Free Traffic Legal Advice

Playing Devil's Advocate - PPCs often issue Penalty Charge Notices on behalf of LAs. Is this any different?

Yes, there is a significant difference between Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by private parking companies (PPCs) on behalf of Local Authorities (LAs) and purported Penalty Notices issued by PPCs under other circumstances, such as for railway byelaw breaches or private land parking enforcement.

When PPCs issue Penalty Charge Notices on behalf of Local Authorities, they are acting under the statutory powers delegated to the LA, typically under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA 2004) in England and Wales or Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or other legislation applicable to the relevant area.

These notices are lawful because they are issued under the authority of public law and relate to enforceable statutory regulations (e.g., parking restrictions, controlled zones).

PCNs issued by or on behalf of LAs are part of the civil enforcement system, but they carry statutory backing. Recipients who wish to contest the notice can appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) in England and Wales or the Parking and Bus Lane Tribunal for Scotland in Scotland.

If the notice is upheld and the charge remains unpaid, it can be enforced through the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) or equivalent, leading to debt recovery action. Any penalty collected from a PCN issued under LA authority goes to the Local Authority and is reinvested in public infrastructure, transportation improvements, or other community benefits. PPCs issuing these notices do not retain the fines as profit but are paid a fee by the LA for their management services.

The process for handling Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by Local Authorities (LAs) is firmly rooted in civil law, not criminal law, and any disputes or enforcement related to PCNs are managed through the County Court system rather than the Magistrates' Court.

If the recipient neither pays the penalty nor appeals successfully, the enforcement process moves forward as a civil matter:


Importantly, this is a civil enforcement action. No criminal record or criminal penalties are involved.

Yes, but it's -15 outside and snowing so I have time to kill.

I still want to give APCOA/SABA the BPA and POPLA their comeuppance for their unlawful actions and extortion though.

Yes. Councils are not railway land covered by railway byelaws.

So the parking company or even a private individual could "lay an information" (I live and learn) but surely it would rely on whether the court believed it serves the public interest and that there is a realistic prospect of conviction? Surely a minor parking violation is unlikely to be seen as a serious offence unless it causes significant disruption, danger, or financial loss.

Do magistrates not take into consideration the waste of time and resources, especially f the alleged parking contravention posed no real harm or inconvenience to others? Don't they have to consider whether cases are  worthy of court time? Using criminal prosecution for a trivial matter surely must be viewed as disproportionate, or are we dealing with the "judge bingo" we occasionally see in the county court?

Could it backfire on the "private prosecutor" if the case is considered to be deemed frivolous, vexatious, or without merit? A minor and isolated parking issue with no significant consequences should be seen as an inappropriate use of the court’s time. Prosecuting minor parking infractions in criminal court risks being perceived as overzealous or petty, especially if it imposes unnecessary burdens on the legal system.

Finally, as there would be no financial benefit for the private company, can anyone ever see a firm like APCOA or SABA actually spending time and resources on an action with no guaranteed outcome and, even if successful, would not earn them a penny and most likely would cost them substantially?

So, the answer to my initial question is "yes, they can". However, in the three or four years I've been dealing with Parking Charge Notices from unregulated private parking companies, only APCOA and SABA have issued Penalty Notices for alleged breaches of railway bylaws and I have not come across a single one that has ever been prosecuted in the magistrates court.

They would have to "lay an information" to the court and only if the court is satisfied that the case is suitable for the SJP process or requires a full hearing would it proceed. From what I can understand, cases brought by Public Prosecutors for minor offences are commonly handled under the SJP. However, are Private prosecutions different? Should courts be more cautious about using the SJP for private prosecutions because the process is less transparent and private prosecutors should be subject to stricter scrutiny to ensure fairness?

Even if the case were "approved", would a standard summons rather than an SJP notice be used? From what I can see, the SJP is typically reserved for public prosecutions or routine minor offences handled by government bodies.

Whilst they may be able to initiate a private prosecution, they have never (as far as I am aware and able to research) handed a case to the TOC to prosecute nor have they prosecuted one themselves. Their greed far outweighs any public interest or concern for the law for them to have an ounce of altruism. They are not used to having to provide evidence that has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the recipient of their fake PN has broken any law, civil or criminal.

Public prosecutors cannot lay an information. They can only issue a Written Charge and SJPN or Postal Requisition. Others can only lay an information. AFAIK the SJP is exclusive to cases instigated by way of SJPN.

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

I am trying to understand what has been written but the waters keep getting muddied by some terminology. For example you mention "authorised prosecutor" and "private prosecutor". Is a "private prosecutor" not the same?

So far we have "private", "public" and now "authorised" prosecutors.

If I now understand correctly, if a "private" prosecutor lays an information to the court, no SJPN is issued. Is a summons then issued by the court instead?

I am simply trying to understand the exact process the private parking company would have to follow in order to obtain a private prosecution in the magistrates court for a minor parking offence which is in breach of the railway bylaws.

OK. So, assuming if APCOA wanted to actually prosecute their PN themselves rather than handing it to the TOC to prosecute, someone from the private company has to act as the prosecutor. Does that person have to have any formal or legal training to be able to act as a prosecutor?

Does the prosecutor lay the information to the court that they are intending to prosecute the defendant for beaching railway bylaw 14.2 under bylaw 24(1) even though they are not an "authorised prosecutor"?

I'm assuming that APCOA would need authorisation from the TOC to initiate the prosecution. How would the court view the fact that the TOC are not taking the lead?

Would the contract APCOA have with the TOC to manage the car park have to specify exactly what authorisation it has to issue a PN under railway bylaws and specify how prosecution of those PNs takes place? As I mentioned earlier, I have not yet seen any contract that APCOA has with a TOC that mentions PNs, only Parking Charge Notices and that was due to them mistakenly not submitting their usual "letter of authority confirmation" that POPLA take as sufficient evidence of authorisation.