This is the reason nothing will happen... besides the fact that APCOA never litigate, the “Penalty Notice” you uploaded (GTR site, Byelaw-framed, alleging “Failure to park wholly within an authorised, marked bay”, with threats of POPLA and of applying to the DVLA for “owner” details).
This is a Railway Byelaws matter (Transport Act 2000/Railway Byelaws 2005, typically byelaw 14). It is criminal/regulatory, not a civil parking charge.
Keeper liability (PoFA 2012) does not apply on railway land (not “relevant land”). The keeper cannot be made liable by PoFA wording or ANPR/notice timelines.
The Byelaws refer to an “owner”, which APCOA cannot establish from DVLA; the DVLA only releases registered keeper data, and the V5C is not proof of ownership. Treating the RK as the owner is an evidential leap they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
POPLA is not competent for Byelaw penalties and APCOA are not an approved Train Operating Company (TOC) Independent Appeals Body (IAB). Directing a Byelaws PN to POPLA is wrong.
The only lawful route to pursue a Byelaws allegation is for the operator/TOC to lay an information in the magistrates’ court (Single Justice Procedure) within six months of the alleged offence. Anything else (civil demands, debt collectors, POPLA) is ultra vires the Byelaws route.
Defects apparent on the notice you supplied
It mixes criminal (Byelaws “Penalty Notice”, threat of criminal record) with civil mechanisms (POPLA, discounted “settlement”, “Notice to Owner” via DVLA). That hybridisation is defective.
It threatens to obtain an “owners list” from the DVLA. No such list exists; DVLA data is for the keeper only.
It implies continued civil recovery if unpaid, rather than the statutory SJP route. That misstates the proper process.
• APCOA have no standing to prosecute; only the Train Operating Company could bring a byelaw prosecution.
• They cannot invoke PoFA, and they cannot recover anything civilly because this isn’t relevant land.
• They won’t go near a magistrates’ court, as they’d have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and justify how a private contractor’s “discounted settlement” fits within criminal procedure.
Make a note in your diary: On Tuesday 11th November, you send the following appeal to APCOA through their portal:
Subject: Penalty Notice [ref], 15/10/2025, Redhill Station
I am the Registered Keeper. My details are:
Full name: [ ]
Postal address: [ ]
This location is subject to Railway Byelaws and is not “relevant land” for PoFA 2012; you cannot transfer liability to the keeper. POPLA is not competent for Byelaws matters.
You now have the keeper’s details. You therefore have no “reasonable cause” to obtain them from DVLA. Any DVLA request would be unnecessary and unlawful, contrary to UK GDPR Article 5(1)(c) (data minimisation) and without a valid Article 6 basis. If you believe an offence occurred, lay an information before the magistrates under the Single Justice Procedure within six months. Otherwise, erase my data when no longer necessary for this purpose.
As to any further demands, I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered Keeper
