The Penalty Notice is a fraudulent attempt to extort money. APCOA cannot issue Penalty Notices. Parking offences in England were decriminalised under the Road Traffic Act 1991, which introduced decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE).
POPLA even had it clarified to them by the DfT in 2018 that parking "offences" are to dealt with using civil (contract) law. Specifically, they were told:
The Railway Byelaws 2005 ("the Byelaws"), which regulate the use and parking of vehicles in railway station car parks, permit ticketing. Under byelaw 14(3), a person using a railway station car park must pay the parking charges which are levied by the operator.
Further, it is stated in byelaw 14(4)(i) that the owner of a vehicle may be liable to pay a penalty if it has been used, placed or left in contravention of byelaws 14(1) to (3). The ability to render a charge under byelaw 14(4)(i) is distinct from the general enforcement power in byelaw 24(1), under which a person can be prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts.
DfT’s comments can only be interpreted as advising that the unregulated private parking industry should not issue Penalty Notices under Byelaw 24(1), as this provision is reserved for serious breaches of the Railway Byelaws to be dealt with as criminal matters in the Magistrates' Court.
Byelaw 24(1) empowers railway operators (not unregulated PPCs) to pursue criminal prosecution in cases of serious or persistent violations of the byelaws. This mechanism is intended for offences that warrant the involvement of the criminal justice system, such as significant safety breaches or deliberate non-compliance with railway regulations.
Parking violations, such as failing to pay charges or overstaying, are generally minor and do not meet the threshold of seriousness required for prosecution under Byelaw 24(1). The DfT's guidance suggests that pursuing such minor breaches as criminal offences is inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of the byelaws.
The DfT's expectation is that parking infringements in railway station car parks should not be enforced as criminal matters but rather handled administratively or through civil means. Since the Railway Byelaws do not explicitly establish a statutory penalty regime for parking breaches akin to Penalty Notices issued by local authorities, this leaves enforcement to civil mechanisms based on contract law.
In practice, parking operators issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) based on the terms and conditions displayed in car parks. This creates a contractual relationship between the driver (or vehicle owner, depending on the context) and the operator.
Enforcement under contract law requires the operator to demonstrate a breach of those terms and pursue unpaid charges as civil debts through the County Court.
The DfT’s comments discourage the use of Byelaw 24(1) by private parking operators for routine parking infringements, as these do not rise to the level of criminal offences. Instead, operators are effectively directed to rely on civil enforcement through contract law, which aligns with the broader decriminalisation of parking offences under the Road Traffic Act 1991.
This approach also limits the misuse of Byelaw 24(1) for revenue generation, maintaining its purpose as a tool for addressing significant byelaw breaches.
Byelaw 24(1) is reserved for criminal enforcement. It should not be misused for routine parking matters, as the DfT envisions its application for serious breaches only.
Parking violations fall under a civil framework. For routine parking issues, operators are expected to rely on contract law, aligning with the broader parking enforcement framework in England.
The DfT’s guidance implicitly ensures that the Railway Byelaws are not exploited by private parking operators to impose penalties that mimic statutory fines, which are reserved for cases handled in Magistrates’ Courts.
The DfT’s position reinforces that parking breaches at railway stations should generally be dealt with under a civil regime (contract law), leaving criminal enforcement (via Byelaw 24(1)) for serious offences. This interpretation aligns with the spirit of the Railway Byelaws 2005 and ensures fairness and proportionality in enforcement practices.
The actions of APCOA issuing "Penalty Notices" under the guise of enforcement through the Railway Byelaws but leveraging threatening language implying liability to criminal prosecution can only be described as misleading, coercive, and unlawful.
By issuing "Penalty Notices" (PNs) and using language suggesting criminal liability, APCOA misrepresents their authority to enforce penalties under the Railway Byelaws 2005. Such notices are designed to intimidate recipients into paying under the fear of prosecution, which is inappropriate when the actual legal framework restricts parking enforcement to civil contract law.
The Railway Byelaws reserve criminal enforcement (via prosecution in Magistrates’ Courts) for serious offences. Routine parking infringements, such as overstays or non-payment of charges, do not meet this threshold. By suggesting that non-payment of their "Penalty Notice" could result in criminal prosecution, APCOA is exploiting the byelaws to create an illusion of statutory authority for financial gain.
The "Penalty Notice" can only be construed as an offer to avoid prosecution, implying that paying APCOA is akin to paying a bribe to escape potential criminal action. This practice undermines the intent of the byelaws and creates a coercive dynamic, where recipients feel compelled to pay, even if the notice is not legally enforceable.
As APCOA lacks the authority to issue legally valid Penalty Notices under the byelaws or to prosecute for non-payment, then issuing such notices under the guise of statutory enforcement constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation. Fraud involves using false pretences to secure financial gain. Here, the use of terms like "penalty", "fine" and threats of prosecution mislead recipients into believing they are dealing with a lawful and unavoidable demand, when in fact, it is a civil offer that can be refused.
Such behaviour also violates consumer protection laws, including the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR), which prohibit misleading actions such as providing false or deceptive information about legal obligations.
They also prohibit aggressive practices such as using threats to pressure consumers into making payments. Threatening criminal prosecution for what is essentially a civil matter can only be seen as an aggressive and unfair practice.
The misuse of Railway Byelaws by unregulated private parking companies like APCOA undermines public trust in legitimate enforcement mechanisms. Such actions blur the lines between lawful enforcement and profiteering, damaging the credibility of statutory frameworks designed to regulate parking.
APCOA’s Actions are a misrepresentation, coercive and fraudulent. They misrepresent their authority to issue penalties under the byelaws and exaggerate the consequences of non-payment. Also, they use threatening language to intimidate recipients into paying, implying unavoidable legal consequences. Their issuance of "Penalty Notices" under false pretences amount to fraudulent behaviour, as they are demanding payments based on a misleading or invalid legal foundation.
APCOA's actions are unfair and aggressive practices. Their tactics breach consumer protection laws by exploiting fear and misunderstanding of the legal framework.
Recipients of these notices have grounds to dispute them as unenforceable, citing misrepresentation and lack of legal authority. This behaviour highlights the need for tighter regulation of the unregulated private parking industry and clearer guidance on the proper use of Railway Byelaws.
In summary, APCOA’s actions can only be characterised as exploitative, misleading, and legally dubious, warranting investigation for fraud and unfair trading practices. I already have an investigative reporter from an national broadsheet on the case.
