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:
• 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)
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.
Any Penalty Notice issued by APCOA is fake. I have copies of correspondence from other APCOA Penalty Notice cases where they have admitted as much. The problem for you as the Hirer, is that Auxillis will not be aware of this and may invoke whatever terms and conditions of the hire agreement they think they can use to get the Penalty Notice off their backs when APCOA eventually send their fake "Notice to Owner", which is simply a Notice to Keeper (NtK).
There are two things you should do right now. One is to explain to Auxillis why they should not pay anything to APCOA otherwise they become complicit in fraud and for them to simply forward to you any correspondence with APCOA, which you are happy to deal with as the Hirer. The other is to write to APCOA and telling them to deal with you directly as the Hirer of the vehicle.
Send the following to Auxillis as a follow up to what you have shown us:
Subject: Re: APCOA “Penalty Notice” – RJ73 EJV
Dear Client Charges Team,
I write further to my previous correspondence regarding the so-called “Penalty Notice” issued by APCOA Parking Ltd on 11/06/2025.
I must reiterate that this notice is not a lawful Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws, nor is it a valid Parking Charge Notice. It is a deliberately misleading hybrid, designed to mimic statutory enforcement while lacking any lawful authority.
APCOA has previously confirmed in writing (in a separate case) that these notices are civil in nature and based on contract law. Despite this, they continue to label them “Penalty Notices” and issue them in a format that falsely implies criminal or statutory enforcement. This conduct constitutes fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
I am aware that APCOA may attempt to claim that no Notice to Hirer (NtH) is required because the original notice was issued under Railway Byelaws. This is legally incorrect. The land in question is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, and therefore there is no keeper or hirer liability.
To avoid unnecessary administrative escalation or cost to either party, I formally request that Auxillis provide a letter of authority confirming that I, as the named Hirer, am authorised to liaise directly with APCOA in respect of this matter.
This would ensure any correspondence or appeal is made with full transparency and with Auxillis’ knowledge, thereby protecting your position and removing the need for any further involvement—particularly any administrative charges or unilateral payments.
Should APCOA contact you as the registered keeper, you may simply confirm the identity of the Hirer and forward the appropriate correspondence without incurring liability or additional handling costs.
Should Auxillis take any action beyond simply passing on the notice—such as paying the charge, applying administrative fees, or otherwise facilitating this unlawful demand—you may be deemed complicit in the enforcement of a fraudulent instrument.
I reserve all rights to challenge any such action and to report the matter to the relevant regulatory and criminal enforcement bodies.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
You should also send the following to APCOA:
Subject: Penalty Notice SW80008132 – Hirer Notification and Request for Clarification
Dear APCOA Parking Ltd,
I write in my capacity as the Hirer of vehicle registration RJ73 EJV, in relation to the Penalty Notice (reference SW80008132) affixed to the vehicle’s windscreen on 11/06/2025 at Wimbledon Station.
Please be advised that I have been passed the original notice and will be dealing with the matter directly as the Hirer. You are therefore requested to direct all future correspondence to me and not to the hire company, Auxillis.
I am fully aware that this notice has been issued as a Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws, not as a Parking Charge Notice under contract law. I also understand the legal distinction between a statutory penalty and a civil contractual charge. I note that APCOA has, in previous correspondence with other recipients, claimed that such notices are issued under statutory authority but enforced via civil recovery mechanisms.
This raises a number of serious legal and procedural concerns, particularly in light of the following:
• A genuine Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws must be prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court by a public authority within six months of the alleged offence.
• A civil contractual charge cannot lawfully be styled or enforced as a statutory penalty.
Any attempt to conflate these two legal regimes may constitute fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
I therefore request that you confirm:
• The legal basis on which this notice has been issued.
• Whether you intend to pursue this matter as a statutory penalty or a civil debt.
• Whether you will be applying to the DVLA for Registered Keeper data, despite the Hirer having already made contact and accepted receipt of the notice.
Please treat this as a formal request for clarification. I reserve all rights to report any misleading or unlawful conduct to the relevant authorities.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]