Free Traffic Legal Advice

They have breached the CRA 2015 by denying you any opportunity to appeal.

you can sue them for any charge they have made to you. They have been conned by the wording on the fake PN. This can be reported to the police for investigation. APCOA have absolutely no authority to issue PNs. The DfT even made this clear in a 2018 response to POPLA where they said they expect any breach of a railway bylaw for a minot parking offence to be dealt with under civil contract law and not bylaw 24.1 which is for more serious offences. Parking offences were decriminalised back in 1999 with the introduction of the Road Traffic Act.

Subject: Formal Complaint – Unauthorised Payment of Fraudulent APCOA Penalty Notice and Legal Action Against APCOA

Notice number: GT02434155

[Date]

Dear [Lease Company Name],

I am writing to formally dispute the unauthorised payment you made on my behalf for a purported Penalty Notice issued by APCOA. This notice is fraudulent, legally invalid, and nothing more than an unlawful attempt to extract money by misrepresenting its legal authority. You have been deceived into paying money under false pretences, and I expect you to seek a full refund from APCOA, take legal action against them if necessary, and report this fraudulent conduct to the police.

The notice you paid was not a lawful railway byelaw penalty. APCOA is a private parking company and has no statutory power to issue or enforce railway byelaw penalties. A genuine Penalty Notice under the Railway Byelaws can only be issued and enforced by a Train Operating Company or Network Rail and must be pursued through the magistrates’ court, not through private debt collection. Instead, APCOA falsely claims the right to prosecute but then offers to drop the matter in exchange for a payment of £100. This is a misrepresentation of legal authority and an unlawful attempt to extract money using misleading threats of criminal prosecution. If APCOA truly had the power to prosecute, they would be required to proceed through a magistrates’ court, not offer a private settlement. The demand for money is therefore extortionate and fraudulent.

Your lease agreement does not authorise payment of invalid charges. The agreement states that private parking charges should be transferred to the hirer where possible, which you failed to do. The agreement allows payment of fines, penalties, and charges only where necessary to avoid incurring liability. However, this notice was neither a statutory fine nor an enforceable penalty, meaning there was no liability to avoid. You have wrongfully paid a fraudulent demand that had no legal basis, exposing yourself to financial loss due to deception.

APCOA is attempting to exploit confusion between railway byelaws and private contract law to extract payments. If this were a genuine byelaw enforcement matter, non-payment would result in a prosecution through the magistrates' court, not a demand for money sent by a private company. If this were a private contractual charge, it would fall under civil law and could not involve threats of criminal prosecution. By blurring these legal distinctions, APCOA has engaged in deceptive and misleading practices.

The Department for Transport clarified in a 2018 response to POPLA that parking contraventions under the Railway Byelaws should be dealt with under civil contract law, not prosecuted under byelaw 24.1. The reason for this is that minor parking offences were decriminalised following the introduction of the Road Traffic Act 1999. Byelaw 24.1 is reserved for serious criminal breaches of the byelaws, not for minor parking contraventions. This means that APCOA’s claim that non-payment could lead to a criminal prosecution is completely false and misleading. Since the Department for Transport has explicitly stated that these matters should be resolved under civil law rather than by criminal prosecution, APCOA has no legal basis for threatening recipients with prosecution for non-payment. The notice you paid was therefore not only legally flawed but also issued in direct contradiction to government guidance.

The wording in the notice itself further demonstrates APCOA’s complete lack of professionalism and fraudulent intent. The notice states, "You may are legally liable for this offence as the owner even if you were not the driver at the time." The grammatical errors alone are evidence of how little care has been taken in issuing this document. More importantly, the legal claim being made is entirely false.

The notice goes on to claim, "For further clarification, the owner, in relation to a vehicle means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered." This statement is an outright lie.

The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is entirely unrelated to the enforcement of railway byelaws or the prosecution of criminal offences. The presumption under section 7(1) of VERA 1994 that the registered keeper is the person who "keeps" the vehicle is solely for administrative and taxation purposes. It has nothing to do with criminal liability, and it does not create any legal responsibility in relation to alleged offences under the Railway Byelaws. There is no legal basis whatsoever for APCOA to suggest that the registered keeper can be automatically held liable for a criminal byelaw offence simply because their name appears on the V5C registration document.

In criminal matters, liability must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no presumption of guilt in UK law, and APCOA’s assertion that the "owner" is automatically responsible is a blatant misrepresentation. If this were a genuine byelaw offence being pursued in the magistrates' court, APCOA or the prosecuting authority would be required to provide evidence to prove that the accused person was the individual responsible for the alleged contravention. The mere fact that a person is the registered keeper of a vehicle does not establish legal liability for a criminal offence, and APCOA’s attempt to mislead recipients into believing otherwise is fraudulent.

A legitimate byelaw penalty would require payment to the Train Operating Company or Network Rail, not directly to a private parking company’s bank account. The fact that APCOA is the sole recipient of payment suggests they are treating this as a private contract charge while disguising it as a statutory penalty. This is a violation of statutory processes and an abuse of legal enforcement procedures.

As the Penalty Notice was issued in APCOA’s name only, it fails to identify the statutory body that has authorised them to issue penalties under railway byelaws. APCOA must provide evidence that they have a contractual right with the Train Operating Company to issue Penalty Notices rather than Private Parking Charge Notices under civil contract law. If they do not have this authority, the notice is fraudulent and unenforceable.

You have unknowingly paid money under false pretences due to the unlawful wording of this fake penalty notice. I expect you to demand a full refund from APCOA and, if necessary, take legal action against them. You should report this to the police as a criminal matter involving fraudulent misrepresentation and attempted extortion. If APCOA refuses to refund the payment, you should initiate proceedings to recover the funds and challenge them to provide documentary evidence of their legal authority to issue Penalty Notices under railway byelaws.

Since you have wrongfully paid this fraudulent demand, I require immediate full reimbursement of the amount paid to APCOA, along with the removal of any associated administrative fees. This payment was made without my authorisation, in breach of our agreement, and in response to an unlawful demand from APCOA.

If this matter is not resolved within 14 days, I will escalate this complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service if applicable, and pursue legal action against you for the unauthorised deduction of funds and breach of contract.

Please confirm how you intend to rectify this situation.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]

I am reaching out to apologize for the inconvenience caused regarding the recent parking fine. Although we were required to pay the fine because some APCOA fines are issued at railway station car parks so are classed as a Railway Byelaw so we cannot transfer liability we have to pay and recharge. This does not prevent you from appealing the fine directly.

We understand that it’s not always the customer’s fault, as mistakes can sometimes occur on the part of the parking authority. To assist you, we have sent a third- party authorisation letter to the email which is set for your account. Additionally, I have attached a “Permission to Appeal” letter to this email to make the process easier for you. You can use this document to appeal the fine directly with the authority, either by email or post.

Once the fine is cancelled, please send us the confirmation of cancellation so we can follow up to secure a refund and reimburse the amount to your account.

Should you require any further assistance please contact us and we will be happy to help.