It is 100% a scam (fraud) by APCOA with complicity by the BPA and POPLA. I already have an investigative reporter from a major UK broadsheet on the case.
A real Penalty Notice (PN) issued under railway byelaws by a private parking company (PPC) acting as an agent for a Train Operating Company (TOC) must contain several essential elements to be valid and enforceable. These elements are necessary to demonstrate that the penalty is being issued under
statutory authority, and that the PPC is acting on behalf of the TOC, which is permitted to issue fines under the relevant legislation.
Here are the key elements that should be included in a real Penalty Notice under railway byelaws:
1. Authority of Issuance:
The PN must clearly state under which byelaw it is being issued, typically referencing Railway Byelaw 14. The notice must indicate that it has been issued by or on behalf of a legitimate statutory authority (e.g., the Train Operating Company), not the PPC.
2. Details of the Authority:
The notice must specify the name of the Train Operating Company (TOC) as the entity authorised to issue the penalty. The PPC should be explicitly described as acting on behalf of the TOC, indicating that it is enforcing the byelaw under a legal arrangement with the TOC.
3. Legislative Reference:
It should reference the Transport Act 2000 and the relevant railway byelaws (e.g., Railway Byelaws 2005), which grant the TOC the authority to issue penalties for breaches such as unauthorised parking.
4. Nature of the Offence:
The PN must clearly describe the specific offence committed under the byelaws, such as parking without payment, exceeding a time limit, or parking in a restricted area, and link the offence to the relevant byelaw.
5. Legal Consequences:
The notice must outline the legal consequences of non-payment, including potential prosecution under railway byelaws, which may result in a fine being imposed by a Magistrates' Court. It should clarify that failure to pay could lead to court action initiated by the TOC, not the PPC.
6. Payment Instructions:
The PN should specify that any fines payable must be made to the Train Operating Company or another specified statutory authority. Payments directed to a PPC’s bank account or through a PPC website might indicate that the notice is not a genuine penalty under byelaws.
7. Timeframe for Payment:
The PN must include a deadline for payment, typically allowing for an initial period to pay a reduced fine, followed by a full penalty if the reduced amount is not paid within the specified timeframe.
8. Right to Appeal:
The notice must describe any statutory right to appeal the penalty, including the process to challenge it in court. Since it is a statutory penalty, it should not be handled through private appeal systems like POPLA or the IAS, but instead refer to an opportunity to dispute the matter in a Magistrates' Court.
9. Notice of Prosecution:
The PN should include a warning that, if not paid, the penalty may result in prosecution under the relevant byelaws. This should clearly inform the recipient that they may face criminal liability if the fine is not settled.
10. Identification of the Vehicle:
The vehicle registration number (VRM), location, and time of the alleged offence must be clearly stated. The details should match the evidence that supports the allegation of a breach.
In summary, a real Penalty Notice issued under railway byelaws must clearly distinguish itself as being issued under statutory authority by the TOC, contain references to the relevant legislation, and outline the potential legal consequences (including prosecution) for non-payment. If these elements are missing or the payment is directed to the PPC, it raises significant doubts about the legitimacy of the PN.
Now, go back and have look at the supposed "Penalty Notice" and show us where in point 1 it indicates that it has been issued by or on behalf of a legitimate statutory authority (e.g., the Train Operating Company), not APCOA?
Where is the detail in point 2 in that PN? Which TOC "authority" is APCOA acting as an agent of?
Where in point 3 does it reference the Transport Act 2000?
Where in point 6, does it say that fines payable must be made to the Train Operating Company or another specified statutory authority? Payments directed to APCOA's bank account or through their website indicates that the notice is not a genuine penalty under byelaws. The fact that their website address is
PCNpayments.apcoa.co.uk indicates that this is the general payment site for their Parking Charge Notices (PCN) which are nothing to do with statutory criminal law but contractual civil law.
Where in point 8 does the notice describe any statutory right to appeal the penalty, including the process to
challenge it in court? Since it is a
statutory penalty, it should not be handled through private appeal systems like POPLA or the IAS, but instead refer to an opportunity to dispute the matter in a Magistrates' Court.
Those points alone show that it is in fact not a PENALTY NOTICE at all. It is an "Offered Contract" by APCOA telling the recipient that if you pay us £100, we will not prosecute you in the magistrates court where you may be found guilty of a criminal offence and face a fine of up to £1,000. In other words, it is asking for a bribe.
Any money paid for an offence that is notified by a Penalty Notice, must go to the authority that is authorised to operate the bylaws. It does not go to a private company, even if it was contracted to act as an agent on behalf of that authority.
APCOA operates at hundreds of train stations all over the county and have been issuing these fraudulent fake PNs for many years and the scale of the fraud probably runs into the £millions. I have seen no evidence of APCOA ever trying to prosecute anyone in the magistrates court over these fake PNs. They can't. They'd be exposed and it is not worth to them as any penalty or fine goes to the public purse, not APCOA.
You have several choices with this fake PN. You can appeal it with APCOS as the Keeper only and tell them to eff off and go chase the driver. You may then have to appeal at POPLA where you use the same argument, as the keeper you cannot be liable and they should go chase the driver. Or you could just ignore it and nothing will happen apart from a load of reminders and debt collector letters and it will time out in 6 months.
