POFA Compliant APCOA NTK?

RandomUsername12

I have read all viable threads here. Is this NTK POFA compliant? I feel like the grounds I would be attempting POPLA on are going on a bit of a limb, APCOA already denied a internal appeal where I tried the usual liability not converting as you are not POFA compliant. It's the first possibly APCOA compliant NTK i've seen. Here is my intended POPLA approach(summarised):

Keeper only appeal, driver never named, so APCOA has to rely on Schedule 4 POFA.

The lead point is a paragraph 9(2)(d)(ii) failure. The only reference to the unpaid sum on the NtK is the reverse side wording that the charge "at the date of this notice remains unpaid in full". The only date on the document is 20/08/2026, labelled "Date of Issue of this Charge".
APCOA then ties itself to that date by saying the notice is deemed given on the second working day after "the Date of Sending above". So on their own drafting, the specified time is the day of posting, not the day before it, which is what 9(2)(d)(ii) requires. There's no fallback figure either. The reverse refers to a "Balance Due" that doesn't exist as a field anywhere on the notice.

Secondary POFA point is 9(2)(h). "APCOA (creditor)" is a brand, the footer lists five registered companies without saying which one is the creditor, and while there's a payment address, no address at all is given for the notification the keeper is invited to make under 9(2)(e)(ii). Landowner authority and signage sit behind those as the usual backstops.
The part I'd most like tested is a timing pincer. Parking ended 01:11 on 11/08/2026, so the 9(5) relevant period runs 12/08 to 25/08. Latest lawful posting date for deemed delivery inside that window is Friday 21/08.

If APCOA proves posting on 20/08, the 9(2)(d)(ii) point is made out on their own case. If they claim a later date to escape it, they contradict the "Date of Sending" the notice relies on and drift to the edge of the 9(5) deadline or past it. In principle only 21/08 is clean on both.
Two things to pressure test. First, do POPLA assessors actually bite on 9(2)(d)(ii), or wave it through as a one day de minimis point? I couldn't find settled practice either way and it's the weak link. Second, does the pincer survive an assessor who just treats "Date of Issue" and date of posting as separate things without evidence?

I can of course tie in the usual points, proof of permission from the landowner, proof that adequate notice of the terms were given to form a contract.

Obviously I can always go down the ignore them completely route but I would always heavily favour a win at POPLA. As a whole this seems nitpicking im uncertain POPLA favour this here. Please let me know your thoughts, particularly if attempted at POPLA. The above is a shortened/summarised version of the intended POPLA approach the real one is about triple the length with all the nuances in detail.

NTK Front.jpg

NTK Back.jpg

yarpsnehpets

I would agree that the NtK does not state who the creditor is.

APCOA is clearly a brand.

A search online reveals numerous APCOA related companies.

All search results - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

There was a recent POPLA Assessment where an assessor upheld an appeal against GroupNexus under very similar circumstances - The Assessor was Paul Walker.

MrJenkinsEsq

9(2)(g) creditor not identified

9(2)(d) no specified time

9(2)(d) no total as at time

9(2)(h) date of sending absent

Coupon-mad

Yes but none of that will work at POPLA as it's a railway station site and the Assessor will think that NTK is compliant because APCOA changed to this version after Boxing Day 2025.

What is likely to win at POPLA is saying that the landowner authority only says APCOA can issue Penalty Notices (under byelaws) not Parking Charge Notices under contract law.

Therefore this PCN was not properly given.

RandomUsername12

Thank you to all in this thread

Particularly, @Coupon-mad extremely useful note that is, thank you so much. I have crafted a lengthy POPLA appeal, here are the grounds;

Summary of grounds

1. The Operator has not shown that it was authorised to enter into a contract with the driver requiring payment of parking charges. There is accordingly no relevant obligation, and Schedule 4 cannot apply. This is the primary ground.
2. No contract was formed on the terms now alleged. The Operator’s own published terms for this site announce a Railway Byelaws scheme enforced by Penalty Notice, which is not a contractual parking charge and which had no legal effect in England and Wales on the date in question. This is the second primary ground.
3. The Notice to Keeper does not specify the date on which it was sent, contrary to paragraph 9(2)(i).
4. The Notice to Keeper does not specify the unpaid total as at a compliant time, contrary to paragraph 9(2)(d).
5. The Notice to Keeper does not identify the creditor, and does not specify how and to whom notification may be made, contrary to paragraph 9(2)(h).
6. The Operator is put to strict proof that the Notice to Keeper was delivered within the relevant period under paragraphs 9(4) and 9(5).
7. No assumption may be made that the keeper was the driver.
8. Any sum recoverable from a keeper is capped by paragraph 4(5).
   
   I dont have any signage photos which I know could help.

Any tweaks or additions you would make? Let me know your thoughts

Coupon-mad

You haven't shown us a 'lengthy' POPLA appeal. That's very short but you need to start with the exact (precise) point I gave you.

The last 4 lines of my reply above, verbatim.

RandomUsername12

Hiya, that was the summary of grounds, not my entire submission, as I did not want to flood you with lengthy pages after pages to take a look at,

I have redacted some stuff and reduced it, I originally had 9 pages and 5,000 words which was just excessive, see attached for a revised 3 pages and a particular focus on your point

See attached

appeal pg1.png

appeal pg2.png

appeal pg3.png

RandomUsername12

Here is the text version if it is likely more convenient

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I appeal against this parking charge. I have not identified the driver, and I do not do so here. Nothing in this appeal is an admission that I was the driver.

I rely on the following grounds and ask that each is considered.

Ground 1: the landowner authority only permits APCOA to issue Penalty Notices under the Railway Byelaws, not Parking Charge Notices under contract law, so this PCN was not properly given

This is railway land. APCOA operates it on behalf of SE Trains Limited and is not the landowner. Its right to issue any notice at this site depends entirely on the terms of the authority granted to it by the landowner.

That authority permits APCOA to issue Penalty Notices under the Railway Byelaws. It does not authorise APCOA to issue Parking Charge Notices under contract law, to enter into contracts with drivers in its own name, or to pursue keepers under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"). APCOA’s own published Terms and Conditions of Parking for its Southeastern car parks are consistent with this: they state that the car park "is on private Railway owned land and operates under Railway Byelaws", and that vehicles in breach may receive a Penalty Notice.

What APCOA has issued here is not a Penalty Notice. It is a document headed "PARKING CHARGE", stated to be given under paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. That is a contractual parking charge and a statutory keeper liability notice, which is a different thing altogether and falls outside what the landowner has authorised. The PCN was therefore not properly given.

This matters in law, not just as a matter of the Code. Schedule 4 only applies where the driver is required to pay by virtue of a "relevant obligation" (paragraph 1(1)(a)), meaning an obligation under a "relevant contract". Under paragraph 2(1), where the operator is not the owner or occupier, a relevant contract can only exist if the operator is:

"Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges".

An authority to issue byelaw Penalty Notices is not an authority to contract with drivers. Without that authority there is no relevant contract, no relevant obligation, and Schedule 4 never applies.

The alternative route in paragraph 2(1), an obligation arising in trespass where there is no contract, is not open to APCOA either. It is not the landowner and has no standing to claim in trespass, and its own Notice alleges a breach of terms and conditions, not a trespass.

Nor can APCOA fall back on the byelaws. Since 26 December 2025 the Railway Byelaws Amendment Order 2025 has replaced Byelaw 14 in England and Wales with Byelaw 14A, which contains no provision creating liability for parking without payment. The Penalty Notice regime APCOA is authorised to operate therefore gives it nothing here, and the contractual regime it has tried to use instead is one it is not authorised to operate.

APCOA cannot have it both ways. If this site operates under the byelaws, as its own published terms say, there is no contractual charge to enforce. If it operates a contractual scheme, APCOA must prove authority to make that contract and signage that offered it. It has asserted the first on its signs and claimed the second on its Notice.

Section 14.1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires written landowner confirmation, before any parking charge is issued, covering among other things the byelaws applying to the land, the terms to be applied and the means by which parking charges will be issued. I require APCOA to produce that authority, unredacted and in force on 10 and 11 August 2026, showing:

1. the landowner or occupier granting it, and which APCOA company holds it;
2. that it covers Sevenoaks Station Car Park B;
3. express authority to issue contractual Parking Charge Notices, as opposed to Penalty Notices under the byelaws;
4. express authority to contract with drivers and to recover charges in APCOA’s own name.

A witness statement, summary or redacted extract is not sufficient. If the authority is limited to Penalty Notices, or to acting on behalf of SE Trains Limited, the appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.

Ground 2: no contract was formed on the terms alleged

The Notice says only that signs are clearly displayed. That is an assertion, not evidence. If the signs on site carried the byelaw wording APCOA publishes for its Southeastern sites, they offered no contractual parking charge capable of acceptance, and the only sanction they described (a byelaw Penalty Notice) had no legal effect in England and Wales on the date in question.

I put APCOA to strict proof of a site plan and dated photographs of the signs as they stood on 10 and 11 August 2026, taken from driver eye level and in darkness (the recorded entry was 18:18 and exit 01:11), with wording legible enough to show whether the sum was described as a contractual parking charge or as a penalty.

Ground 3: the Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of PoFA

If APCOA had authority, keeper liability still requires full compliance with paragraph 9. Schedule 4 is a derogation from the rule that only the contracting party is liable, so its conditions are mandatory: partial or substantial compliance is not compliance. This Notice fails in the following respects.

(a) No date of sending: paragraph 9(2)(i)

The only date on the Notice is 20 August 2026, labelled "Date of Issue of this Charge". That is not a date of sending. The reverse refers to a "Date of Sending above" and a "Balance Due", but neither field exists anywhere on the Notice.

(b) No compliant time for the unpaid sum: paragraph 9(2)(d)

The unpaid sum is stated only as at "the date of this notice". If that is 20 August 2026 and the Notice was posted that day, it is not a time "no later than the end of the day before" posting, as paragraph 9(2)(d)(ii) requires.

(c) Creditor not identified, and no address for notification: paragraph 9(2)(h)

The Notice names "APCOA (creditor)", which is a brand. Its footer lists five separate APCOA companies without saying which is the creditor. It also invites me to notify the creditor of the driver’s details in writing but gives no address for doing so: the only postal address is expressly for cheques and postal orders.

(d) Delivery within the relevant period: paragraphs 9(4) and 9(5)

Parking ended on 11 August 2026, so the Notice had to be delivered by 25 August 2026. Allowing two working days for deemed delivery, the latest lawful posting date was Friday 21 August 2026. APCOA is put to strict proof of the actual posting date from its mailing records. If it posted on 20 August, point (b) is made out; if later than 21 August, the Notice was out of time.

Ground 4: the keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver

Without compliant keeper liability, APCOA can only pursue the driver, who has not been identified. No inference can be drawn that the keeper was driving VCS Ltd v Edward (2023, H0KF6C9C), HHJ Gargan at paragraph 35.3.

Conclusion

APCOA’s landowner authority permits Penalty Notices under the byelaws, not contractual Parking Charge Notices, so this PCN was not properly given, and Schedule 4 does not apply. Independently, no contract has been shown, and the Notice fails paragraph 9 of Schedule 4. I ask POPLA to allow this appeal, and I request sight of APCOA’s evidence pack with the opportunity to comment before a decision is made.

Enclosed: APCOA Terms and Conditions of Parking, Southeastern car parks, downloaded from www.apcoa.co.uk.

Coupon-mad

Yes looks good. Give it a whirl!

jimmywiggle

how do you know if it's POFA compliant or not? I may be in the same boat and looking for a life-line.

if they mention "This notice is deemed to have been given to you on the second working day after the Date of Sending above." but there is in fact no "Date of Sending" - and the original notice was delivered to a previous address, how can anyone know or confirm the "Date of Sending"

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82148566#Comment_82148566

You probably need to start your own thread and then post up the PCN - at that stage you'll get advice which is relevant to your specific situation.