Free Traffic Legal Advice

The answer to your question is that some private companies can initiate prosecutions under the SJP

I am fairly certain that neither APCOA nor SABA have ever initiated a private prosecution in the magistrates court.

I’m quite certain you are right. This is because those two bodies are not “authorised prosecutors” under the legislation covering the Single Justice Procedure. Railway Companies are. I checked that they were when the original question was raised because I was interested to see how the recent ruling by the Chief Magistrate (which nullified about 75,000 railway fare evasion prosecutions taken under the SJP) came about. I wondered whether these charges were also ineligible to use the SJP, but they are not and the prosecutions seem lawful.

I can understand you conflating the civil procedure and criminal prosecutions. The railway companies are in (so far as I can fathom) a unique position in that they seemingly operate what looks like a private parking enforcement regime. But if the charges from that remain unpaid, they have recourse to criminal prosecutions courtesy of their bylaws. 

As far as I can see, there is no requirement for the railway companies to operate a fixed penalty scheme or to operate out-of-court settlements (in the same way as there is no requirement for the police to offer courses or fixed penalties). They could simply prosecute all those who break their bylaws. But they don't.

Instead their strategy seems essentially to be along the lines of “give us a hundred quid and we won’t prosecute you”. They seem to employ parking companies to do that, but when the motorist does not stump up, the TOCs take over and, as authorised prosecutors, initiate a prosecution.

As a result, I don’t see how the validity of any notices under the “give us a hundred quid…” stage can effect or jeopardise a criminal prosecution. It’s similar to a speeding offence when the police offer a course or fixed penalty and neither are taken up. The police start a prosecution and all that went before in relation to the course or fixed penalty becomes  irrelevant.

But the principle is the same, whoever operates the first ("give us £100...") part.

If the TOCs undertake both parts they are no different to the police who might firstly offer a course or fixed penalty and then prosecute when they are not taken up.

In other words, they are asking for a bribe in order not to criminally prosecute them.

That's certainly one way of putting it.

I know virtually nothing about decriminalised processes and procedures so cannot comment on the deficiencies you mention. But the important thing with these railway offences is that they are not decriminalised. They are not subject to review or adjudication. If he motorist does not pay the bribe, the only way the TOC can get paid is to prosecute him through the magistrates' court.

So the rules and protocols pertinent to the decriminalised offences do not apply.

I understand that should APCOA decide to force prosecution of the alleged breach of the railway bylaw, they could only do so if they hand the case to the TOC and it is then up to the prosecutor for that TOC to initiate the SJP prosecution. However, that is not what is being threatened in the supposed "PN" that I have shown

Please correct me where I am wrong and may be misunderstanding the law but the notice I have shown, refers to itself as a Penalty Notice, suggesting it is issued under statutory authority (such as a penalty issued by a local council or a government body). However, APCOA is a private company. Penalty Notices under Railway Byelaws must be issued by or on behalf of the relevant train operating company (TOC) or station operator. APCOA does not specify that it is acting directly under the authority of the TOC or any other authority, which raises concerns about its legal basis.

The notice states that it is issued for a breach of Railway Byelaws (Byelaw 14) and implies that failure to pay could result in a criminal prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000. However, Railway Byelaw 14 has multiple subsections, each covering different aspects of parking-related offences (e.g., parking without payment, failing to display a ticket, or parking in a prohibited area). Without specifying the exact subsection, the notice fails to adequately inform the recipient of the alleged wrongdoing. This lack of detail makes it impossible for the recipient to fully understand the nature of the alleged offence, formulate a proper defence or appeal or assess whether the alleged breach genuinely applies.

This failure to provide sufficient detail must render the PN as unenforceable, because clarity is essential for both criminal and civil proceedings. Railway Byelaws require the issuing authority to clearly specify the nature of the breach and its legal basis. A vague reference to "Byelaw 14" does not meet this standard.

Only the train operating company or a properly authorised agent can initiate legal proceedings in the magistrates’ court. The notice fails to explicitly state that it is issued under the authority of the train operating company or railway operator responsible for enforcing the byelaws. Without this, the notice lacks credibility as an enforceable penalty under the byelaws.

The demand for payment (£100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) blurs the line between a statutory penalty (under Railway Byelaws) and a private parking charge (a civil claim for breach of contract). If this is treated as a civil charge, APCOA would have to pursue the registered keeper (or driver) in a civil court, where different rules apply. They cannot simultaneously threaten prosecution under Byelaw 14.

Under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, any prosecution under the byelaws must be initiated within six months of the alleged offence. If APCOA does not escalate the matter to the train operating company within this period, no prosecution can take place. However, the notice refers to an appeals process with APCOA and mentions POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), which is irrelevant to statutory byelaws. Appeals related to Railway Byelaws must be directed to the relevant railway operator or magistrates’ court, not a private adjudicator like POPLA.

The notice is questionable as a "Penalty Notice" under Railway Byelaws because it does not clearly establish APCOA's authority to act on behalf of the train operating company. The document blurs the distinction between a statutory penalty (criminal law) and a private parking charge (civil law). This misleads recipients into paying without understanding their rights.

Both APCOA and SABA are BPA members and offer a secondary "independent" appeals service through POPLA should the initial appeal to the operator be rejected. However, I do not believe that POPLA have the authority to adjudicate on PNs which are (if they were real ones) criminal matters. As these fake PNs are nothing more than "offered contracts" (under civil law), there is no obligation on anyone to accept an offered contract under any circumstances.

POPLA refuse to adjudicate on PCNs issue under Railway Bylaws.

The TOC will receive no money whether the motorist is found guilty or not guilty.

Yes good point, nigel. But I do note they ask for £175 costs, which is getting on for double the amount the CPS or police ask for in straightforward prosecutions. So I imagine the TOC gets a few quid somehow or other (provided the court sees fit to award that full amount, of course).

I think this issue is being made unnecessarily complicated and I don’t really know whose fault it is.

The bottom line is that parking transgressions on railway land are criminal offences. As such they can be ultimately enforced only by the criminal  (i.e. magistrates’) court. To do that the TOCs do not need to employ parking companies at all. They can simply employ staff to check their car parks. When an offence is suspected, all they need to do is nothing, except prosecute the suspected offender through the court using the Single Justice Procedure. The TOCs are authorised to do this and they have six months from the date of the alleged offence to do so. No other notice is necessary.

Where it becomes complicated is when the TOCs do engage private parking companies and they, on behalf of the TOC, suggest they will accept a payment to avoid criminal proceedings being taken.

In the case on the “live cases” board, the only notice the motorist received was just that offer – “pay us £60/£30 and we’ll say no more about it”. That was ignored so criminal proceedings began. That, in my view, is how it should be. That said, I do think that the notice could have set out the consequences of ignoring it, though it may have done so (I don’t believe we saw all of it). There should be no mention of recourse to POPLA or any other adjudicator. The only adjudication that should be available is that provided by the Magistrates’ Court.

The case posted on this thread is clearly different to that. ACPOA has taken it upon itself to confuse the legal position. It suggests that an appeal “must” be made firstly via their own appeals procedure and, if the recipient is dissatisfied, to POPLA. If the end result of these processes go against the motorist and the penalty remains unpaid, ACPOA (say) they will take action in the Magistrates’ Court by way of a private prosecution.

What they don’t say is that they not empowered to do this (certainly not under the SJ procedure) and if a prosecution is to be launched it can only come from the TOC.

In my view, this procedure (appeals via adjudicators and then a prosecution) is unfair. If an appeal is to go to adjudicators then enforcement of payment should remain with that process (I’m not sure how that enforcement works, presumably via the County Court). But in any case, I don’t believe the adjudication process has any place in deciding whether or not a criminal offence has been proved. I believe that adjudicators make their decisions on “the balance of probabilities”. They also make assumptions which would not be valid in a criminal court. One of particular concern is (according to POPLA) that the Registered Keeper is assumed to be the owner unless proved otherwise. This leaves the prosecution enjoying this presumption and places the burden on the defendant to disprove one of the elements of the offence which has merely been assumed, not proven. A criminal court cannot make such an assumption.

All in all, it is quite a mess. The TOCs can tidy it up by simply instructing their parking agents to issue the offer of a fixed penalty in lieu of prosecution, accompanied by a simple warning that if it isn’t accepted then the matter will be decided in the Magistrates’ Court

EDIT: I also found his, which dates from 2020:

https://www.britishparking-media.co.uk/news/on-the-right-track-bpa-welcomes-changes-to-managing-parking-on-railway-land

It contains recommendations to clarify the position on these matters. I don't believe any of those recommendations have been implemented.

All of the above is all fine and dandy - if the motorist agrees to arbitration. He has no requirement to do so. Whether or not he should depends upon the circumstances he finds himself in.

If he does and it goes against him (as I believe it might have in the case of our friend in the "Live Cases" forum) all he has to do is to refuse to pay. He will then be prosecuted where the charge will have to be proved to the criminal standard. The court will not be interested in any deficiencies in any penalty notices as there is no requirement to provide any. It will not be able to make assumptions about the owner/registered keeper/person in charge. The status of the person charged will have to be proved as required.

All the information you have provided relates to private parking companies, their responsibilities to issue the correct documentation to levy penalty charges and the arbitration services associated with that. None of it has any bearing on criminal prosecutions and that's where these cases end up if they remain unsettled.

 

The point of my question was how can the unregulated private parking company (UPPC) "initiate" a private prosecution in the magistrates court (under the SJP or otherwise) and that has been answered, thank you. They can't.

If the UPPC wants to enforce the PN, they can only do so by referring it to the TOC prosecutor who would then be able to prosecute it through the SJP, should they decide to do so and they are within the 6 month statute of limitation.

Based on what has been commented on so far, as I understand it, a private company cannot issue a legitimate Penalty Notice (PN) under railway bylaw 14 because it lacks the statutory authority required to do so. Only the Train Operating Company (TOC) or an authorised prosecutor acting on behalf of the TOC has the legal authority to enforce railway bylaw breaches through the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) or other criminal court proceedings.

If a private parking company issues a notice purporting to be a Penalty Notice under railway byelaws, surely this amounts to misrepresentation. Using terms like "Penalty Notice" or implying criminal liability (e.g., referring to "prosecution" or "Magistrates’ Court") is misleading if the notice is not issued by an authorised prosecutor or TOC.

If the notice implies criminal consequences or statutory enforcement powers that the private company does not possess, it breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Also, it is making a false representation with intent to cause loss or gain which is a breach of the Fraud Act 2006 (Section 2).

A private company issuing what it claims to be a Penalty Notice under railway bylaw 14 is acting beyond its authority. Such a notice must be legally invalid, as only the TOC or its authorised prosecutor can issue and enforce Penalty Notices under railway byelaws. Any such misuse of the term "Penalty Notice" by a private company can only be considered as misleading or unlawful.

So, it all comes back to my point that the UPPC, by issuing a purported PN, is in fact committing fraud. In other words, it is not a real PN but an "offered contract". An offered contract is a civil contract law matter and has nothing to do with criminal law.

The criminal extortion element is a serious issue with the potential misuse of authority by UPPCs. If a UPPC issues what it purports to be a PN for an alleged breach of railway bylaw 14, this can only amount to fraudulent or unlawful behaviour.

The use of language typically reserved for criminal enforcement in a notice issued by a private company, when the company lacks the authority to prosecute or enforce criminal penalties, surely meets the criteria for fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud by false representation occurs when someone dishonestly makes a false representation, intending to make a gain for themselves or cause a loss to another.

If the UPPC falsely represents the notice as a legitimate Penalty Notice under byelaw 14, this probably qualifies as fraud. The notice implies authority (e.g., potential criminal prosecution or fines), which the company does not have. The intent is to scare the recipient into paying money they do not legally owe to the UPPC.

By using intimidating language such as "fine," "offence," or "criminal prosecution," the UPPC exploits the recipient’s likely misunderstanding of the legal distinction between civil and criminal liability. This tactic can only be viewed as a form of extortion, as it pressures individuals into paying under the false pretence of avoiding criminal consequences. Such behaviour not only violates consumer protection laws but also constitute criminal misconduct.

Under railway bylaw 14, only the TOC prosecutor or an authorised agent can initiate criminal enforcement. If a breach of bylaw 14 occurs, the TOC decides whether to prosecute. If prosecution proceeds, it must be under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in the Magistrates’ Court.

Any fine imposed by the court is paid into the public purse, not retained by the TOC or any private contractor. A UPPC issuing a "Penalty Notice" bypasses this legal framework and improperly seeks to profit directly from the alleged breach, which subverts the intention of the byelaws (to regulate conduct on railway land, not to generate private revenue) and deprives the public purse of funds that should rightfully flow through the judicial process.

The language used in a real Penalty Notice issued under criminal law must reflect the statutory framework, including the nature of the offence and potential court proceedings. A private company issuing a notice for what is, at best, an "offered contract" cannot lawfully use terms such as "Fine" which is reserved for criminal penalties, "Offence" which implies criminal wrongdoing or "Criminal prosecution" which suggests the involvement of criminal courts, which a UPPC cannot initiate. In a civil contract dispute, the private company must use neutral language (e.g., "Parking Charge Notice" or "charge"), clearly explaining the basis of the claim without implying criminal liability.

Another key distinction in railway bylaw enforcement is that any fines resulting from criminal prosecutions go to the public purse. If a UPPC issues a notice and retains the funds, it misrepresents the nature of the enforcement, redirects funds from their intended destination (public coffers) into private profits which clear abuse of the byelaw framework, undermining the public interest and the legal integrity of the railway bylaw enforcement system.

In conclusion, an unregulated private parking company issuing a purported "Penalty Notice" under railway bylaw 14 is acting unlawfully. Such notices are inherently fake, as only a TOC prosecutor has the authority to issue them and initiate proceedings under the SJP. Any language implying criminal liability or penalties is misleading and constitutes fraud or extortion. Furthermore, since fines under the byelaws are intended for the public purse, the UPPC’s actions divert funds improperly for private gain.

This conduct must be legally challengeable, and recipients of such notices would be justified in treating them as invalid and reporting the matter to the relevant authorities.

What I would like to know, is how could I initiate the necessary action to get the appropriate authorities alerted to this fraudulent and extortionate behaviour? I would like to do so as I have the time and some resources available but short of going out and deliberately getting one of these fake PNs issued to me personally, I am at a loss.