Free Traffic Legal Advice

I really can’t be bothered reading all that swill from “Holly”. I don’t know why you are wasting your time.

Just ignore everything. They cannot do anything. If it were a real Penalty Notice, they could only recover it through the magistrates court. As they are pretending (unlawfully) that it is a Penalty Notice, they cannot recover it as a civil contractual matter through the county courts.

Just ignore any further correspondence from them. If they try to issue a claim through the county courts, it would be thrown out.

The issue I have is that they are refusing to transfer 'liability' for one of the notices

They are claiming that they are pursuing a breach of railway byelaws. Under these byelaws, it is the owner of the vehicle that is liable:


In these cases, APCOA are essentially trying it on - to enforce a breach of byelaws a criminal prosecution in the magistrates court would be necessary. APCOA obviously have no interest in this as any proceeds would not go to them. If you search the forums you'll see much more thorough explanations from b789 about the issues with this set up, and why it doesn't work, and therefore why APCOA can be ignored.

There's not much more you can do to get ahead of things other than to try to convince the company to ignore APCOA's demands. If they do, then APCOA eventually go away. We've never seen a single APCOA case go to court, regardless of whether it is a so called 'penalty' notice or a 'parking charge notice'.

Tell them to show who the “owner” is by referencing the details from the official “Register of UK Vehicle Owners”.

Have a look at the front of any V5C document and tell us what it says very clearly on the front, in bold white, capital letters about ownership.

Quote from: G6PRK on March 04, 2025, 01:01:58 pm

Okay - thanks.

If they never follow through on any type notice, it begs the question why does anyone bother paying for parking in the first place! 

A significant percentage of people just pay up because they’re intimidated or can’t be bothered, APCOA and the rest know this, how much does it cost to send a letter for which they get £100 in return?
This is the economics of private car parking.
Some companies actually bother to go further, but there are diminishing returns in this for them.
If you know who does or doesn’t, then - as you say - don’t bother paying. Until they change their policy.

I more meant for the original parking! If they don't bother to enforce it in a remotely legal way, what's the point in paying at all - let alone for the nonsense notice. I suppose maybe the actual landowner would take steps eventually if someone really took the ****.

Tell them to show who the “owner” is by referencing the details from the official “Register of UK Vehicle Owners”.

Have a look at the front of any V5C document and tell us what it says very clearly on the front, in bold white, capital letters about ownership.

Touché! Presumably they have gotten the details from DVLA by requesting 'keeper' details rather than owner? Making their premise that they can only pursue the owner even more farcical?

You're all going to tell me I've the lost the plot, and am wasting my time, but in attempting to convince the owner of the vehicle that I am doing everything I can to deal with these fake notices, I've written a rather lengthy complaint to the PPC.

I'd appreciate if someone could give it a once over to check I'm not likely to create any new problems for myself.

Hosted on Imgur here

Very good. Send it.

However, you should also get your MP involved at this point and show him all the advice and copies of all correspondence so far.

You can explain to the "owner", that nothing can ever come this, even if they ignore everything from APCOA.

Thank you! And thanks for all of the effort you and others put into sharing your knowledge with others - I'm sure you recognised many of your own words in there!

I have submitted to APCOA's complaints email and I will reach out to my MP to see if they have any interest.

Where is this "owners name" recorded? The only "recorded" information for a vehicle is the Registered Keeper (RK). The RK is the person or business responsible for taxing and registering the vehicle.

The RK and the "owner" do not necessarily have to be the same person and any inference that they are is easily challenged in court.

As this is a supposed bylaws penalty (it isn't as it is fake), there is a lack of definition for "owner" in the bylaws. The term "owner" is mentioned but not defined in the byelaws, and so it creates ambiguity.

Without a clear legal definition it is unclear who the byelaw intends to hold responsible—whether it is the person with legal ownership, the registered keeper, or the person in charge of the vehicle (driver).

In criminal cases, as this would be if prosecuted in the magistrates court, such ambiguity can be used in the defendant’s favour because of the principle that laws must be clear and precise to hold someone liable.

In other words, ambiguity in the term "owner" would render the prosecution's reliance on this term insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof, which in this case would be "beyond a reasonable doubt".