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code so POPLA can review and instruct you to cancel it.

Thanks

On 29/12/2025 this response is recieved over email:

No response is given, and then on 12/01/2026 this email is recieved, also they resent the images taken by the parking attendant on the 08/11/2026.

Coupon-mad

As well as being not capable of keeper liability due to APCOA's choice of wording (they never use POFA), the NTK also:

• Says it was 'observed' just 33 seconds so they've allowed zero consideration period;
• lied about the date it was 'issued'. They CANNOT have got DVLA data the same day as the event AND posted the NTK first class that very same day (you received this in mid December!).

Put all that into your POPLA appeal. Surprised you haven't done it already.

Very easy one! Nothing to do with byelaws.

fleshytomato

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81865410#Comment_81865410

Thank you, I think I was just over thinking it!

Coupon-mad

Yep. APCOA ones are always simple but yours also has the two extra bullet points!

cooldude255220

@fleshytomato

You've blurred out the serial number to the left of the letter (which is sensible, as it's identifying). But within that serial number there is likely a date in ddmmyy format, between an underscore and slash. So for today's date it would look like _020226\.

I'm curious to know what that date is, as I suspect that is the date the document was actually created, which I also suspect may be some time after the purported issued date.

fleshytomato

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81865931#Comment_81865931

Yep there is, it's 15/12/25.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81866170#Comment_81866170

Which would tally a lot more with you receiving it on 18th December. I think APCOA are backdating the issue date on their letters.

Coupon-mad

They don't normally make this error (stating the 'date of issue' as the contravention date) so I suspect it was down to a rookie staff member. They also don't tend to state observation time in seconds! It is a dog's dinner of a PCN.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81866828#Comment_81866828

This one may well be an error, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were deliberate. I certainly think that's the case for the two Notices I've seen from them recently:

Event: 21/11/2025

"Issued": 13/12/2025

Serial: 16/12/2025

Event: 14/11/2025

"Issued": 06/12/2025

Serial: 08/12/2025

Coupon-mad








I wouldn't be surprised if it were deliberate. I certainly think that's the case for the two Notices I've seen from them recently:

Event: 21/11/2025

"Issued": 13/12/2025

Serial: 16/12/2025

Event: 14/11/2025

"Issued": 06/12/2025

Serial: 08/12/2025

Appalling trickery.

A parking firm cannot be seen to lie about the date a notice was issued (posted).

Especially not APCOA who have massive contracts for Local Authorities, not just for private landowners. They have a lot to lose if ever their KADOE access gets suspended (not that they use it for council penalties but the reputational damage alone would be massive).