Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

Normally I would ignore all APCOA "penalty notices" I receive at Wimbledon Station purporting to enforce Railway Byelaw 14 (PN Attached) however unfortunately I was the named hirer of a vehicle and a PN was placed on its windscreen.

I have contacted Auxillis with the following message:

Dear Auxillis

Auxillis Reference: ******
Replacement VRM: RJ73 EJV
Personal VRM: *****
Personal Address: ******

Re: Issuance of "Penalty Notice" by APCOA Parking on 11/06/2025 at 11:16 am; Notice number: SW80008132

A "Penalty Notice" was placed on the windscreen of VRM RJ73 EJV at Wimbledon Train Station.  I was the nominated hirer of the vehicle at the time.  APCOA Parking Ltd was the company who issued the notice.

The notice issued by APCOA is not a lawful Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws.  APCOA parking is an unregulated private parking company, not a prosecuting authority and thus has no legal power to issue criminal penalties.

Please note that I will not be paying or responding to this unlawful "penalty notice" issued by APCOA.  Should you receive any future correspondence from them my personal address is above.

Yours sincerely,

*******


Auxillis have responded with:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email.

We would advise you make an appeal to the penalty issuer, APCOA Parking, if you believe you have grounds to do so.

APCOA are a member of the British parking Association, it is likely if you decide to ignore their notice that they will take further action against you.

Should we receive the penalty from APCOA Parking as a result of you not dealing with it we will represent your details to APCOA to request the penalty to be redirected to you at your home address.  Should you fail to deal with the penalty at this stage and it is returned to us we will pay the penalty and recharge you the full cost.

Any notification we receive in relation to this penalty will incurr an administration charge of £60.00 as per the terms and conditions.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.

Yours sincerely,

Client Charges
Auxillis


I have not yet re-responded to Auxillis

I can see how this is gonna play out if I ignore it - APCOA will request RK details and send letter to Auxillis, they will then try and charge me £60 to handle this (or worse still actually pay the PN + add an admin charge) which I will then refuse to pay/reimburse them thereby entering into an additional legal argument with Auxillis of how this isn't a valid Penalty Notice relating to their T&Cs of hiring (attached - clauses 18 and 19)

I was therefore debating appealing to APCOA directly so at least they have my personal details to send any subsequent enforcement / debt collection notices etc that I can then ignore and cut out Auxillis altogether?  I just don't know if APCOA will still approach Auxillis as the RK even if I do this?

Your thoughts on the correct approach would be greatly appreciated

Thanks



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Apologies for not being clear.  Auxillis are the Vehicle Hire Company

They are the registered keeper of the vehicle RJ73 EJV that I was hiring and will receive the enforcement notices when I ignore the APCOA Penalty Notice

Auxillis will then charge me "admin fees" as per their hiring T&Cs for having to handle the Penalty Notice on their vehicle

There is no Notice to Keeper as yet

The Penalty Notice was affixed to the windscreen of the hire car when the driver returned to the vehicle. 

In the notice it states I can technically challenge within 28 days otherwise after this date then APCOA will send the "Notice to Owner" - i.e. Auxillis - at which point Auxillis will then pass on my details and charge me £60 for the privilege of doing so

The point is I will then be in a second predicament with the hire company Auxillis demanding administration payment from me which I do not want to pay or have to get into legal wrangling with them about "breaking their T&Cs" for this False APCOA Penalty Notice

Any Penalty Notice issued by APCOA is fake. I have copies of correspondence from other APCOA Penalty Notice cases where they have admitted as much. The problem for you as the Hirer, is that Auxillis will not be aware of this and may invoke whatever terms and conditions of the hire agreement they think they can use to get the Penalty Notice off their backs when APCOA eventually send their fake "Notice to Owner", which is simply a Notice to Keeper (NtK).

There are two things you should do right now. One is to explain to Auxillis why they should not pay anything to APCOA otherwise they become complicit in fraud and for them to simply forward to you any correspondence with APCOA, which you are happy to deal with as the Hirer. The other is to write to APCOA and telling them to deal with you directly as the Hirer of the vehicle.

Send the following to Auxillis as a follow up to what you have shown us:

Subject: Re: APCOA “Penalty Notice” – RJ73 EJV
 
Dear Client Charges Team,
 
I write further to my previous correspondence regarding the so-called “Penalty Notice” issued by APCOA Parking Ltd on 11/06/2025.
 
I must reiterate that this notice is not a lawful Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws, nor is it a valid Parking Charge Notice. It is a deliberately misleading hybrid, designed to mimic statutory enforcement while lacking any lawful authority.
 
APCOA has previously confirmed in writing (in a separate case) that these notices are civil in nature and based on contract law. Despite this, they continue to label them “Penalty Notices” and issue them in a format that falsely implies criminal or statutory enforcement. This conduct constitutes fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
 
I am aware that APCOA may attempt to claim that no Notice to Hirer (NtH) is required because the original notice was issued under Railway Byelaws. This is legally incorrect. The land in question is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, and therefore there is no keeper or hirer liability.

To avoid unnecessary administrative escalation or cost to either party, I formally request that Auxillis provide a letter of authority confirming that I, as the named Hirer, am authorised to liaise directly with APCOA in respect of this matter.

This would ensure any correspondence or appeal is made with full transparency and with Auxillis’ knowledge, thereby protecting your position and removing the need for any further involvement—particularly any administrative charges or unilateral payments.

Should APCOA contact you as the registered keeper, you may simply confirm the identity of the Hirer and forward the appropriate correspondence without incurring liability or additional handling costs.

Should Auxillis take any action beyond simply passing on the notice—such as paying the charge, applying administrative fees, or otherwise facilitating this unlawful demand—you may be deemed complicit in the enforcement of a fraudulent instrument.
 
I reserve all rights to challenge any such action and to report the matter to the relevant regulatory and criminal enforcement bodies.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
[Your Name]

You should also send the following to APCOA:

Subject: Penalty Notice SW80008132 – Hirer Notification and Request for Clarification

Dear APCOA Parking Ltd,

I write in my capacity as the Hirer of vehicle registration RJ73 EJV, in relation to the Penalty Notice (reference SW80008132) affixed to the vehicle’s windscreen on 11/06/2025 at Wimbledon Station.

Please be advised that I have been passed the original notice and will be dealing with the matter directly as the Hirer. You are therefore requested to direct all future correspondence to me and not to the hire company, Auxillis.

I am fully aware that this notice has been issued as a Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws, not as a Parking Charge Notice under contract law. I also understand the legal distinction between a statutory penalty and a civil contractual charge. I note that APCOA has, in previous correspondence with other recipients, claimed that such notices are issued under statutory authority but enforced via civil recovery mechanisms.

This raises a number of serious legal and procedural concerns, particularly in light of the following:

• A genuine Penalty Notice under Railway Byelaws must be prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court by a public authority within six months of the alleged offence.
• A civil contractual charge cannot lawfully be styled or enforced as a statutory penalty.

Any attempt to conflate these two legal regimes may constitute fraud by false representation under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

I therefore request that you confirm:

• The legal basis on which this notice has been issued.
• Whether you intend to pursue this matter as a statutory penalty or a civil debt.
• Whether you will be applying to the DVLA for Registered Keeper data, despite the Hirer having already made contact and accepted receipt of the notice.

Please treat this as a formal request for clarification. I reserve all rights to report any misleading or unlawful conduct to the relevant authorities.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]

Thanks again b287

Seems to have worked - The hire company Auxillis agreed to not charge me any admin fee if/when they receive any notice from APCOA.  They also provided me with a Letter of Authority to pass on to APCOA when the time comes

Email chain and LOA attached

APCOA are yet to get back to me

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks again for spotting that, missed it!

I've asked the Hire Company to correct the LOA and again reminded them of the fraudulent nature of the penalty notice

Once I receive the corrected LOA, am I to forward this to APCOA myself or wait to hear from APCOA in the fullness of time?  They have not yet replied to the previous letter, neither am I particularly keen to chase, engage or deal with them beyond the absolute necessary.

Thanks

With all due respect, you're conflating two entirely separate legal regimes—PoFA Schedule 4 and the Railway Byelaws 2005—and in doing so, you're misapplying the statutory relief provisions.

The quoted PoFA mechanism for transferring liability from the keeper to the hirer only applies to parking charges on relevant land, as defined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Railway land is explicitly excluded from the definition of “relevant land” under paragraph 3 of Schedule 4. That exclusion renders the entire PoFA framework—including the 28-day transfer mechanism—inapplicable.

This is not a Notice to Keeper issued under PoFA. It is a (fake) Penalty Notice issued under Railway Byelaw 14(4)(i), which purports to impose liability on the "owner", not the Keeper or Hirer. APCOA is not invoking PoFA, nor can they. They are relying on a statutory byelaw that does not provide any lawful mechanism for transferring liability via hire documentation. The relief provisions you cite simply do not apply.

Moreover, APCOA is a private contractor. They have no prosecutorial authority under Byelaw 24(1) unless formally delegated by the Train Operating Company, and they cannot enforce a penalty without initiating criminal proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court within six months. In practice, they do not prosecute—they issue civil demands dressed up as statutory penalties, which are legally dubious and unenforceable without court action.

So no, this is not a matter of “simple documents” relieving the registered keeper of liability. The legal framework you're quoting is irrelevant to this scenario. The correct approach is to challenge the validity of the Penalty Notice itself, not to pretend PoFA applies where it plainly does not.

Let’s not simplify by misapplying law. Precision matters.

When the lease company provides the Hirer with a Letter of Authority (LoA), the legal and procedural landscape shifts. The LoA does not invoke PoFA—because, as explained, PoFA Schedule 4 is entirely inapplicable to railway land. Instead, the LoA serves a practical and strategic function: it authorises the hirer to correspond with APCOA and challenge the Penalty Notice directly, on behalf of the registered keeper (the lease company).

Since APCOA is purporting to impose liability under Railway Byelaw 14(4)(i), which targets the owner of the vehicle, and since the lease company is likely the legal owner, the LoA allows the hirer to act in the owner's stead. This avoids unnecessary back-and-forth between APCOA and the lease company and ensures the challenge is made by the person best placed to dispute the facts and context of the alleged breach.

Importantly, because APCOA is not invoking PoFA and cannot rely on its liability transfer provisions, there is no statutory mechanism requiring the lease company to submit hire documentation to avoid liability. That entire framework is irrelevant. The lease company is not obliged to engage in the PoFA 28-day transfer process because the land is not “relevant land” and the notice is not a Notice to Keeper under PoFA.

Further, APCOA cannot be the “creditor” if this is a genuine Penalty Notice under the Railway Byelaws. A statutory penalty is payable to the prosecuting authority—typically the Train Operating Company—not a private contractor. APCOA also cannot issue a “Notice to Keeper”, because the Railway Byelaws do not recognise the concept of a “keeper”; they refer only to the “owner”. And crucially, nobody except the owner knows who the owner is. The DVLA provides registered keeper data, not proof of ownership. Unless the lease company confirms ownership or delegates authority, APCOA has no lawful basis to pursue anyone.

Instead, the Hirer—armed with the LoA—should challenge the Penalty Notice on its merits, including:


In short, the LoA enables the Hirer to take control of the dispute and expose the legal deficiencies in APCOA’s position. It is not about transferring liability—it is about asserting a challenge from a position of delegated authority, in a context where PoFA has no relevance and APCOA’s enforcement model is legally flawed.

Thanks again for all your inputs, finding this forum has been a gold mine of excellent resource and information! I have to admit I find this all quite fascinating - but most worryingly though, how APCOA (and other PPCs) are able to get away with this and not be held to account?

Anyway, APCOA did reply to me, I had missed the letter in my email inbox - attached now for your interest.

I am still chasing the Hire Company to correct the LOA, once available will forward on to APCOA with the cover note suggested.  That should be the end of it then really.  Unless pursuing further conversation/correspondence with APCOA would be of benefit in obtaining documents evidencing their malpractice?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]