DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 60782--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: b789
Date: March 5, 2025, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Very good. Send it.
However, you should also get your MP involved at this point and
show him all the advice and copies of all correspondence so far.
You can explain to the "owner", that nothing can ever come this,
even if they ignore everything from APCOA.
#Post#: 60885--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 6, 2025, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Very good. Send it.
>
> However, you should also get your MP involved at this point
and show him all the advice and copies of all correspondence so
far.
>
> You can explain to the "owner", that nothing can ever come
this, even if they ignore everything from APCOA.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you! And thanks for all of the effort you and others put
into sharing your knowledge with others - I'm sure you
recognised many of your own words in there!
I have submitted to APCOA's complaints email and I will reach
out to my MP to see if they have any interest.
#Post#: 61218--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 7, 2025, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One down! Remains to be seen whether they're now going to try to
pursue the owner again, but I'll take that as a win!
1 more (in my name), 1 more (in the owners name) and a complaint
response to go!
HTML https://i.imgur.com/cNkRyrY.png
#Post#: 61224--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: b789
Date: March 7, 2025, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Where is this "owners name" recorded? The only "recorded"
information for a vehicle is the Registered Keeper (RK). The RK
is the person or business responsible for taxing and registering
the vehicle.
The RK and the "owner" do not necessarily have to be the same
person and any inference that they are is easily challenged in
court.
As this is a supposed bylaws penalty (it isn't as it is fake),
there is a lack of definition for "owner" in the bylaws. The
term "owner" is mentioned but not defined in the byelaws, and so
it creates ambiguity.
Without a clear legal definition it is unclear who the byelaw
intends to hold responsible—whether it is the person with legal
ownership, the registered keeper, or the person in charge of the
vehicle (driver).
In criminal cases, as this would be if prosecuted in the
magistrates court, such ambiguity can be used in the defendant’s
favour because of the principle that laws must be clear and
precise to hold someone liable.
In other words, ambiguity in the term "owner" would render the
prosecution's reliance on this term insufficient to meet the
criminal standard of proof, which in this case would be "beyond
a reasonable doubt".
#Post#: 61235--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 7, 2025, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I suppose I should stop using the term owner - I do so to
differentiate myself in my mind since I see myself as the keeper
which I'm technically not. I suppose I'm the hirer, though I'm
not sure that's technically even true in this particular
arrangement.
So per my previous comment - in reality, it will remain to be
seen if they take it back up with the [I]keeper[/I]. Albeit they
would seemingly have no leg to stand on since as you say, the
byelaws only reference the owner which has no clear legal
definition, and it's irrelevant since this isn't a real PN.
The levels of nonsense in this one are silly. I guess they
probably know that and don't care. Hence upholding one of the
appeals. I'd love to know if the appeal being upheld was purely
down to the appeal, or due to the complaint.
#Post#: 61237--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: b789
Date: March 7, 2025, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
APCOA will never take this as far as any court claim in the
county court nor as a criminal prosecution in the magistrates
court. They do not litigate as they know they would never win.
Their whole modus operandi is to con the recipient of their fake
Penalty Notice into pooping their pants and paying up out of
ignorance and fear.
As you say you are basically "renting" the vehicle from the RK,
do you have any form of legal agreement attesting to this?
I would happily place a £500 bet on the remaining PN never being
prosecuted. Anyone care to take that bet?
#Post#: 61240--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 7, 2025, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm actually quite ashamed to admit that I have no idea how the
legalities of the arrangement worked. I don't think I ever
signed an agreement, just provided my driving license for
insurance purposes.
I [I]think[/I] that my friend essentially has an agreement for
multiple cars on the scheme, and can let anyone named on the
insurance use them. So it's plausible that I am not legally
anything in the chain - other than a driver (although not
admitted in this case).
I've never concerned myself with it since this is the first
remotely contentious issue. I've had a handful of run of the
mill PCNs and they've just passed them on and I've dealt with
them. I assumed these PNs would be the same until the PPC
refused to allow them to pass the final one on! I'll check with
my friend when he's back from his holiday how it actually works.
I have no doubt that there would be no court action in this case
- so I definitely won't be taking your bet! My only concern
was/is the RK misunderstanding the issue or getting spooked by a
debt collection letter and paying - then trying to hold my
friend responsible.
My friend being the middle-man is the issue - I don't want to be
creating issues between him and his employer.
#Post#: 61245--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 7, 2025, 2:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All we can do is advise on the legal situation regarding the
charges.
[quote] Anyone care to take that bet?[quote]
I'll save my losing bets for Cheltenham next week ;D
#Post#: 64019--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 25, 2025, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update on this one: both of the PNs that were 'incorrectly'
transferred to me were cancelled based on my appeals (shortly
after I sent the complaint). I also received a response to the
complaint on Saturday - stating the third (the one they refused
to transfer from the keeper) has also been cancelled.
That hopefully means that any risk of the keeper business paying
is gone - unless there are any more to follow!
Along with confirmation, I got what I think was meant to be an
actual response to my complaint - but is clearly insufficient.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/cJwBmCJ.png
I intend to respond as follows:
--- Quote ---
> Dear [COMPLAINT HANDLER],
>
> Firstly, thank you for confirming the final ‘Penalty Notice’
has been rightfully cancelled.
>
> I may be misinterpreting, but the tone of your message
somewhat suggests this is your formal response to my complaint.
I’m sure I don’t need to remind you but per the Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice 11.4:
>
> A full response to a complaint must be provided by the parking
operator within 28 days of its receipt unless exceptional
circumstances apply, in which case the complainant must be kept
informed by the operator.
>
> To be clear, I wouldn’t expect you to "comment on internal
processes and their outcomes” per your message, but I do expect
a full and thorough response to the real concerns raised in my
complaint. In summary:
>
> 1. Why are you, an unregulated parking company, issuing fake
“Penalty Notices” which appear designed to mislead motorists
that you have authority that you do not?
> 2. Why are you even suggesting that Railway Byelaws are
remotely relevant in cases of minor parking indiscretions on
railway land?
> 3. Why are you suggesting that a private parking ‘appeals
process’ is even vaguely relevant in the case of a breach of
Railway Byelaws?
> 4. Why are you wrongly claiming you have any legal basis to
infer the owner of a vehicle based on its registered keeper?
> 5. Why between your different communications are you unclear
on which party you are trying to hold accountable?
> 6. Why between your different communications are you unclear
on what alleged contravention has even occurred?
> 7. What failing has occurred that your customer service team
think it’s acceptable to ignore a customer asking reasonable
questions?
> 8. What failing has occurred that two different members of
your customer service team have different views of what
information it is okay to share with a customer?
> 9. Given I was told that information was disclosed to me that
shouldn’t have been, what assurances can you offer that my
personal information, and that of your other customers is safe?
> 10. On what lawful basis under GDPR have you been processing
and storing my personal data?
>
> Regards,
> [G6PRK]
--- End Quote ---
[member=26]b789[/member] would appreciate any thoughts you have
on this?
My intention is to exhaust communications with APCOA and then
prepare a pack to send to the local MP and maybe the local
press.
As a related aside, another car which I am the registered keeper
of is likely to receive NtKs in the next week or so, so will be
interested to see what the process is like in that case.
#Post#: 64087--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - No Valid Payment - Railway Byelaws Bedford Station
DIR By: b789
Date: March 25, 2025, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, once there is any pushback on them, they will
drop the Penalty Notices and try to run away.
You are witnessing the abject failure of APCOA to respond to the
formal complaint. Just looking at the grammar in their response,
you can observe the intellectual malnourishment that conditions
their response.
The simple statement:
"The register keeper according to the DVLA records is assumed to
be the owner of the vehicle unless the contrary is proven."
...can be dismantled by the clear and obvious wording on the
front of every V5C:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/2WQ3UN8.png
So, now you know the level of intelligence you are dealing with,
you can demand that APCOA respond in full to your formal
complaint. If they don't, you can escalate to the BPA. You can
also escalate to the DVLA anyway as they are in breach of their
KADOE contract and have used your data unlawfully.
I suggest you send your outlined response as adapted here:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Demand for Full Response Under
Code of Practice
>
> Dear [Complaints Handler],
>
> Firstly, thank you for confirming that the final “Penalty
Notice” has been rightfully cancelled.
>
> I may be misinterpreting, but the tone of your message
somewhat suggests this is intended to serve as your formal
response to my complaint. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you,
but per Section 11.4 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice:
>
> [indent]“A full response to a complaint must be provided by
the parking operator within 28 days of its receipt unless
exceptional circumstances apply, in which case the complainant
must be kept informed by the operator.”[/indent]
>
> To be clear, I wouldn’t expect you to “comment on internal
processes and their outcomes”, as stated in your email, but I do
expect a full and substantive reply to the serious concerns I
raised. To summarise:
>
> [indent]• Why are you, an unregulated private parking company,
issuing fake “Penalty Notices” designed to mislead motorists
into believing you possess statutory or criminal enforcement
powers which you clearly do not?
> • Why are you attempting to rely on Railway Byelaws to justify
civil enforcement of minor parking indiscretions, despite
knowing full well that such matters do not fall within the scope
of criminal prosecution under Byelaw 24(1)?
> • Why are you directing recipients to a private appeals
process in circumstances where you are claiming a statutory
breach? Appeals panels have no jurisdiction over alleged
criminal offences.
> • Why are you asserting that you have a legal basis to infer
vehicle ownership from DVLA registered keeper data, when this is
explicitly contradicted by the front page of the V5C and by DVLA
guidance?
> • Why are your communications inconsistent as to who you
believe is liable—at times addressing the keeper, at other times
the driver or “owner”—with no coherent explanation?
> • Why are your communications inconsistent as to what
contravention is even alleged to have taken place?
> • What failing occurred that allowed your customer service
team to ignore straightforward questions from a customer
attempting to resolve the matter?
> • Why do different members of your staff have conflicting
views on what information it is appropriate to disclose to a
customer?
> • Given I was told that information was disclosed to me which
"shouldn’t have been", what assurances can you provide that my
personal data—and that of your other customers—is being handled
lawfully and securely?
> • On what lawful basis under the UK GDPR are you processing
and storing my personal data?[/indent]
>
> Additionally, your use of the term “Penalty Notice”, coupled
with the implied criminal consequences, is highly misleading.
You are not a prosecuting authority, and your notice cannot be
lawfully construed as anything more than a speculative civil
invoice. Its presentation—suggesting legal obligation and
criminal liability—appears to constitute a breach of Section 2
of the Fraud Act 2006, namely:
>
> [indent]“False representation made dishonestly and with intent
to make a gain or cause loss.”[/indent]
>
> In other words, this was an attempt at extortion by deception.
>
> I therefore repeat: this matter is not closed. You remain
under an obligation to respond properly to the complaint raised.
If a complete response is not received within the statutory
timeframe, I will escalate the matter to the BPA, the DVLA, and
reserve the right to report it to the police as a matter of
criminal fraud.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
> [Full Name]
> [Address]
--- End Quote ---
You could also send the following to your MP, as already advised
recently to another recipient of a fake Penalty Notice from
APCOA. You can adapt it as necessary to refer to your particular
case and reference APCOA:
--- Quote ---
> Briefing Note: Misleading Use of “Penalty Notices” by Private
Parking Companies on Railway Land – Urgent Clarification
Required from the Department for Transport
>
> To: [MP's Name]
> From: [Your Name / Constituent of [Constituency]]
> Date: [Insert Date]
> Subject: Misuse of Statutory Language and Questionable Legal
Authority by Private Parking Operators at Railway Car Parks
>
> Summary
>
> This briefing seeks your support in raising a Parliamentary
Question to the Secretary of State for Transport concerning the
apparent misuse of statutory language and implied criminal
enforcement powers by private parking companies operating on
railway land.
>
> Despite the DfT's tacit acceptance of civil parking
enforcement under Byelaw 14, private parking companies continue
to issue documents styled as “Penalty Notices”, misleadingly
implying they have the authority to impose statutory criminal
fines under Byelaw 24(1) — authority which they do not possess.
The Department’s own correspondence acknowledges this
distinction, yet fails to correct the confusing and legally
dubious language being used.
>
> Legal Distinction: Byelaw 14 vs. Byelaw 24(1)
>
> The Railway Byelaws permit two separate and legally distinct
enforcement mechanisms:
>
> [indent]1. Byelaw 14(4)(i): Permits civil, contractual charges
for minor parking infractions, such as overstaying or failure to
pay. These are essentially Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued
under a contractual agreement between the motorist and the
operator.
>
> 2. Byelaw 24(1): Grants power to prosecute offences under the
byelaws in the Magistrates’ Court, resulting in criminal
penalties. This route is reserved for serious or repeated
breaches and must be initiated by the Train Operating Company or
a body with explicit statutory delegation.[/indent]
>
> The Department for Transport has confirmed that it has no
issue with operators issuing PCNs under Byelaw 14(1)-(3) as a
civil mechanism for handling minor parking matters. However, the
Department has not authorised private parking companies to act
under Byelaw 24(1), nor has it suggested that such powers have
been delegated to them.
>
> Key Concerns
>
> [indent]1. Misuse of the Term “Penalty”
>
> The DfT’s own correspondence refers to these charges as
“penalties” [sic], a term which normally implies statutory or
criminal consequences. This introduces serious ambiguity,
potentially misleading motorists into believing they are being
fined under criminal law. In reality, these are civil charges,
and using the word “penalty” is legally and ethically
problematic.
>
> 2. No Statutory Basis for Criminal Enforcement by Operators
>
> Nowhere in DfT guidance or byelaw structure is there any
confirmation that a private operator may issue a Penalty Notice
with criminal implications. Any such action would require formal
delegation under Byelaw 24(1), which has not occurred. As such,
any implication of criminal liability is unfounded and
misleading.
>
> 3. Potential Breach of Law
>
> Operators issuing these misleading notices are in breach of:
>
> [indent]• The Fraud Act 2006 – Section 2: false representation
made with intent to gain or cause loss
> • The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
– Regulation 5: misleading actions likely to cause transactional
decisions
> • The Companies Act 2006, if corporate identity is used in a
way that falsely implies statutory authority[/indent]
>
> Additionally, the retention of monies paid under such notices
in the operator’s private account — rather than remitting to the
TOC or public purse — reinforces the view that these are private
civil claims masquerading as criminal penalties.
>
> 4. Inappropriate Use of Appeals Processes
>
> The DfT encourages operators to provide an independent appeals
process (such as POPLA or the IAS), which is appropriate for
civil PCNs but has no place in criminal enforcement. Criminal
matters are subject to due process through the courts — not
private appeals panels.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The DfT has blurred the lines between civil and criminal
enforcement, allowing private companies to exploit that
ambiguity. While the Department accepts civil charges under
Byelaw 14(4)(i), it has failed to intervene where operators
unlawfully imply statutory authority and criminal consequences,
causing considerable public confusion and potential legal harm.
>
> Proposed Parliamentary Question
>
> I respectfully ask you to table the following question to the
Secretary of State for Transport:
>
> [indent]"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether
he will clarify the Department's position on the enforcement of
railway byelaws in car parks managed by private parking
companies; specifically, whether he accepts that Byelaw 14(4)(i)
authorises only civil contractual charges and not criminal
penalties, and that any implication by private operators that
they possess statutory authority to issue 'Penalty Notices'
under Byelaw 24(1) without explicit delegation is misleading,
unlawful, and potentially a breach of consumer and fraud
legislation."[/indent]
>
> Alternatively, a follow-up could be:
>
> [indent]"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what
steps his Department is taking to prevent private parking
operators from misrepresenting civil Parking Charge Notices as
statutory 'Penalty Notices' when enforcing railway byelaws; and
whether he will review the Department’s communications to ensure
that the term 'penalty' is not used in a way that conflates
civil enforcement under Byelaw 14(4)(i) with criminal
prosecution powers under Byelaw 24(1), for which private
operators have no statutory authority."[/indent]
>
> Supporting Documents
>
> Further examples of misleading “Penalty Notices,” as well as
correspondence from the DfT acknowledging the contractual nature
of Byelaw 14, can be provided upon request.
>
> Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I hope
you will consider taking action to help restore clarity and
protect motorists from deceptive practices.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> [Your Address & Postcode] (to confirm constituency)
> [Your Email / Phone (optional)]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page