DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 62126--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: b789
Date: March 12, 2025, 11:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suggest the following as a formal complaint to your lease
company to start the ball rolling:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Unauthorised Payment of Fraudulent
APCOA Penalty Notice and Legal Action Against APCOA
>
> Notice number: GT02434155
>
> [Date]
>
> Dear [Lease Company Name],
>
> I am writing to formally dispute the unauthorised payment you
made on my behalf for a purported Penalty Notice issued by
APCOA. This notice is fraudulent, legally invalid, and nothing
more than an unlawful attempt to extract money by
misrepresenting its legal authority. You have been deceived into
paying money under false pretences, and I expect you to seek a
full refund from APCOA, take legal action against them if
necessary, and report this fraudulent conduct to the police.
>
> The notice you paid was not a lawful railway byelaw penalty.
APCOA is a private parking company and has no statutory power to
issue or enforce railway byelaw penalties. A genuine Penalty
Notice under the Railway Byelaws can only be issued and enforced
by a Train Operating Company or Network Rail and must be pursued
through the magistrates’ court, not through private debt
collection. Instead, APCOA falsely claims the right to prosecute
but then offers to drop the matter in exchange for a payment of
£100. This is a misrepresentation of legal authority and an
unlawful attempt to extract money using misleading threats of
criminal prosecution. If APCOA truly had the power to prosecute,
they would be required to proceed through a magistrates’ court,
not offer a private settlement. The demand for money is
therefore extortionate and fraudulent.
>
> Your lease agreement does not authorise payment of invalid
charges. The agreement states that private parking charges
should be transferred to the hirer where possible, which you
failed to do. The agreement allows payment of fines, penalties,
and charges only where necessary to avoid incurring liability.
However, this notice was neither a statutory fine nor an
enforceable penalty, meaning there was no liability to avoid.
You have wrongfully paid a fraudulent demand that had no legal
basis, exposing yourself to financial loss due to deception.
>
> APCOA is attempting to exploit confusion between railway
byelaws and private contract law to extract payments. If this
were a genuine byelaw enforcement matter, non-payment would
result in a prosecution through the magistrates' court, not a
demand for money sent by a private company. If this were a
private contractual charge, it would fall under civil law and
could not involve threats of criminal prosecution. By blurring
these legal distinctions, APCOA has engaged in deceptive and
misleading practices.
>
> The Department for Transport clarified in a 2018 response to
POPLA that parking contraventions under the Railway Byelaws
should be dealt with under civil contract law, not prosecuted
under byelaw 24.1. The reason for this is that minor parking
offences were decriminalised following the introduction of the
Road Traffic Act 1999. Byelaw 24.1 is reserved for serious
criminal breaches of the byelaws, not for minor parking
contraventions. This means that APCOA’s claim that non-payment
could lead to a criminal prosecution is completely false and
misleading. Since the Department for Transport has explicitly
stated that these matters should be resolved under civil law
rather than by criminal prosecution, APCOA has no legal basis
for threatening recipients with prosecution for non-payment. The
notice you paid was therefore not only legally flawed but also
issued in direct contradiction to government guidance.
>
> The wording in the notice itself further demonstrates APCOA’s
complete lack of professionalism and fraudulent intent. The
notice states, "You may are legally liable for this offence as
the owner even if you were not the driver at the time." The
grammatical errors alone are evidence of how little care has
been taken in issuing this document. More importantly, the legal
claim being made is entirely false.
>
> The notice goes on to claim, "For further clarification, the
owner, in relation to a vehicle means the person by whom the
vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under
the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed
(unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name
the vehicle is registered." This statement is an outright lie.
>
> The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is entirely
unrelated to the enforcement of railway byelaws or the
prosecution of criminal offences. The presumption under section
7(1) of VERA 1994 that the registered keeper is the person who
"keeps" the vehicle is solely for administrative and taxation
purposes. It has nothing to do with criminal liability, and it
does not create any legal responsibility in relation to alleged
offences under the Railway Byelaws. There is no legal basis
whatsoever for APCOA to suggest that the registered keeper can
be automatically held liable for a criminal byelaw offence
simply because their name appears on the V5C registration
document.
>
> In criminal matters, liability must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. There is no presumption of guilt in UK law,
and APCOA’s assertion that the "owner" is automatically
responsible is a blatant misrepresentation. If this were a
genuine byelaw offence being pursued in the magistrates' court,
APCOA or the prosecuting authority would be required to provide
evidence to prove that the accused person was the individual
responsible for the alleged contravention. The mere fact that a
person is the registered keeper of a vehicle does not establish
legal liability for a criminal offence, and APCOA’s attempt to
mislead recipients into believing otherwise is fraudulent.
>
> A legitimate byelaw penalty would require payment to the Train
Operating Company or Network Rail, not directly to a private
parking company’s bank account. The fact that APCOA is the sole
recipient of payment suggests they are treating this as a
private contract charge while disguising it as a statutory
penalty. This is a violation of statutory processes and an abuse
of legal enforcement procedures.
>
> As the Penalty Notice was issued in APCOA’s name only, it
fails to identify the statutory body that has authorised them to
issue penalties under railway byelaws. APCOA must provide
evidence that they have a contractual right with the Train
Operating Company to issue Penalty Notices rather than Private
Parking Charge Notices under civil contract law. If they do not
have this authority, the notice is fraudulent and unenforceable.
>
> You have unknowingly paid money under false pretences due to
the unlawful wording of this fake penalty notice. I expect you
to demand a full refund from APCOA and, if necessary, take legal
action against them. You should report this to the police as a
criminal matter involving fraudulent misrepresentation and
attempted extortion. If APCOA refuses to refund the payment, you
should initiate proceedings to recover the funds and challenge
them to provide documentary evidence of their legal authority to
issue Penalty Notices under railway byelaws.
>
> Since you have wrongfully paid this fraudulent demand, I
require immediate full reimbursement of the amount paid to
APCOA, along with the removal of any associated administrative
fees. This payment was made without my authorisation, in breach
of our agreement, and in response to an unlawful demand from
APCOA.
>
> If this matter is not resolved within 14 days, I will escalate
this complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service if applicable,
and pursue legal action against you for the unauthorised
deduction of funds and breach of contract.
>
> Please confirm how you intend to rectify this situation.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> [Your Name]
> [Your Contact Information]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 62129--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: olly1234
Date: March 12, 2025, 11:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm at a loss for words, b789 you are incredible, thank you very
much. Would love to buy you a drink to say thank you!
Will send that on and keep you updated with any response!
#Post#: 62815--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: olly1234
Date: March 17, 2025, 5:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As an update, leasing company shirking responsibility!
--- Quote ---
> I am reaching out to apologize for the inconvenience caused
regarding the recent parking fine. Although we were required to
pay the fine because some APCOA fines are issued at railway
station car parks so are classed as a Railway Byelaw so we
cannot transfer liability we have to pay and recharge. This does
not prevent you from appealing the fine directly.
>
> We understand that it’s not always the customer’s fault, as
mistakes can sometimes occur on the part of the parking
authority. To assist you, we have sent a third- party
authorisation letter to the email which is set for your account.
Additionally, I have attached a “Permission to Appeal” letter to
this email to make the process easier for you. You can use this
document to appeal the fine directly with the authority, either
by email or post.
>
> Once the fine is cancelled, please send us the confirmation of
cancellation so we can follow up to secure a refund and
reimburse the amount to your account.
>
> Should you require any further assistance please contact us
and we will be happy to help.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 62817--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 17, 2025, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow. The stupidity and incompetence is strong with that one.
It's wild how they have completely failed to address 99% of your
complaint and have responded as if you haven't pointed out
extremely clearly that the unregulated parking company has no
"authority" whatsoever.
I imagine b789 will have some choice words for you to reply
with...
#Post#: 62912--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: b789
Date: March 17, 2025, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Their response is dismissive and fails to address the core
issues raised in your complaint.
Key Issues with Their Response:
1. Incorrect Assertion That Payment Was Required
[indent]• They claim they were "required to pay" because some
APCOA fines are issued under railway byelaws. However, your
complaint made it clear that this particular notice was not a
valid railway byelaw penalty, but rather an unlawful demand
misrepresenting legal authority.
• Even if a legitimate byelaw penalty had been issued, payment
should have been made to the Train Operating Company (TOC) or
Network Rail, not directly to APCOA.[/indent]
2. Failure to Engage with the Substance of Your Complaint
[indent]• Your complaint detailed APCOA's misrepresentation of
railway byelaws, its attempt to extort money using misleading
threats, and the unlawful wording of the notice. Their response
does not acknowledge or address any of these points.
• Instead, they offer a generic response about appealing the
fine—despite the fact that you are not appealing, but
challenging their unauthorised payment.[/indent]
3. Failure to Accept Responsibility for Their Unauthorised
Payment
[indent]• They ignore your point that their lease agreement only
allows them to pay fines, penalties, or charges "where necessary
to avoid incurring liability."
• They have paid an unlawful demand without first verifying its
legitimacy and now expect you to appeal instead of seeking a
refund themselves.[/indent]
4. Shifting the Burden to You
[indent]• They state that you should appeal and, if successful,
provide confirmation so they can "follow up to secure a refund."
• This is entirely inappropriate—APCOA scammed them, not you. It
is their responsibility to seek a refund, not yours.[/indent]
Recommended Next Steps:
[indent]1. Escalate the Complaint to Senior Management
Send a follow-up complaint stating that their response is wholly
inadequate and that you require immediate reimbursement. Make
clear:
[indent]• The payment was unauthorised and contrary to your
lease agreement.
• Their assertion that they were "required" to pay is incorrect.
• You are not responsible for securing a refund from APCOA. They
must take action against APCOA for fraudulent misrepresentation
and seek reimbursement directly.
• If they do not immediately refund you, you will escalate the
matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) (if applicable)
and/or take legal action.[/indent]
2. Demand a Formal Investigation and Legal Action Against APCOA
Request that they:
[indent]• Investigate how they were misled into paying this
fraudulent demand.
• Report APCOA's actions to the police and relevant authorities.
• Seek legal action against APCOA for
misrepresentation.[/indent]
3. Escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service (if applicable)
If the lease company is regulated by the Financial Conduct
Authority (FCA) (which many are), they are subject to FCA rules
on treating customers fairly. If they refuse to reimburse you,
escalate the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
4. Consider Legal Action
If they refuse to refund you, you should consider issuing a
Letter of Claim (LoC) and filing a Small Claims Court claim
against them for the unauthorised payment.[/indent]
Let me know if you want me to draft a follow-up complaint
letter.
#Post#: 62926--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: olly1234
Date: March 17, 2025, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789, thank you again for your very detailed response; very
informative.
After your exceptional letter last time, I would love your help
drafting a complaint letter - I'm sure you have better, more
important things to do though...
The leasing company are registered by the FCA.
As much as I am up for the fight against the leasing company,
especially as their response was so dismissive, for the sake of
£60 is it not easier to go after APCOA? or, in your opinion, due
to the fact that the leasing company have now paid this, trying
to reclaim this money from APCOA is now very unlikely?
#Post#: 62935--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 17, 2025, 1:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Waste of time going after APCOA directly at this stage - they
got paid, that's all they exist to do.
You didn't pay them so what would you go after them for?
#Post#: 62942--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: b789
Date: March 17, 2025, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The stupid lease company paid APCOA. Their problem. If they've
charged you for their stupidity, then you stop any payment or
make a chargeback so that you recover your money from the lease
company. Let them chase APCOA for the money they stupidly paid
after you warned them about the scam.
If you cannot get your money back from the lease company then
you sue them in the small claims court for the money.
#Post#: 64654--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: olly1234
Date: March 28, 2025, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After some radio silence from the leasing company...I received
the below from the "Business Customer Escalations Executive".
Would appreciate thoughts on how to continue.
--- Quote ---
> Further to your email of and our subsequent communication, I
have now completed my investigations into your complaint. Thank
you for your patience whilst your complaint was investigated.
>
> Your complaint
>
> I understand you are dissatisfied as [Leasing Company] have
made payment on and then invoiced you for a PCN (penalty charge
notice) issued for contravention of the Railway Byelaw. You
believe the PCN has not been issued by a legal authority and is
an unlawful demand misrepresenting a legal authority. You have
requested [Leasing Company] investigate the payment of this PCN
and report the issuer for fraudulent representation.
>
> Investigation
>
> Thank you for taking the time to contact [Leasing Company] and
make us aware of your concerns.
>
> I have been in contact with the Vehicle Administration Team at
[Leasing Company] who have confirmed with fines relating to the
Railway Byelaws, these fines are prohibited from liability
transfers. As the owners of the vehicle, [Leasing Company] are
therefore liable for any penalty charge notices incurred against
the vehicle. It is therefore in our interest to pay these fines
with immediate effect to ensure they do not escalate.
>
> Further to the information provided by the Vehicle Admin Team,
I have also taken the liberty of reviewing the Railway Byelaws
on the government website. Section 14 of the Byelaws details the
parking restrictions. These can be viewed for yourself here:
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws/railway-byelaws
>
> The byelaws state in section 14. (3):
>
> "no person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other
conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where
charges are made for parking by an operator or an authorised
person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate
time in accordance with instructions given by an operator or an
authorised person at that place"
>
> In this circumstance, the operator and authorised person for
the car park in question is APCOA. The PCN has therefore been
issued under the Railway Byelaws correctly and is not fraudulent
or a misrepresentation.
>
> [Leasing Company] have therefore paid this fine, to avoid
further escalation correctly. The recharge of this fine has then
been invoiced to yourself correctly and in line with the terms
and conditions of the agreement entered into by yourself.
>
> In light of this information, the invoice relating to the PCN
remains payable in full by yourselves.
>
> I understand this is not the outcome you had hoped for and for
this, I would like to offer my sincere apologies. I have now
closed the case, if there are any further queries I can assist
with, please do not hesitate to contact me on the details listed
below.
>
> If you are dissatisfied with our response, you may contact the
British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) who
operate a free-of-charge Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
service which is approved by the government. Complaints must be
referred within 12 months of the date of this letter. For more
information and to contact the BVRLA, please click here.
>
> If the total amount payable under your agreement is less than
£100,000 and if you are not satisfied with our response, you may
also, as an alternative, refer your complaint to the Finance &
Leasing Association (FLA) for consideration. The FLA operate a
code of conduct (the Business Finance Code) to which we adhere.
If you believe our conduct has not met the standards of this
Code please contact: business.finance@fla.org.uk. Further
information about the FLA’s Business Finance Code can be found
here. In exceptional circumstances, the FLA may also be able to
offer access to a conciliation service.
>
> Thank you for getting in touch and allowing me to review your
concerns.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 64662--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
DIR By: b789
Date: March 28, 2025, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify... Have you been charged the fee already and are
simply disputing it or is the lease company now chasing you to
pay the charge and the admin fee? I need to know this in order
to formulate a suitable response that educates the lease company
about fake Penalty notices from APCOA.
If they are now chasing you for the money, they will have to try
and collect it from you through the small claims track of the
county court and that is easily defenced. If you are chasing
them to refund money they have already taken from you, you will
need to try and collect it from them through the small claims
track of the county court.
Either way, the core issue will be the fact that the lease
company paid a fake penalty notice and they should be reporting
the matter to the police. This was not a real Penalty Notice.
APCOA is a private company with no legal authority to issue or
enforce penalties under Railway Byelaws. Only a Train Operating
Company or other 'authority' can issue a genuine Penalty Notice,
and any money must be paid to the public purse—not to a private
company.
This also cannot be a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), because a PCN
is a civil matter based on a contract. It must be clearly
presented as a civil contractual charge, not disguised as a
criminal penalty. If a private company issues a notice that
looks like a fine or uses legal-sounding language to suggest
criminal consequences, that is deliberately misleading.
What laws are being broken?
Under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, this is:
[indent]Fraud by false representation – when someone dishonestly
makes a false statement to gain money or cause someone a
loss.[/indent]
APCOA is pretending the notice is a real criminal penalty, when
it isn’t, and demanding payment by threatening prosecution they
cannot carry out. That is a false representation made for
financial gain, and is why it should be reported to the police.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page