DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82001--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - Penalty Notice Wimbledon Station - Hire Vehicle -
Byelaw 14
DIR By: Rackett78
Date: July 21, 2025, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again for spotting that, missed it!
I've asked the Hire Company to correct the LOA and again
reminded them of the fraudulent nature of the penalty notice
Once I receive the corrected LOA, am I to forward this to APCOA
myself or wait to hear from APCOA in the fullness of time? They
have not yet replied to the previous letter, neither am I
particularly keen to chase, engage or deal with them beyond the
absolute necessary.
Thanks
#Post#: 82013--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - Penalty Notice Wimbledon Station - Hire Vehicle -
Byelaw 14
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 21, 2025, 3:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Too many unnecessary hares being let loose.
The process is simple and clear and I don't see why it should be
complicated with unnecessary speculation:
Should we receive the penalty from APCOA Parking as a result of
you not dealing with it we will represent your details to APCOA
to request the penalty to be redirected to you at your home
address.
OP, all you need to do is remind them of the simple and
straightforward method available to them to RELIEVE THEMSELVES
COMPLETELY of any liability.
2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to
recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in
the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning
with the day after that on which that notice was given, the
creditor is given—
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm
to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to
a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under
that hire agreement.
(3)The statement of liability required by sub-paragraph (2)(c)
must—
(a)contain a statement by the hirer to the effect that the hirer
acknowledges responsibility for any parking charges that may be
incurred with respect to the vehicle while it is hired to the
hirer;
(b)include an address given by the hirer (whether a residential,
business or other address) as one at which documents may be
given to the hirer;
(and it is immaterial whether the statement mentioned in
paragraph (a) relates also to other charges or penalties of any
kind).
End of.
Whether the creditor wishes to pursue the hirer is a separate
matter.
Should you fail to deal with the penalty at this stage and it is
returned to us we will pay the penalty and recharge you the full
cost.
CANNOT HAPPEN by virtue of the above.
So why complicate matters with acting on behalf of the RK when
by supplying the simple documents they are relieved in law of
any liability?
A simple letter to the effect that you will challenge the Notice
to Driver but that should APCOA none the less issue a Notice to
Keeper Auxilis should follow the simple procedure set out in the
Act to relieve themselves of liability, that is to say.....
#Post#: 82061--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - Penalty Notice Wimbledon Station - Hire Vehicle -
Byelaw 14
DIR By: b789
Date: July 22, 2025, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, you're conflating two entirely separate
legal regimes—PoFA Schedule 4 and the Railway Byelaws 2005—and
in doing so, you're misapplying the statutory relief provisions.
The quoted PoFA mechanism for transferring liability from the
keeper to the hirer only applies to parking charges on relevant
land, as defined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. Railway land is explicitly excluded from the definition of
“relevant land” under paragraph 3 of Schedule 4. That exclusion
renders the entire PoFA framework—including the 28-day transfer
mechanism—inapplicable.
This is not a Notice to Keeper issued under PoFA. It is a (fake)
Penalty Notice issued under Railway Byelaw 14(4)(i), which
purports to impose liability on the "owner", not the Keeper or
Hirer. APCOA is not invoking PoFA, nor can they. They are
relying on a statutory byelaw that does not provide any lawful
mechanism for transferring liability via hire documentation. The
relief provisions you cite simply do not apply.
Moreover, APCOA is a private contractor. They have no
prosecutorial authority under Byelaw 24(1) unless formally
delegated by the Train Operating Company, and they cannot
enforce a penalty without initiating criminal proceedings in the
Magistrates’ Court within six months. In practice, they do not
prosecute—they issue civil demands dressed up as statutory
penalties, which are legally dubious and unenforceable without
court action.
So no, this is not a matter of “simple documents” relieving the
registered keeper of liability. The legal framework you're
quoting is irrelevant to this scenario. The correct approach is
to challenge the validity of the Penalty Notice itself, not to
pretend PoFA applies where it plainly does not.
Let’s not simplify by misapplying law. Precision matters.
When the lease company provides the Hirer with a Letter of
Authority (LoA), the legal and procedural landscape shifts. The
LoA does not invoke PoFA—because, as explained, PoFA Schedule 4
is entirely inapplicable to railway land. Instead, the LoA
serves a practical and strategic function: it authorises the
hirer to correspond with APCOA and challenge the Penalty Notice
directly, on behalf of the registered keeper (the lease
company).
Since APCOA is purporting to impose liability under Railway
Byelaw 14(4)(i), which targets the owner of the vehicle, and
since the lease company is likely the legal owner, the LoA
allows the hirer to act in the owner's stead. This avoids
unnecessary back-and-forth between APCOA and the lease company
and ensures the challenge is made by the person best placed to
dispute the facts and context of the alleged breach.
Importantly, because APCOA is not invoking PoFA and cannot rely
on its liability transfer provisions, there is no statutory
mechanism requiring the lease company to submit hire
documentation to avoid liability. That entire framework is
irrelevant. The lease company is not obliged to engage in the
PoFA 28-day transfer process because the land is not “relevant
land” and the notice is not a Notice to Keeper under PoFA.
Further, APCOA cannot be the “creditor” if this is a genuine
Penalty Notice under the Railway Byelaws. A statutory penalty is
payable to the prosecuting authority—typically the Train
Operating Company—not a private contractor. APCOA also cannot
issue a “Notice to Keeper”, because the Railway Byelaws do not
recognise the concept of a “keeper”; they refer only to the
“owner”. And crucially, nobody except the owner knows who the
owner is. The DVLA provides registered keeper data, not proof of
ownership. Unless the lease company confirms ownership or
delegates authority, APCOA has no lawful basis to pursue anyone.
Instead, the Hirer—armed with the LoA—should challenge the
Penalty Notice on its merits, including:
[indent]• The lack of prosecutorial authority by APCOA
• The absence of a lawful penalty mechanism without a
Magistrates’ Court summons
• The misleading presentation of a civil demand as a statutory
penalty
• The fact that no liability can be enforced without formal
prosecution under Byelaw 24(1)[/indent]
In short, the LoA enables the Hirer to take control of the
dispute and expose the legal deficiencies in APCOA’s position.
It is not about transferring liability—it is about asserting a
challenge from a position of delegated authority, in a context
where PoFA has no relevance and APCOA’s enforcement model is
legally flawed.
#Post#: 82063--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - Penalty Notice Wimbledon Station - Hire Vehicle -
Byelaw 14
DIR By: b789
Date: July 22, 2025, 4:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Rackett78 link ---
>
> I've asked the Hire Company to correct the LOA and again
reminded them of the fraudulent nature of the penalty notice
>
> Once I receive the corrected LOA, am I to forward this to
APCOA myself or wait to hear from APCOA in the fullness of time?
They have not yet replied to the previous letter, neither am I
particularly keen to chase, engage or deal with them beyond the
absolute necessary.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=5340]Rackett78[/member], I suggest you send a copy of
the corrected LoA to APCOA as an attachment in an email and CC
yourself, with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Please find enclosed a Letter of Authority from the registered
keeper, [Lease Company Name], authorising me to act in relation
to the Penalty Notice issued under Railway Byelaw 14.
>
> I have already challenged the validity of this notice. It is
legally defective, unenforceable, and not supported by lawful
prosecution under Byelaw 24(1). As you are aware, PoFA Schedule
4 does not apply to railway land, and your notice cannot
lawfully impose liability on the registered keeper or hirer.
>
> You are now formally instructed to direct all correspondence
regarding this matter to me. Any attempt to pursue the lease
company directly will be treated as misrepresentation and
harassment.
>
> The lease company has been advised not to make any payment
under any circumstances.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83211--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - Penalty Notice Wimbledon Station - Hire Vehicle -
Byelaw 14
DIR By: Rackett78
Date: July 28, 2025, 3:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again for all your inputs, finding this forum has been a
gold mine of excellent resource and information! I have to admit
I find this all quite fascinating - but most worryingly though,
how APCOA (and other PPCs) are able to get away with this and
not be held to account?
Anyway, APCOA did reply to me, I had missed the letter in my
email inbox - attached now for your interest.
I am still chasing the Hire Company to correct the LOA, once
available will forward on to APCOA with the cover note
suggested. That should be the end of it then really. Unless
pursuing further conversation/correspondence with APCOA would be
of benefit in obtaining documents evidencing their malpractice?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 83267--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - Penalty Notice Wimbledon Station - Hire Vehicle -
Byelaw 14
DIR By: b789
Date: July 29, 2025, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What you need to do is make sure that the lease company do not
go and pay this and then try to charge you. You will need to
pressure the lease company to re-issue the LoA naming you as the
Hirer asap. They have no idea who the driver was.
#Post#: 83397--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA - Penalty Notice Wimbledon Station - Hire Vehicle -
Byelaw 14
DIR By: Rackett78
Date: July 30, 2025, 1:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The lease company have provided the corrected LoA
I have sent this to APCOA along with the cover letter above
Thanks
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page