Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good Afternoon,

As the registered keeper, I currently have in my possession 4 APCOA private parking fines for Loughborough University and I’m sure to receive more. Payment was made for parking on every day, and despite this and receipt shown the appeal, kept simple only stating payment paid was rejected.

I’ve read through the advice about APCOA being benign and a non threat, and I plan to ignore them however I just wanted to enquire whether having multiple charges (4 in total) may lead to them taking more action than a standard single and leading to a CCJ.

Further to this, the APCOA connect website/app is in gross breach of the GDPR and should be subject to investigation due to the beyond necessary data it attempts to harvest in order to pay for parking.

Thank you for any assistance.

Further to this, the APCOA connect website/app is in gross breach of the GDPR and should be subject to investigation due to the beyond necessary data it attempts to harvest in order to pay for parking.

This would be a matter to take up with APCOA/the ICO, but out of curiosity, what 'beyond necessary' personal data does it collect?

On the last received one just ignored it.

If you show us, we can advise on an appeal that may get it cancelled.

We've so far never seen APCOA take a case to court, but they do have up to 6 years to raise a claim. I'd say the chances of them suddenly starting to take court action are low, but we can't offer a cast iron guarantee. If they ever did, there's a chance they'd start with those who had the highest alleged amount owing. If there's an opportunity to get 1 (and potentially any upcoming) ones cancelled, then at the very least it reduces the amount of outstanding charges you'll get pestered by debt collectors for. It also shows you're not an easy target. But if you wish to ignore them you can - I'd certainly ignore the ones that have passed appeal deadline.

Re. GDPR, you can checkout as a guest with APCOA Connect, so they'd likely argue that data provided if you sign up for an optional account is processed based on consent. If making a card payment online, an address is usually required, AIUI partly to reduce the risk of fraud (to verify that the person making the payment is actually the owner of the card and not a fraudster).

No, the appeal was for a charge done last year and rejected despite payment shown. It was written as the registered keeper with no indication of knowing the identity of the driver.

These 4 haven’t been appealed. The contravention was breaching the terms of parking by not having a valid payment/permit, when payment was made for all these days however that doesn’t seem to matter with APCOA. Payment was made using the APCOA connect app for card payment, using the correct vehicle registration. The site operates ANPR on entry and exit, with only one location/parking site number available for selection in the app.

If you could inform me of a response to get them cancelled it would be appreciated, I do know the golden rule never to admit to the identity of the driver.

Fantastic, is it suitable to reply with a photo of them to this thread? Will send them when home.

Attached is the redacted front side. I have three of these in sequential order from the 12th to the 14th.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The one that you havee shown us the front of is not PoFA compliant. Just check the dates of the alleged contravention and the issue date of the NtK. Assume two ‘working days from the date of issue. If that date is more than 14 days from the date of the alleged contravention, then the notice has not been given within the relevant period and is therefore not fully compliant with all the requirements of the Act.

Besides, that point, the wording on the NtK is also not PoFA compliant. Simply appeal each PCN as the Keeper with the following:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

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. APCOA 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. APCOA have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Reluctantly I have paid this fine due to the fact I have no confidence in your company to listen to my appeal without incurring further charges. The alleged offence took place on 23rd March 2026, the ticket was issued 4th April, and the ticket was in the post 11th April. Obviously, this reduces my appeal time.

Burleigh Court has a parking problem whereby the car park is too small for the conference centre, and I often take my wife to the swimming pool as she is recovering from a stroke, although not serious enough for receipt of a blue badge.
As you may be aware, there are legal requirements that must be met regarding the signage used in any car park. The British Parking Association Code 2012 (necessary for compliance with the BPA Approved Operator Scheme) along with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 sets out required content that must be included on signs.
Signs must be large enough and easily understood.
Parking signs must be written in such a way that they can be understood easily (no legal jargon) and must be big enough to see and read with legible wording.
The Code states that signs must be at least 450 mm x 450 mm and must be easily seen by drivers as they arrive on a site. There needs to be a specific sign at the entrance to the car park that summarises the rules in place and notifies the driver that specific terms and conditions will apply inside.
It is important that there are enough signs around a site to ensure people have had every opportunity to see them. If a driver can credibly make the case ‘I couldn’t see any signs,’ then signage is inadequate, and they can rightly have a parking charge appealed.
 
In view of this, let us have a look at the Burleigh Court car park.

 
Upon entering the car park, there are no specific signs at the entrance to the car park that summarise the rules and conditions in place and notify the driver that specific terms and conditions will apply inside.

 
The only sign is this one which does not contain the prescribed information. Again, it is only 400 mm square, which is 50 mm short of the required size. Clearly unacceptable, especially to non-native visitors to the complex.
 
Looking further into the car park, there are many signs like the ones shown below, but they are only 300mm square, which is 150mm short of the minimum required regulation.
T
 

If my presumptions are correct, any previous fines for parking in this area are incorrect.
Regarding the parking charge, it is written in somewhat a hostile manner.

I look forward to your reply before passing it on to the BPA complaints department.

Regards, Chris Lewis