It is not a real Penalty Notice (PN). It is a fake/fraudulent one. What it really is, is an "offered contract". They are offering you the choice of paying (bribing) them £100 and in exchange they will not prosecute you in the magistrates court for what they claim is a criminal matter.
They are unable to prosecute you in the magistrates court because they do not have the authority to do so. APCOA are an unregulated private parking company. Only the station owner, usually the Train Operating Company (TOC) or National Rail or TfL can prosecute anyone under railway byelaws.
If APCOA had the authority to issue a PN, they would be required to state which "authority" has given them the power to do so. They have not stated that on the fake PN.
POPLA requested clarification from the DfT back in 2018 on whether they could adjudicate on PNs. The DfT responded and stated in their correspondence:
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.
The text in red is the important bit. Parking "offences" in England were decriminalised under the Road Traffic Act 1991, which transferred the enforcement of certain parking regulations from the police to local authorities.
The main changes were that parking "offences" previously handled by the police became "civil contraventions" enforced by local councils or private parking companies, rather than criminal matters dealt with in magistrates' courts. Local authorities gained the power to manage on-street and off-street parking enforcement through Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs). Private parking companies can only issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) which are solely civil matters dealt with under civil contract law.
This reform aimed to free up police resources for more serious matters and streamline the handling of parking contraventions through civil law.
Now, read into the bit of red text above... the term "penalty" in Byelaw 14(4)(i) should be interpreted as referring to a "charge or fee" rather than a formal penalty under criminal law. This interpretation aligns with the broader distinction made by the DfT between civil and criminal enforcement.
Byelaw 14(4)(i) allows for a financial liability placed on the owner of a vehicle for contraventions related to parking, which is more akin to a civil remedy (such as a Parking Charge Notice) than a criminal penalty requiring prosecution in the Magistrates' Courts. The term is distinct from the powers granted under Byelaw 24(1), which deals with criminal enforcement and is reserved for more serious breaches of the byelaws.
This approach supports the notion that parking-related matters should be handled as civil disputes, consistent with the decriminalisation of parking offences under the Road Traffic Act 1991.
So, APCOA has no authority to issue PNs. It also has no authority to prosecute anyone in the magistrates court. There has been no breach of criminal law yet they use language in their "offered contract" (which no one is obliged to accept) that is entirely unlawful in civil law.
APCOA have never, ever, ever, prosecuted anyone for a PN in the magistrates court because they are unable to do so and if they even tried, they'd be exposed as fraudsters. They will reject any appeal under any circumstances. They will refer the recipient to appeal to POPLA, who have zero authority to actually adjudicate on criminal matters, which this fake PN pretends to be about.
When POPLA reject the appeal, the only way that APCOA could try and recover any money is through the county court as a civil claim for debt. They would be exposed as scammers because the county court cannot adjudicate on a railway byelaw criminal matter.
The way they make their money in this fraud is by using language in the PN that mentions and threatens criminal prosecution and fines. For the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree, which is the vast majority of recipients of these fake PNs, they worry about a "criminal prosecution' and simply pay the scammers.
There are some people who advise on these parking matters who honestly believe that APCOA (and SABA) can really issue PNs but that they expire after 6 months from the date of the alleged offence. Whilst real PNs do have a statute of limitation of 6 months for the issuing "authority" to bring a prosecution in the magistrates court, APCOA, an unregulated private parking company is no "authority" and cannot bring any prosecution in the magistrates court.
So, here endeth the lesson. You have a couple of choices. You can simply ignore APCOA. I can say with 100% certainty, APCOA will not (cannot) prosecute you in the magistrate court. APCOA cannot issue a claim for debt in the county court as they can only do that for civil contract matters such as a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), which this is definitely not.
If you ignore them, they will get their useless and powerless debt collectors to send you letters which can be safely ignored. Use them as kindling. Eventually, they will give up and move on to lower-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will pay into the scam out of fear and ignorance.
Or... you can have a bit of fun with them and waste their time and money. You can appeal the fake PN and then make them pay £35 for their POPLA fee for a secondary appeal, which will also be rejected. Once the POPLA appeal is rejected, you will still have to go through the useless debt collector letters but, I can say with 100% certainty that they will eventually stop and that will be the end of the matter.
If you want to appeal, use the following, appealing as the Keeper only:
I am the registered keeper. APCOA cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, APCOA will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Aldershot Station is not 'relevant land'.
If Southwestern Railway wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Railway Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because APCOA is not the station owner and your 'Penalty Notice' is not real and is simply an "offered contract". It is created for APCOA's own profit (as opposed to a real bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and APCOA has relied on contract law allegations (unlawfully using language that threatens criminal liability) of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your fake Penalty Notice which is, in reality, only an "offered contract", can only hold the driver liable. APCOA may be able to fool POPLA and so will incur a fee for an assessor to falsely adjudicate on an alleged criminal matter which would never see a prosecution because it would expose APCOA for the attempted fraud being perpetrated here. So you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and your money and cancel the PN.
When that is rejected, come back and I'll happily put together an appeal to POPLA that exposes their complicity in this matter.
FYI, I am currently advising an investigative journalist from a major UK broadsheet in an upcoming expose of this highly lucrative scam that has been going on for many years.
