Free Traffic Legal Advice

The Driver parked in the car park on the evening of 26/05.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/9hcpei5atw5tTJiVA

The app (RingGo) wouldn't let them pay (for the next day - 27/05) because "parking was free at that time". The app then was glitchy when they tried to pay the following morning (possibly connectivity issues). Eventually they were able to pay at the fourth time of trying at 09:08. There was no way to "start" the session from earlier - but they paid the full day rate.

Windscreen ticket on arrival back to the car. Any advice on how to appeal much appreciated.

Amazing - thanks.

@b789 two updates I'd appreciate your thoughts on...

1. They've finally responded to my complaint (on Saturday) with some level of depth. Where would you suggest I go from here? The PNs are all cancelled so I don't have anything to gain in that regard, but keen to keep pressing them on their inadequacies.

Thank you for your patience whilst this has been investigated.

• Why are you, an unregulated private parking company, issuing fake “Penalty Notices” designed to mislead motorists into believing you possess statutory or criminal enforcement powers which you clearly do not?

APCOA operate under and are regulated by the British Parking Association (BPA) and agree to adhere to the sector single code of practice.

We can confirm that this Penalty Notice is issued as a civil matter. The penalty notice system is an established mechanism designed to address breaches of the railway byelaws in a way that is proportionate and fair. These notices are not intended to suggest criminal intent or prosecution at the outset but to offer the opportunity to resolve matters without escalation. Should the recipient fail to engage or resolve the matter, criminal enforcement under Byelaw 14(1) may be pursued.


• Why are you attempting to rely on Railway Byelaws to justify civil enforcement of minor parking indiscretions, despite knowing full well that such matters do not fall within the scope of criminal prosecution under Byelaw 24(1)?
•Additionally, your use of the term “Penalty Notice”, coupled with the implied criminal consequences, is highly misleading. You are not a prosecuting authority, and your notice cannot be lawfully construed as anything more than a speculative civil invoice. Its presentation—suggesting legal obligation and criminal liability—appears to constitute a breach of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, namely:

“False representation made dishonestly and with intent to make a gain or cause loss.”


In other words, this was an attempt at extortion by deception.

The term “Penalty Notice” is used because the breach of railway byelaws, such as unauthorised parking, constitutes a potential statutory offence. This is entirely different from a private parking charge, as our notices pertain to statutory enforcement of the byelaws, which may involve criminal liability in some cases. The presentation of the notice reflects the legal process in place, and it has been reviewed and approved to ensure compliance with the applicable legal standards.


• Why are you directing recipients to a private appeals process in circumstances where you are claiming a statutory breach? Appeals panels have no jurisdiction over alleged criminal offences.

It is important to clarify that while the alleged breach may indeed involve a potential criminal offence under the railway byelaws, the appeals process we reference is an administrative review mechanism designed to ensure that the matter is properly investigated, and the correct party is held accountable.
In accordance with the enforcement procedures under Byelaw 14 of the Railway Byelaws, the appeals process is a non-judicial review that allows recipients to challenge the validity of the charge based on the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach. This process provides an opportunity for the train operating company or relevant authority to review whether the penalty notice was appropriately issued, and for any mitigating factors to be considered.
It is important to note that this appeals process does not alter or replace the statutory provisions under the byelaws. If the matter proceeds beyond the appeals stage, it may be referred for criminal prosecution if deemed necessary. The appeals process, therefore, acts as a preliminary step in ensuring that no unfair or incorrect penalties are applied, rather than replacing or overstepping the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system.
Any decision made by POPLA is only binding on the car park operator and therefore the use of this independent appeals service benefits the consumer/motorist.


• Why are you asserting that you have a legal basis to infer vehicle ownership from DVLA registered keeper data, when this is explicitly contradicted by the front page of the V5C and by DVLA guidance?
• Why are your communications inconsistent as to who you believe is liable—at times addressing the keeper, at other times the driver or “owner”—with no coherent explanation?

Our access to DVLA data is governed by the Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract, which permits APCOA to request the registered keeper’s details for the purpose of enforcing parking terms and conditions or pursuing relevant offences.

While the V5C document does indicate that being the registered keeper is not proof of ownership in itself, there is a legal presumption that the registered keeper is the owner of the vehicle unless evidence to the contrary is provided. This is reflected in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which defines an “owner” as the person by whom the vehicle is kept. In the case of a registered vehicle, this is presumed to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.

Accordingly, when investigating a breach of the railway byelaws, and in the absence of any information suggesting otherwise, it is both reasonable and appropriate for us to correspond with the registered keeper as the presumed owner of the vehicle. Under contract law, only the driver can be liable as they are present when the parking contract is both offered and accepted. However, under the Railway Byelaws, it is made clear that the owner is the liable party.


• Why are your communications inconsistent as to what contravention is even alleged to have taken place?

The Penalty Notice clearly states that the Penalty Notice was issued for the offence of "Use of private car park without making a valid payment". Whilst payment was made for the parking session, the payment is deemed as invalid as the incorrect tariff was paid.

The ANPR systems captured the vehicle entering Bedford Station car park at 07:31:29 meaning that the full one day tariff of £11.30 was due, however, as payment was only made at 13:08:38 the incorrect tariff of £4.60 was paid due to the off peak tariff being activated at 10:00am.


• What failing occurred that allowed your customer service team to ignore straightforward questions from a customer attempting to resolve the matter?
• Why do different members of your staff have conflicting views on what information it is appropriate to disclose to a customer?

The chat transcripts have been reviewed by APCOA management and has been found to be below the high standards that APCOA work to. As a result, an internal investigation has been conducted and a conclusion is that the fails were due to insufficient training of the customer service agents who handled your queries. The agents involved have now been given the required additional training.

Whilst we’re unable to comment on internal processes and their outcomes, rest assured the level of customer service given to all customers, and the conduct of all APCOA staff is a top priority and as such, we are treating this matter extremely seriously.


APCOA would like to take this opportunity to thank you for bringing this to our attention and also offer our sincere apologies for the less than satisfactory level of customer service that you received on this occasion.



• Given I was told that information was disclosed to me which "shouldn’t have been", what assurances can you provide that my personal data—and that of your other customers—is being handled lawfully and securely?
• On what lawful basis under the UK GDPR are you processing and storing my personal data?

We can confirm that your personal data has been redacted from the below cases:


Please see below links to both APCOA's privacy policy and data protection policy which outline how APCOA handles your personal data.

APCOA Privacy Policy - https://www.apcoa.co.uk/privacy-policy/
APCOA Data Protection Policy - https://www.apcoa.co.uk/index.php?id=6296

If you have any concerns or queries relating to how APCOA have handled your details, you can contact our Data Protection Office via email on DPO@apcoa.com

Kind regards,
Complaints Handler
APCOA

2. They have just today, 27 days after submitting my SAR, responded as follows. They are asking me to fill a form (which I won't do) and demanding V5C and ID. The V5C seems completely unneccesary, and suggesting the 30 days starts from this point seems completely unreasonable.

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your email to the Data Protection Office at APCOA Parking (UK).

Please complete the attached form and return in order that we can provide the requested information.

Please be advised that you are not obliged to complete this form to make a request, but it’s helpful for us to know what you’re looking for so we can respond fully and promptly. Although the completion of this form is not a requirement, proof of identification is still required. The timescale for responding to your request will start when we receive this.

Yours Sincerely,

I've received nothing following my reply to their useless response to my complaint. Their complaints policy states 28 days to respond fully to a complaint, or if it will be longer, they'll let me know, which they haven't surprise surprise. As such I'm going to reply again, pointing that out.

@b789 / anyone else with a view - is there any escalatory language you would suggest in that reply?

Additionally, I wonder given there is a data protection element, and somewhat just for fun, if it might be with a SAR at this stage? Any thoughts on that / any suggested wording? It's been a few years since I've done one.

Period of Parking

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

PCN No: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration Mark: [VRM]

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your ‘parking charge’. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Smart has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

PCN No: [PCN Number]

Vehicle Registration Mark: [VRM]

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your ‘parking charge’. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Horizon has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.