DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100472--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 1, 2025, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can copy and paste this as your response. It is within the
20,000 character limit and puts POPLA firmly on notice that it
is operating outside of its jurisdiction:
--- Quote ---
> This rebuttal is a single, overarching point that arises
directly from APCOA’s own operator evidence and from
Southeastern’s description of that same contractual
relationship. It goes to the heart of jurisdiction. Once this
point is understood, POPLA has no lawful basis to adjudicate on
this Penalty Notice at all, still less to uphold it against the
registered keeper.
>
> APCOA’s evidence pack includes a document headed “Contract for
Parking Enforcement & Landowner Authority” between SE Trains
Limited and APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd. This is the central document
which APCOA rely on to show “landowner authority”. Nothing in
this rebuttal introduces new factual material about the
incident; it is analysis of APCOA’s own contract and of the
legal framework they themselves say applies (Railway Byelaws).
>
> The contractual document is drafted entirely as a British
Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme parking agreement.
It states that APCOA is authorised to carry out “parking
enforcement” on SE Trains’ property “in accordance with sections
7.1 to 7.4 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice”.
It then goes on to say (in substance) that this agreement
extends authority “to carry out parking enforcement for breaches
of the advertised terms and conditions, and pursuit of unpaid
parking charges”. It later adds that “this contract gives the
operator (APCOA Parking UK Ltd) the authority to take legal
action on any outstanding parking charges”.
>
> The financial term is set out in a table as a “Parking Charge
Amount: £100.00 reduced to £80.00 if paid within 14 days of
issue”. That is classic private Parking Charge Notice wording.
Statutory penalties imposed under Railway Byelaws are court
fines; they are not “parking charges”, cannot be discounted for
early payment, and they are not payable to a private contractor.
Any reduced-amount “charge” demanded by APCOA is, by definition,
a CIVIL parking charge under contract, not a CRIMINAL penalty
under Byelaws.
>
> The only mention of Byelaws anywhere in the contract is a tick
in a box in the “Enforcement Type” section labelled “Penalty –
under Byelaws”. That label does not create any new legal power.
There is no clause which says that APCOA may issue Penalty
Notices under the Railway Byelaws in its own name, no clause
that allows APCOA to demand statutory penalties for itself, and
no clause that authorises APCOA to prosecute Byelaw offences in
the magistrates’ court. On the contrary, the operative clauses
repeatedly and exclusively talk about “parking charges” (not
Penalty Notices), “breaches of the advertised terms and
conditions”, and “legal action on any outstanding parking
charges”, all by reference to the BPA AOS Code of Practice. In
other words, APCOA’s authority is CONTRACTUAL and CIVIL, not
STATUTORY and CRIMINAL.
>
> Southeastern themselves, in response to a Freedom of
Information request, have confirmed that APCOA “does not
prosecute byelaw breaches in the magistrates’ courts” and that
Southeastern “have not delegated prosecution of this power” and
“retain prosecutorial responsibility”. This is not new factual
evidence about the event; it is Southeastern’s own explanation
of the contract APCOA have already placed in evidence and of how
that relationship operates. It merely confirms what is already
apparent on the face of the contract: APCOA is a parking
contractor issuing private charges; it is not a prosecuting
authority for Byelaw offences.
>
> APCOA’s “Penalty Notice” and subsequent correspondence try to
have it both ways. They describe an “offence” under the Railway
Byelaws, threaten that a criminal record may result, assert that
the registered keeper is “legally liable as the owner even if
not the driver”, and yet simultaneously demand a discounted sum
payable to APCOA’s own PO Box, refer to the BPA Code of
Practice, and rely on a contract that only authorises pursuit of
civil parking charges. They expressly state in their evidence
that they are “not issuing under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012” but then import keeper/owner presumptions that appear in
civil contexts, not in the Railway Byelaws themselves. The
Byelaws contain no deeming provision that the DVLA registered
keeper is the “owner”; DVLA data is administrative and the V5C
is not proof of ownership. Ownership for a Byelaw 14(4)
prosecution would have to be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, in
a magistrates’ court. APCOA cannot convert that criminal
standard into a civil presumption in front of POPLA.
>
> POPLA exists as an independent appeals service for BPA
members’ private parking charges. It is not a court and has no
statutory footing to determine criminal or quasi-criminal
liability under Railway Byelaws, to decide who the “owner” is
for the purposes of Byelaw 14(4), or to award statutory
penalties to a private company. APCOA’s own contract shows they
are authorised to issue parking charges and to pursue civil
debts. Southeastern’s own explanation confirms that any Byelaw
prosecution remains their responsibility and has not been
delegated. In those circumstances, APCOA’s attempt to dress up a
civil parking enforcement contract as a Byelaw “Penalty Notice”
is ultra vires the contract and outside POPLA’s remit.
>
> This leads to a single, unavoidable conclusion. Either:
>
> 1. POPLA treats this for what the contract actually
authorises: a private Parking Charge Notice for breach of
contract. In that case, the site is Railway land and not
“relevant land” for Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, so no keeper liability can arise and APCOA’s case against
the keeper must fail; or
>
> 2. POPLA accepts APCOA’s characterisation that this is a
Penalty Notice “issued under Byelaw 14”. In that case, POPLA has
no jurisdiction at all to determine a statutory criminal
allegation or to endorse keeper/owner liability that the Byelaws
themselves do not provide for. The only lawful route is for
Southeastern, not APCOA, to lay information before the
magistrates within six months, where ownership and liability
would have to be proved to the criminal standard. POPLA cannot
substitute itself for a criminal court.
>
> Either way, APCOA’s Penalty Notice cannot lawfully be upheld
against the registered keeper. On the basis of APCOA’s own
contract and Southeastern’s own statements about that contract,
this Penalty Notice falls outside POPLA’s competence and outside
APCOA’s proper authority. The only fair and lawful outcome is
for POPLA to allow the appeal and direct that the Penalty Notice
is cancelled.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I also put POPLA, which is not a
separate legal person but a trading style of Trust Alliance
Group Limited (Company No. 04351294), on notice that any
decision which upholds APCOA’s characterisation of this demand
as a lawful “Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws” and purports
to impose liability on the keeper risks amounting to an unfair
commercial practice under Part 4 Chapter 1 of the Digital
Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).
>
> First, if POPLA endorses APCOA’s position that I am “legally
liable” to pay a discounted “penalty” to a private contractor,
and that POPLA can properly adjudicate criminal or
quasi-criminal liability under the Railway Byelaws, that would
be capable of being a misleading action under section 226 DMCC.
It would amount to a false representation about my legal
obligations and about POPLA’s own competence and status, and it
is clearly material to a consumer’s transactional decision
whether to pay or not.
>
> Second, if POPLA involves itself in what APCOA describe as an
“offence” under Byelaw 14, despite POPLA’s own published remit
being limited to Parking Charge Notices on private land, that is
at least a failure to exercise the standard of special skill and
care that a consumer is entitled to expect from a professional
ADR body. That is capable of breaching the requirement of
professional diligence in section 229 DMCC.
>
> Third, by using and applying a private-sector code (the BPA
AOS Code of Practice) in a way which promotes the dressing-up of
civil parking charges as statutory criminal penalties, POPLA and
Trust Alliance Group Limited risk engaging section 225 and
Schedule 20, which deal with the promotion of unfair practices
in or through a code of conduct.
>
> These provisions are now directly enforceable by the
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which can impose
significant administrative fines on traders who engage in unfair
commercial practices. If POPLA, as a trading name of Trust
Alliance Group Limited, chooses to step outside its published
scope and to endorse APCOA’s misrepresentation of this Penalty
Notice, I will reserve my position to refer Trust Alliance Group
Limited’s conduct to the CMA for investigation under the DMCC.
>
> In light of the potential consequences for Trust Alliance
Group Limited, the assessor is invited to think very carefully
before endorsing APCOA’s position. If there is any doubt about
POPLA’s jurisdiction or about the DMCC implications, this
decision should be escalated to an appropriately senior person
within Trust Alliance Group Limited who has proper legal
understanding of what a breach of the DMCC could mean for the
company.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 100473--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: December 1, 2025, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Do you want me to wait until Thursday/Friday to
stretch for time or is it not worth it at this point?
#Post#: 100484--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 1, 2025, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just send it now. APCOA cannot and will not prosecute this. I
have a Southeastern Trains FoI statement from an earlier APCOA
Penalty notice issue I have been dealing with that explicitly
states:
--- Quote ---
> APCOA does not prosecute byelaw breaches in the magistrates’
courts, we have not delegated prosecution of this power.
Southeastern retains prosecutorial responsibility.
--- End Quote ---
I have also just sent the following email to Trust Alliance
Group Ltd. POPLA is a trading style/brand of Trust Alliance
Group Ltd, which is the legal entity responsible for its
operation:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: POPLA involvement in APCOA “Penalty Notices under
Railway Byelaws” – potential breaches of DMCC 2024
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I write as a private individual and advisor to motorists who
receive demands from unregulated private parking operators,
including APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd. This email is not sent in my
capacity as a recipient of any APCOA Penalty Notice, but in my
personal capacity as someone who regularly reviews POPLA
decisions and operator practices.
>
> POPLA is presented publicly as an independent appeals service
for Parking Charge Notices issued on private land, administered
by Trust Alliance Group Limited. However, APCOA are using POPLA
in relation to documents that are explicitly described to
consumers as “Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaws” and framed
as “offences” that may lead to a criminal record.
>
> These APCOA Penalty Notices are not conventional civil Parking
Charge Notices. They purport to be statutory penalties for
alleged Byelaw 14 offences but demand discounted “penalties”
payable to a private contractor, rely on DVLA registered keeper
data on non-relevant land, and are issued where there is no
clear delegation of prosecutorial powers from the Train
Operating Company. Motorists are then directed to POPLA as if
POPLA were a legitimate appellate body for those alleged
offences.
>
> In my view, POPLA’s involvement in these Railway Byelaw
Penalty Notices places Trust Alliance Group Limited at risk of
breaching Part 4 Chapter 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition
and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), for which TAGL is the relevant
“trader”, POPLA being only a trading style.
>
> In particular:
>
> 1. Misleading actions (s.226 DMCC)
> Where POPLA considers appeals against APCOA “Penalty Notices
under Railway Byelaws” and issues decisions that endorse APCOA’s
position that a registered keeper is “legally liable” to pay a
discounted penalty to APCOA, POPLA risks making or reinforcing
false or misleading representations about:
>
> [indent](a) the nature and legal status of the demand (civil
parking charge versus statutory criminal penalty),
> (b) the legal obligations of the consumer (for example, keeper
liability on land that is not “relevant land” for the purposes
of Schedule 4 PoFA 2012), and
> (c) POPLA’s own competence and status (implying it has power
to adjudicate criminal or quasi-criminal liability under Railway
Byelaws).[/indent]
>
> These representations are clearly likely to cause the average
consumer to take a transactional decision they would not
otherwise take, namely to pay a demand believing that an
independent and authoritative body has confirmed legal liability
for a Byelaw “offence”. That is exactly the scenario
contemplated by section 226 DMCC.
>
> 2. Lack of professional diligence (s.229 DMCC)
> POPLA’s own published remit is confined to Parking Charge
Notices issued on private land in accordance with the BPA
Approved Operator Scheme. Railway Byelaw Penalty Notices relate
to land under statutory control, engage criminal procedure in
the magistrates’ courts, and any genuine penalty would be
imposed by a court and paid to the public purse, not to a
private company.
>
> By nevertheless accepting “appeals” in these Penalty Notice
cases and purporting to decide whether Byelaw “offences” have
occurred or whether a registered keeper is liable as “owner”,
POPLA appears to be operating outside its own competence and
applying a private-sector code in an area where only a
magistrates’ court has jurisdiction. That is, at the very least,
capable of falling below the standard of special skill and care
expected of a professional ADR body and therefore of breaching
the requirement of professional diligence under section 229
DMCC.
>
> 3. Promotion of unfair practices via a code of conduct (s.225
and Schedule 20 DMCC)
> Trust Alliance Group operates POPLA within the BPA AOS Code of
Practice framework. Where POPLA uses that code to support or
endorse APCOA’s practice of presenting what are, in reality,
private parking charges as “Penalty Notices under Railway
Byelaws”, with all the associated suggestions of criminality and
keeper liability, there is a real risk that Trust Alliance Group
is promoting or supporting unfair commercial practices through a
code of conduct within the meaning of section 225 and Schedule
20 DMCC.
>
> The net result is that motorists are being told that POPLA has
“rejected” their appeal in relation to a supposed Railway Byelaw
“offence”, that they remain “legally liable” to pay a penalty to
APCOA, and that this reflects the correct legal position, when
in fact:
>
> [indent]• POPLA has no statutory jurisdiction over Byelaw
offences;
> • ownership and any Byelaw 14 liability can only be determined
by a magistrates’ court to the criminal standard; and
> • the only lawful route for a genuine Byelaw prosecution is
for the Train Operating Company to lay information before a
Magistrate within six months.[/indent]
>
> In those circumstances, I believe that POPLA’s ongoing
involvement in APCOA Railway Byelaw Penalty Notices presents a
serious consumer-protection risk and exposes Trust Alliance
Group Limited to possible regulatory action by the Competition
and Markets Authority under the DMCC.
>
> I therefore request that Trust Alliance Group Limited:
>
> [indent]1. Undertakes an urgent internal review of POPLA’s
remit and policies in relation to any APCOA (or other operator)
documents described as “Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaws”;
>
> 2. Pauses or withdraws POPLA from handling such cases unless
and until Trust Alliance Group Limited is satisfied that POPLA
has a clear and lawful basis to adjudicate them and that
consumers are not being misled about the nature of the charge or
POPLA’s powers; and
>
> 3. Confirms what steps will be taken to ensure that POPLA’s
published materials and decision letters do not state or imply
that POPLA has confirmed criminal or quasi-criminal liability,
or that a keeper is legally obliged to pay a Byelaw “penalty” to
a private operator.[/indent]
>
> This email is intended to give Trust Alliance Group Limited a
fair opportunity to address these concerns internally. If I do
not see evidence that POPLA is being brought back within its
published remit and that Byelaw Penalty Notices are being
excluded from its scope, I reserve my position to share case
examples and refer these issues to the Competition and Markets
Authority for investigation as potential breaches of Part 4
Chapter 1 DMCC.
>
> Given the nature of these concerns, I would ask that this
correspondence is brought to the attention of your legal and
compliance teams, and to the senior executive responsible for
the POPLA business unit.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 100485--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: December 1, 2025, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sent off the rebuttal, now we wait.
Out of curiosity, any luck yet with those DMCC letters?
#Post#: 100494--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: b789
Date: December 1, 2025, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Give me a break. I haven't even got round to reporting APCOA or
TAGL (POPLA) to the CMA yet. I have simply outlined to POPLA why
their remit does not extend to adjudicating on fake Penalty
Notices and the consequences for TAGL (POPLA is just a trading
style for them) of breaching the DMCC.
Anyone can report APCOA, TAGL, United Trade and Industry Ltd
(the IPC/IAS), the BPA and every single unregulated private
parking firm to the CMA for breaches of the DMCC. I just don't
understand why more people don't just do it.
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC)
gives the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) new powers to
investigate and penalise unfair trading practices, consumer
harm, and anti‑competitive conduct. Unregulated private
parking firms and their trade associations (BPA/IPC) routinely
engage in behaviours that fall squarely within those powers.
They issue misleading notices, misrepresent legal liability, and
exploit consumers with opaque terms and excessive charges. Trade
bodies like the BPA and IPC act as gatekeepers, presenting
themselves as regulators while in reality operating as industry
clubs that protect their members from scrutiny. POPLA (Trust
Alliance Group Ltd) and the IAS (United Trade and Industry Ltd)
profit from appeal systems that lack independence and have
obvious conflicts of interest.
These practices amount to breaches of the DMCC because they
involve:
[indent]• Misleading actions and omissions in consumer
contracts.
• Abuse of market power by trade associations that control
access to appeals and accreditation.
• Systematic exploitation of consumers through unfair commercial
practices.
• Lack of transparency in governance and financial
flows.[/indent]
Reporting them to the CMA forces scrutiny under the DMCC
framework. The CMA can investigate, impose penalties of up tp
10% of each companies worldwide turnover, and mandate reforms.
Every report builds pressure and evidence, showing that these
are not isolated incidents but systemic misconduct.
In short: the DMCC was designed to stop exactly this kind of
exploitation. If consumers, advocates, and professionals all
report these firms and their trade bodies, the CMA cannot ignore
the scale of the problem.
#Post#: 100496--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 1, 2025, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Responses from agencies like the CMA are often measured in
months (if you're lucky). They're often over burdened and
underfunded to deal with the volume of work.
#Post#: 100497--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: December 1, 2025, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So similar situation to the ICO then. I hope it improves the
situation for people getting ripped off like this in the future,
I really do.
For now, gonna park this for 6-8 weeks whilst POPLA smashes
their brain cells together.
in the meantime, thanks for the help so far!
#Post#: 110171--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: Mustek
Date: February 18, 2026, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unsuccessful because POPLA/operator assumes keeper means owner.
Considering the vehicle is on a lease, that's factually
incorrect.
Guess I'm just waiting this out and hope APCOA really doesn't or
can't take this further. Their window closes in April.
I'll keep this updated.
--- Quote ---
> Decision: Unsuccessful
> Assessor Name: Richard Beaden
>
> Assessor Summary:
> The appellant disputes that the operator can issued a penalty
believing only the train company can. The explain that the
operator cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) as the
land is not relevant land. The appellant disputes that the
operator can claim that the keeper of the vehicle is the owner.
The appellant believes that the operator has to approach the
magistrate’s court. The appellant has commented on the parking
operator’s evidence.
>
> Assessor Reason for Decision: (formatted for legibility)
> When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking
operator has issued the penalty correctly and if the driver has
complied with the rules of the car park.
>
> This penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway
Byelaws. The byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for
the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper
unless the appellant can provide evidence that they were not the
owner of the vehicle at the time of the offence. In this case no
such evidence has been provided so I am satisfied that the
appellant was the keeper of the vehicle and therefore the owner.
>
> The appellant is correct that the operator cannot use the
Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) as this site is not relevant
land. The operator is pursing the appellant as the owner of the
vehicle under the Railway Byelaws. Section 25 of the Railway
Byelaws advises that an authorised person is any person
authorised by the railway operator. APCOA has provided a
document confirming that the Railway operator has given it
permission to issue penalties on this site.
>
> The specific of the APCOA contract with the railway operator
is not relevant to this appeal as the ticket box itself is
sufficient to prove that it has been granted the relevant
authority to pursue penalties. Section 14 of the railway byelaws
give the operator the right to issue penalties if a motorist
breaches the displayed rules on the signs on the site.
>
> The signs on this site advise that a penalty of £100 will be
issued if the driver does not comply with the rules displayed.
The rules require the driver to make a valid payment for their
parking. The operator has provided a list which shows that no
payment was made.
>
> The appellant is correct the operator can take the appellant
to magistrate’s court to purse the penalty if it remains unpaid.
This does not invalidate the penalty or mean that the operator
cannot first issue it and offer an appeals process. There is
nothing within the byelaws which prevents POPLA from considering
the penalty as a free alternative to it having to go to court.
Even if the railway operator has maintained the right to pursue
the penalties in court this does not prevent APCOA from issuing
the charges or pursuing them for payment.
>
> While the appellant advises that a Freedom of Information act
request has been advised of this POPLA has not been presented
with any evidence in support of this claim. I also note that as
it did not affect the ability of the driver to comply with the
parking rules it is not relevant to the outcome of this
assessment.
>
> APCOA is a member of the British Parking Association which
requires it to provide access to POPLA. A contract has been
provided which confirms that APCOA has been appointment by the
railway operator to issue and purse penalties. The operator can
hold the keeper of the vehicle liable as the owner of the
vehicle. The department for transport confirmed that POPLA could
consider appeals regarding penalties on Railway Land.
>
> If the appellant has any concerns regarding the legality of
POPLA considering the PCN I recommend the appellant seeks their
own legal advice. The evidence confirms that the driver failed
to pay for their use of their site.
>
> As such I must conclude that the penalty was issued correctly
and refuse this appeal.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 110180--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 18, 2026, 5:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They're almost certainly not going to take action - if you were
prosecuted in the Mags court the money would not go to APCOA or
the train operator.
#Post#: 110200--------------------------------------------------
Re: APCOA Penalty Notice - Ashford International - No valid
payment (Byelaw 14)
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 18, 2026, 7:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's be clear on this; the original notice isn't really a
'penalty notice' - it's actually a dressed up Parking Charge
Notice.
POPLA continue to contradict themselves at every turn.
The term 'owner' isn't convenient for them so, at a stroke, they
change the word 'owner' to 'keeper' even though they know that
the two terms have clearly defined meanings - there is no legal
authority for the assessor to do this but he recognises the
impossibility of the parking operators position if he doesn't
wave his magic wand.
There's absolutely no legal requirement for the keeper to
identify the vehicle owner.
Furthermore, one has to ask why anyone would ever appeal to
POPLA in the first place if this really was a 'Penalty Notice'
since POPLA would have no legal standing in getting such a
statutory notice cancelled as they don't have the judicial
powers required.
POPLA's involvement demonstrates that the notice is really a
Parking Charge Notice which is issued in breach of the Code of
Practice.
It will cost APCOA around £9,000 if they want to pursue this
through the correct channels - any fine will go to the public
purse.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page