DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96297--------------------------------------------------
APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid payment
(Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: October 31, 2025, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Dealing with a "Penalty Notice", Notice to keeper from APCOA -
See images below.
The driver mistakingly paid with a VRM of their previous
vehicle.
From some cursory searching, I found that APCOA may not have the
right to issue penalty notices as this is private land? Please
correct me if I'm wrong.
Date of offence is 16/10/2025
Date of notice is 27/10/2025
Date received: 31/10/2025
Amount 100, discounted to 60 if paid within 14 days.
The driver nor keeper have not taken any action yet as the
penalty notice was received today.
Can you please advise whether they have the driver bang to
rights or if this can be successfully appealed.
Thank you.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/PGRsDfTg/IMG-1452.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/PGRsDfTg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/6RJhbdWt/IMG-1453.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/6RJhbdWt
#Post#: 96303--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment
DIR By: Mustek
Date: October 31, 2025, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the above still holds true, the keeper will appeal using the
following text (as found in another thread from 2024 on here)
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above.
APCOA cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged
contravention on land that is under statutory control, such as
Ashford International Station. As a matter of fact and law,
APCOA will be fully aware that the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012 cannot be used to pursue keeper liability, as
Ashford International Station is not 'relevant land' under that
Act.
>
> If the landholder of Ashford International Station wished to
hold owners or keepers liable under Railway Byelaws, that would
be within their right as the landowner. However, not only has
this not been pleaded, but it is also legally impossible for
APCOA to do so, as APCOA is not the landowner. Your fake
'Penalty Notice' is not a real statutory penalty. It is purely
an attempt by APCOA to generate profit, as opposed to a lawful
penalty under Railway Byelaws, which would go to the public
purse.
>
> APCOA’s fake Penalty Notice is nothing more than an "offered
contract" relying on contract law allegations of breach and is
only applicable to the driver. The registered keeper cannot be
presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under
any misguided interpretation of agency law. Your fake Penalty
Notice can only attempt to hold the driver liable, and as such,
APCOA cannot lawfully pursue me as the registered keeper.
>
> Given these facts, APCOA has no hope of success at POPLA or in
any legal forum. I urge you to cancel this Penalty Notice now
and avoid wasting both our time on an appeal that will
inevitably fail.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96364--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: b789
Date: October 31, 2025, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No. That appeal is for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). What you
have received is a Penalty Notice (PN) issued as a criminal
breach of railway bylaws. A PCN is only a speculative invoice
for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.
Not that you have to pay it. Nothing will ever come of this, but
you need to treat it for what it is. APCOA will mendaciously try
and get you to appeal to POPLA. POPLA is not an authorised
Independent Appeals Body (IAB) that is approved by the Train
Operating Company (TOC). If you do appeal to POPLA, you do so
under protest but you go through the motions as they are likely
to tell APCOA to cancel anyway.
In reality, the only way to challenge a PN is to do so in the
magistrates court. However, APCOA will NEVER take you to court
over this because they can't.
A Railway Byelaw breach is a statutory offence. Only the TOC can
authorise any prosecution. They would have to lay an information
before a magistrate and then a demand would be made under the
Single Justice Procedure where the case would be challenged. In
the magistrates court, a criminal matter has to be proved beyond
a reasonable doubt. A high bar, very unlikely to be achieved.
As long as the driver is not identified, they would have to
prove you are the "owner" of the vehicle if they ever wanted to
recover any fine imposed by the court if you were the first ever
person to charged like this in the magistrates court. They will
try and say that the vehicles registered keeper is the owner.
However, if you look at your V5C, note the big bold capitalised
words on the front that clearly say tha the V5C is NOT proof of
ownership.
APCOA wold eventually threaten a claim in the county court but
that is simply impossible for an alleged breach of criminal law.
The county court did only for civil cases, not statutory
breaches.
I could go on, but this is never, EVER going to any court. APCOA
just do not litigate. They hope you are low-hanging fruit on the
gullible tree who can be intimidated into toying up out of
ignorance and fear.
A PN must be prosecuted within 6 months of the date of the
alleged breach. So, all responses should be made at the very
last minute.
For now, appeal only as the Keeper with the following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the Registered Keeper. My details are:
>
> Full name: [ ]
> Postal address: [ ]
> Penalty Notice: [Ref]
>
> This location is subject to Railway Byelaws and is not
“relevant land” for PoFA 2012; you cannot transfer liability to
the keeper. POPLA is not competent for Byelaws matters and is
not a TOC approved Independent Appeals Body (IAB).
>
> If you believe an offence occurred, lay an information before
the magistrates under the Single Justice Procedure within six
months. Otherwise, erase my data when no longer necessary for
this purpose.
>
> As to any further demands, I refer you to the response given
in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
--- End Quote ---
FYI, ,the DVLA is going to ban all TOCs from contracting
unregulated private parking firms from issuing any PNs for
breaches of Railway Byelwas from Next month. All TOCs will be
required to only contract these firms to issue PCNs in future
for breach of contract, a civil matter.
#Post#: 96573--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: November 3, 2025, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
Appealed with the unchanged template. Always fun to see
references to Arkell v Pressdram.
Will update when I get something back.
#Post#: 97520--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: November 10, 2025, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, they rejected the appeal (Redacted version below)
and gave a POPLA code, so time to draft an appeal to them.
If I understand it, I need to appeal to POPLA under protest, as
they are not an authorised appeals body by the railway TOC?
I am having trouble finding a post on here that has a POPLA
appeal regarding "Penalty notices" related to TOC land. The
closest I can find is this, but it seems to me that it's quite a
lot of text for an appeal to an organisation that's essentially
not authorised to act:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/amberley-railway-station-(apcoa)-failure-to-park-in-marked-bay-three-days-in-a-r/msg39422/#msg39422
I would be happy with some helpful pointers so I can draft an
appeal, thank you!
HTML https://i.ibb.co/fGLxsVTh/appeal-response-3.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/h1wmSxTP
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ksV0R9GQ/appeal-response-4.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/LXD6LJ0n
HTML https://i.ibb.co/351PpM9H/appeal-response-6.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/spjXK6dr
HTML https://i.ibb.co/qY8Xxzkm/appeal-response-7.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/MkHW9bMP
#Post#: 97537--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: b789
Date: November 10, 2025, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would simply appeal to POPLA on Tuesday 9th December with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper. This is a Penalty Notice issued
under the Railway Byelaws, not a civil Parking Charge Notice.
This appeal is made strictly under protest because POPLA has no
jurisdiction over statutory byelaw penalties. Only a Train
Operating Company may operate or use an Independent Appeals Body
for byelaw penalties. APCOA is a private contractor and cannot
rely on POPLA to adjudicate a criminal or quasi-criminal
allegation.
>
> Not relevant land / no keeper liability
> The location is not “relevant land” for the purposes of
Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Keeper
liability under PoFA does not apply to land subject to Railway
Byelaws. Accordingly, there is no lawful route to hold the
keeper liable via civil mechanisms.
>
> Pre-emptive rebuttal of the “owner” assertion
> I anticipate APCOA/POPLA will assert: “[i]DVLA records
indicate you were the registered keeper. You are legally liable
as the owner even if not the driver. ‘Owner’ means the person by
whom the vehicle is kept, presumed to be the person in whose
name the vehicle is registered[/I].” That reasoning is wrong in
law for a byelaw allegation.
>
> No deeming provision in the Railway Byelaws
> Byelaw 14(4)(ii) allows prosecution of “the owner”. The
Byelaws do not define “owner” and contain no presumption that
the registered keeper is the owner. Any such presumption must be
created by the Byelaws themselves. It is not.
>
> Civil presumptions are irrelevant to criminal liability
> The “kept by/presumed owner” wording cited by APCOA derives
from civil contexts (e.g. VERA administration; PoFA keeper
liability). Those regimes are not incorporated into the Railway
Byelaws and do not create criminal liability. A byelaw
prosecution is criminal in character and requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Ownership must be proved with evidence, not
assumed from DVLA administrative data.
>
> DVLA data is keeper data, not proof of ownership
> DVLA provides registered keeper details only. The V5C
expressly states it is not proof of ownership. DVLA data may be
a starting point for enquiries, but it is not conclusive (or
even sufficient) evidence of ownership for a criminal
allegation.
>
> Jurisdiction and correct route
> If the operator believes an offence occurred, the only lawful
route is to lay information in the magistrates’ court under the
Single Justice Procedure within six months of the date of the
allegation. POPLA cannot determine criminal liability or apply
criminal standards of proof. Directing civil recovery or
purporting to impose keeper liability under PoFA is outside
scope.
>
> Outcome sought
> [indent]1. POPLA should decline jurisdiction over a Railway
Byelaws Penalty Notice and direct APCOA to cancel it; or
> 2.In the alternative, if POPLA nevertheless considers itself
competent, it must allow the appeal because APCOA has provided
no evidence of “owner” as required by Byelaw 14(4)(ii) and
cannot rely on PoFA or civil presumptions to impose keeper
liability on non-relevant land.[/indent]
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, should POPLA be minded to endorse
APCOA’s defective position, please instruct APCOA to refer to
the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 97545--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: November 10, 2025, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, b789, POPLA appeal submitted verbatim. Under the
first question about what kind of appeal, I selected "Other".
I received verification and a password to follow up on the
appeal.
I'll report back when I receive anything.
Thanks!
#Post#: 97548--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: b789
Date: November 10, 2025, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I specifically told you not to submit any POPLA appeal until
Tuesday 9th December. The whole point is to stretch this out to
beyond the 6 month statute of limitation. Never mind, APCOA will
never take this to court, civil or magistrates.
#Post#: 97550--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: November 10, 2025, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, skipped over it straight to the appeal text. That's on
me.
#Post#: 100451--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: December 1, 2025, 2:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Morning,
APCOA has uploaded an evidence pack to POPLA on 28/11, which
gives me 7 days to provide comments (Friday 5/12?).
I need to spend some time redacting since they love sprinkling
my name multiple times in each comment. I will upload somewhere
once I went over it.
Edit: Redacted evidence pack, includes site plan, signage and
contract they have with Southeastern:
HTML https://drive.proton.me/urls/F6W8Q507BW#bKGMwycAWtjX
Edit 2: Reading the evidence pack, I think their response fails
with this paragraph:
--- Quote ---
> As can be seen from the Penalty Notice sent to Mr on
27/10/2025, the Penalty Notice states
> that ‘DVLA Records indicate that you were the registered
keeper on the date of the offence. You are
> legally liable for this offence as the owner even if you were
not the driver at the time.’ Therefore, Mr
> is liable for the Penalty Notice as the registered keeper of
the vehicle even if he was not the
> driver at the time. The Penalty Notice is clearly addressed to
Mr and within his appeal to
> POPLA, Mr has confirmed that he is the registered keeper of
the vehicle
--- End Quote ---
They are trying to conflate "Registered Keeper" and "Owner" as
the same, even though I've seen in past posts the explicit part
of the V5C where it states "This document is not proof of
ownership"
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page