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:
• 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.
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.
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:
APCOA does not prosecute byelaw breaches in the magistrates’ courts, we have not delegated prosecution of this power. Southeastern retains prosecutorial responsibility.
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:
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:
(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).
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:
• 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.
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:
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.
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,
I would simply appeal to POPLA on Tuesday 9th December with the following:
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: “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.” 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
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.
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).