Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: olly1234 on March 12, 2025, 09:37:52 am

Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 31, 2025, 09:49:01 am
Dear b789,
Thank you again for your great help and assistance with this matter! Will keep you posted.
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: b789 on March 29, 2025, 03:23:19 pm
This would be my considered response to the lease company:

Quote
Subject: Rejection of Invoice – Unauthorised Payment of Fraudulent APCOA “Penalty Notice” (Ref: GT02434155)

Dear [Name],

Your latest response is deeply flawed and continues to demonstrate a worrying lack of legal understanding regarding the nature of the so-called Penalty Notice issued by APCOA. Let me make it absolutely clear:

• You paid an unlawful demand from a private company pretending to issue criminal penalties.
• You have no right to recover that money from me.
• You have been scammed.

1. This Was Not a Fine or Penalty – It Was a Private Contractual Offer Masquerading as a Statutory Penalty

The notice issued by APCOA was not a lawful Penalty Notice under the Railway Byelaws. APCOA is an unregulated private parking contractor, not a prosecuting authority, and has no power to issue criminal penalties. What you paid was not a fine. It was a speculative civil demand (invoice), no different from a regular Parking Charge Notice (PCN), misrepresented as a statutory penalty in order to create the illusion of criminal enforcement.

The Department for Transport (DfT) has made it clear—most notably in its 2018 response to POPLA—that minor parking contraventions under the Railway Byelaws are not to be prosecuted under Byelaw 24(1). That route is reserved for serious offences. Following the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1991, most parking violations in the UK were decriminalised, and the DfT has confirmed that enforcement for such matters is to proceed via civil, contractual charges (PCNs), not through the criminal courts.

To that end, the DfT accepts that operators may issue PCNs for contractual breaches under Byelaw 14(4)(i), but these are civil in nature, based on implied contractual terms. Nowhere has the DfT ever said that private companies like APCOA are authorised to prosecute or to issue genuine criminal Penalty Notices. In fact, the DfT has been careful to distinguish these civil charges from statutory penalties under Byelaw 24(1), which must be pursued by a Train Operating Company (TOC), Network Rail, or a delegated public authority, via the magistrates’ court.

If APCOA truly had the power to issue enforceable statutory Penalty Notices, the following would be true:

• The notice would clearly identify the prosecuting authority and cite the specific byelaw breached;
• It would advise that failure to pay may result in a summons to court, not simply “further action”;
• Payment would be made to the public purse, not into APCOA’s own account;
• And most importantly, APCOA would be able to produce a contract showing explicit statutory delegation, which it cannot.

If you are in any doubt, I invite you to request a copy of APCOA’s contract with the landowner or TOC. You will find that it grants APCOA the limited right to manage parking and issue Parking Charge Notices for breach of contract, but it does not confer any statutory authority to issue or enforce Penalty Notices under the Railway Byelaws. There is no lawful basis for them to suggest they have the power to prosecute or issue criminal penalties. They are relying entirely on your ignorance of the law.

Let me also be clear:

• APCOA has never prosecuted a single notice under the Railway Byelaws in the magistrates’ court—they cannot, because they lack authority.
• They will not sue in the county court, either—because if they did, their fraudulent misrepresentation of legal power would be exposed under cross-examination. A statutory penalty cannot be heard in the county court.

Instead, they rely on threatening letters, official-sounding language, and recipients who can be relied on to pay out of ignorance and fear. That is the entire model.

Had you conducted the most basic legal due diligence—or simply read the notice with a critical eye—you would have recognised that this was a civil contractual offer, masquerading as a criminal penalty, and designed to mislead. There was no statutory instrument, no summons, and no compulsion to pay. What you paid was a fraudulent demand, and your error has directly funded a scheme that depends on fear, misrepresentation, and legal ignorance to extract money from innocent parties.

2. You Denied Me My Right to Appeal and Acted Without Authority

The back of the notice clearly states that recipients have 28 days to appeal. You could very easily have issued a simple cover letter authorising me, as the Hirer, to deal with the matter directly—something that is both standard practice and explicitly anticipated under the lease. Only after an appeal had been submitted and rejected, would you even begin to consider whether payment was appropriate.

Instead, you acted with no due diligence, made no effort to transfer liability, and unilaterally extinguished my right to challenge a plainly unlawful and misrepresented demand.

As already pointed out multiple times, you have been suckered—just like all the other low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree—into funding a scam by blindly paying a fraudulent notice without question. That is your error, and you alone must bear the consequences.

3. This Was a Criminal Offence – APCOA Should Be Reported for Fraud

What APCOA is doing amounts to a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006, specifically:

Section 2 – Fraud by false representation: where a person dishonestly makes a false representation intending to make a gain or cause a loss.

• APCOA falsely claims to have legal authority to issue enforceable penalties under the Railway Byelaws.
• They threaten criminal prosecution while never intending or being able to follow through.
• They demand payment into a private account under the false pretence that a criminal offence has occurred.

That is fraud, plain and simple, and the fact that your company paid them without question shows you were deceived—which is the very definition of being defrauded.

4. This Is Your Error – You Must Pursue APCOA/b]

You cannot pass this invoice to me. You are not entitled to recover the cost of your own misinformed and unauthorised payment of a fake penalty. If you wish to recover your money, the correct course of action is:

• Report APCOA to the police for fraud by false representation, and
• Initiate legal proceedings against APCOA to recover the payment, plus your costs.

What you must not do is attempt to offload your mistake onto me.

5. Next Steps

I require your written confirmation within 14 days that:

1. The invoice has been cancelled in full;
2. The admin fee has been removed;
3. No recovery or collection action will be taken; and
4. You accept that the payment was made in error and without my consent.

If you refuse, I will escalate this complaint to the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) and, if applicable, the Financial Ombudsman Service, on the grounds of breach of contract, unauthorised action, and denial of my legal rights.

I also reserve the right to initiate legal action against you for recovery of any losses or costs I incur in defending against your improper demand.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Lease Agreement Reference / Vehicle Registration]
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: b789 on March 28, 2025, 05:26:42 pm
OK. SO the lease company have made the mistake of paying a fake Penalty Notice and are now trying to recover the money from you by invoicing you.

I will consider this over the weekend and formulate a suitable response to that letter from the lease company.
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 28, 2025, 05:10:30 pm
I have received an invoice from the Leasing Company for payment
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: b789 on March 28, 2025, 04:43:08 pm
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:

Fraud by false representation – when someone dishonestly makes a false statement to gain money or cause someone a loss.

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.

Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 28, 2025, 04:11:52 pm
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: 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.
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: b789 on March 17, 2025, 06:49:56 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.
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: G6PRK on March 17, 2025, 06:11:30 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?
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 17, 2025, 05:54:14 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?
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: b789 on March 17, 2025, 05:30:49 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

• 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.

2. Failure to Engage with the Substance of Your Complaint

• 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.

3. Failure to Accept Responsibility for Their Unauthorised Payment

• 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.

4. Shifting the Burden to You

• 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.

Recommended Next Steps:

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:

• 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.

2. Demand a Formal Investigation and Legal Action Against APCOA

Request that they:

• 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.

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.

Let me know if you want me to draft a follow-up complaint letter.
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: G6PRK on March 17, 2025, 10:46:31 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...
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 17, 2025, 10:25:37 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.

 
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 12, 2025, 04:30:35 pm
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!
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: b789 on March 12, 2025, 04:25:31 pm
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]
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 12, 2025, 03:51:26 pm
With the help of ChatGPT have drafted the following for the car leasing company. This not being my forte, is there anything you would call out?

Subject: Urgent Complaint – Unlawful Payment of Penalty Notice to APCOA
Dear [Leasing Company],
I am writing to formally raise a strong objection regarding your decision to pay a so-called "Penalty Notice" issued by APCOA. It is deeply concerning that [Leasing Company], as a responsible leasing company, has failed to recognise that APCOA has absolutely no legal authority to issue Penalty Notices for breach of railway bylaws.

To be absolutely clear: APCOA is not a statutory authority and does not possess the legal power to enforce railway bylaw penalties. Only the Train Operating Company (TOC) or the landowner, such as Network Rail, has the statutory power to issue a legitimate Penalty Notice. Furthermore, any properly issued penalty would be payable to the public purse, not to a private entity like APCOA.

The Department for Transport (DfT) made this explicitly clear in a 2018 response to POPLA, stating that they expect any minor parking breach at a railway station to be dealt with under civil contract law, not under railway bylaw 24.1, which is reserved for more serious offences. In addition, parking offences were decriminalised in 1999 with the introduction of the Road Traffic Act. This reinforces the fact that APCOA’s so-called “Penalty Notice” is not a legally enforceable fine, but rather an offered contract that no one is legally obliged to accept.

APCOA’s use of misleading and unlawful language – implying that payment is necessary to avoid criminal prosecution – is wholly deceptive and legally baseless. Any genuine bylaw offence would require a TOC to lay evidence before a magistrates’ court, where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. APCOA, however, has no authority to issue, enforce, or prosecute any Penalty Notice. They are deliberately misrepresenting their powers to mislead the public into paying charges they are not legally obligated to pay.

By paying this invalid demand, [Leasing Company] has effectively legitimised an unlawful claim and encouraged APCOA’s deceptive practices. Furthermore, if you have made any charge to me as a result of this improper payment, I reserve the right to take legal action against [Leasing Company] for unlawfully charging me for a bogus penalty that should never have been paid in the first place.

I expect an immediate response from [Leasing Company] confirming:
1.   Why this payment was made without verifying the legitimacy of the notice.
2.   What steps you will now take to recover this unlawful payment from APCOA.
3.   Confirmation that you will refund any charges made to me, or face legal action.

This matter is one of legal principle and fairness. APCOA’s actions are misleading, unlawful, and deceptive. Your compliance with their baseless demands only emboldens them to continue such practices.

I strongly urge you to rectify this situation immediately.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 12, 2025, 02:30:09 pm
Thank you all so much for your detailed responses (which admittedly has caused significant red haze for me as well!).

Super clear on the airport PCN, will await the PCN NtH sent directly to me as opposed to the one forwarded on by the leasing company, and then use the wording below - very much appreciated.

On the fake PN:
The wording in my lease agreement is: "Except only for vehicle excise duty fees (see Clause 3), it is your responsibility to pay all parking fines, speeding fines, congestion charges and all other fines, charges, fees, duties and tolls that become payable to any authority or other organisation in respect of the use of the Vehicle, including any fines payable by us in respect of any failure by you to continuously insure the Vehicle ("Vehicle Charge"). If we receive a notice of intended prosecution or a private parking charge notice relating to the Vehicle  we will, where reasonably possible, transfer liability by providing your details to the issuing authority/relevant operator so that you can deal with the matter directly.  We will charge you an administration fee of £12 plus VAT for this service.  For all other fines, penalties, charges and notices, or if we need to do so to avoid us incurring a liability on your behalf, we will make payment without giving you prior notice, and recharge it to you."

Quote
you can sue them for any charge they have made to you. They have been conned by the wording on the fake PN. This can be reported to the police for investigation. APCOA have absolutely no authority to issue PNs. The DfT even made this clear in a 2018 response to POPLA where they said they expect any breach of a railway bylaw for a minot parking offence to be dealt with under civil contract law and not bylaw 24.1 which is for more serious offences. Parking offences were decriminalised back in 1999 with the introduction of the Road Traffic Act.
I'm going in hard then against the leasing company to get them to reimburse me with the threat of legal action
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: b789 on March 12, 2025, 01:46:32 pm
They have breached the CRA 2015 by denying you any opportunity to appeal.
We may need to use a different piece of legislation. From my reading of the OP's posts, it seems that he is not the hirer of the car, but rather, a limited company (of which he is a director) is the hirer, and it is this company that has a contractual arrangement with the lease company. On that basis, the company will not meet the definition of a 'consumer' for the purposes of the CRA.

I stand corrected. In my red haze at reading the lease company has paid a fraudulent invoice, I did not notice that the Hirer is to an individual, which is even more reason to challenge this.
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: DWMB2 on March 12, 2025, 01:34:22 pm
They have breached the CRA 2015 by denying you any opportunity to appeal.
We may need to use a different piece of legislation. From my reading of the OP's posts, it seems that he is not the hirer of the car, but rather, a limited company (of which he is a director) is the hirer, and it is this company that has a contractual arrangement with the lease company. On that basis, the company will not meet the definition of a 'consumer' for the purposes of the CRA.
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: b789 on March 12, 2025, 01:22:25 pm
If your lease company has paid both the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the airport drop off and the fake Penalty Notice (PN), then, unless the terms of your lease specifically allow them to pay invoices from unregulated private parking companies, you have been screwed royally.

What they should have done is simply transfer liability to you as the Hirer of the vehicle and that would have been the end of the matter for the lease company. Once the liability is transferred, APCOA is supposed to then send a Notice to Hirer (NtH) in your name and you could have easily dealt with this. Nobody who is here receiving advice ever pays a penny to APCOA.

The PCN is very easily disposed of by informing APCOA that, as the Hirer or Keeper, you are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company and as the alleged contravention was on airport land, it is not relevant land and so there can be no Hirer/Keeper liability. APCOA would have cancelled the PCN in response.

As for the fake PN, that is part of a huge extortion racket that APCOA have going on and should be reported to Action Fraud. APCOA cannot issue a Penalty Notice for breach of railway bylaws as they are not the authority that has the statutory powers to do so. Only the Train Operating Company (TOC) or whoever owns the land where the station car park is located, such as Network Rail can issue a PN. Any penalty that is properly issued and then paid, should go to the public purse, not APCOAs bank account.

Any real PN can only be enforced through the magistrates court and that would require the TOC to lay evidence to the court and obtain a summons where it could then be challenged. The burden of proof in a criminal matter is much, much higher than for a civil contractual dispute and must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because APCOA has set a fake PN, it is nothing but an "offered contract" that no-one is obliged to accept. Basically, the are using unlawful language in their offered contract that if you bribe them £100, they will not criminally prosecute you in the magistrates court, which they cannot and would not do anyway. The language used in the offered contract is unlawful because it suggests that they have powers that they do not possess and threatens you with criminal liability which simply is not true.

However, this is all moot if the feckwits at your lease company have gone and paid the charges. Your only recourse is to sue them for the amount they have unlawfully taken from you. Check what your lease says about "parking charges". In most cases, they only refer to "fines" or "penalties" from "authorities" or the police.

It really p!sses me off when these companies simple pay speculative invoices from the likes of APCOA or any other unregulated private parking company and then tell the Hirer that it is not their problem anymore. They have breached the CRA 2015 by denying you any opportunity to appeal.

If they collect any payments they have made that you dispute you should have those payments stopped. If by card, make a chargeback. If by direct debit, you dispute it with your bank.

Edit: I have just read back through your previous post. You lease company has been conned into paying the fake PN. You can sue them for any charge they have made to you. They have been conned by the wording on the fake PN. This can be reported to the police for investigation. APCOA have absolutely no authority to issue PNs. The DfT even made this clear in a 2018 response to POPLA where they said they expect any breach of a railway bylaw for a minot parking offence to be dealt with under civil contract law and not bylaw 24.1 which is for more serious offences. Parking offences were decriminalised back in 1999 with the introduction of the Road Traffic Act.

For the airport PCN, when you receive the NtH, just appeal with the following:

Quote
I am the Hirer. APCOA cannot hold a Hirer liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, APCOA will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Heathrow Airport is not 'relevant land'.

If Heathrow Airport wanted to hold Hirers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because APCOA is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for APCOA's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and APCOA has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable. APCOA have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 12, 2025, 11:01:18 am
Confirmed that the leasing company has paid the Redhill Station PCN:

We have paid this for one of the following reasons:
- Legislation requires immediate payment by the registered keeper
- We have been instructed to pay on your behalf by your employer
- The offence has been escalated back to [Leasing Company]
- We are unable to transfer liability.

What do you need to do?
- If you accept liability no further action is required. Please do not make any further payment directly to the issuing authority.
- If you do not accept liability, please appeal directly to the authority. Instructions on how to appeal are included on the notification. To enable you to speak with the authority we have attached a Third-Party Authorisation letter. You will need to send this with your appeal.

Please note, the driver of the vehicle is responsible for appeal and as such, we are unable to do this on your behalf. 


For both PCNs, the leasing company has sent Third Party Authorisation letters to APCOA putting them in contact with the company that leases the car (the Ltd company that the Driver is a director of)
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: DWMB2 on March 12, 2025, 10:41:43 am
Should also add that I believe the leasing company has already paid the PCNs
You need to confirm this as it will entirely change the approach.

If the charges have been paid, then APCOA are out of the equation entirely, and it is instead a dispute between you and your leasing company.
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 12, 2025, 10:07:35 am
PCNs attached.

Should also add that I believe the leasing company has already paid the PCNs

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: jfollows on March 12, 2025, 09:49:42 am
Please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Title: APCOA Redhill Station AND APCOA Heathrow drop off
Post by: olly1234 on March 12, 2025, 09:37:52 am
Hi All,

In the space of 4 days 2 PCNs received through our leasing company. Grouped together as both APCOA.

The car is leased from a leasing company.

First PCN - Redhill Station
The car was parked and parking paid for through the APCOA QR Code displayed, but still a PCN from APCOA has been received, through the leasing company, for "use of Private Car Park without making a valid payment".No receipt of parking/payment when parking was paid but there is a bank statement showing the payment to APCOA with date & time. Searching the APCOA receipt finder the car can't be found.

Second PCN - Heathrow T4 drop off
The car drove through the drop off zone - didn't realise they had got to the end of it before exiting, and circling back around. Second time stopped in the drop off zone for pick-up before exiting as usual. Heathrow Terminal Drop Off charge paid later that evening for one drop off (as that was all that was showing on the website). PCN received for "Use of Drop Off Zone without making a valid payment".

Any help greatly appreciated in appealing both of these.

TIA