I tried to pay for parking at Redhill station, which has ANPR. The machine rejected my coins. I tried to pay by debit card. I input my details, the machine beeped then showed a message that said “call in progress”. Not sure if I’d paid, I input my details again. The same thing happened again. There was an option to pay by phone, but I didn’t have my mobile with me.

15 days later, I received a penalty notice by post from Indigo Park Solutions. I emailed my explanation which was rejected. I intend to appeal, their email says:
“You have now reached the end of the internal appeals procedure. Should you remain dissatisfied with this decision, you may further your appeal to an independent appeals service, ITAL Group Limited, within 28 days of this notice of rejection, details of which are available at www.asparking.co.uk.”

It seems to me from some of the threads that machines being out of order is no excuse for not paying but that a 14 day window to send me the notice has been missed. Is this the best route for me to follow?

Thank you in advance for any advice you post.

Exactly!

And with the DVLA (knowingly - they’ve been told about it many times) aiding and abetting by providing an essential requirement. Which puts the Secretary of State for Transport in a tricky position since it’s in his name the data is disclosed. He’s been told about this too.

Here’s the next instalment in this saga.

Appeal was posted just before 28 day deadline. The ‘track my appeal’ site says:

Appeal Received
Thank you, your further appeal has been successfully received by AS. AS will now contact the parking company to obtain an evidence pack containing the full details of your Penalty Notice and your first appeal submission. An email will be sent when the evidence pack is available for you to view online. You will have 14 days to review the evidence pack and upload any further documents in support of your further appeal.

BUT today, this charming letter has arrived...

I can hear lots of you telling me to ignore it - which I fully intend to do - but what a flaming cheek sending this letter when the appeal window was still open. I’m guessing I can expect these harassment letters on a regular basis.

Is there any merit in my complaining to Indigo? This is a definite case of presumed guilt.

This post has been edited by HappyHarry: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 23:04

You complain to the BPA about continuing action by debt collectors while matter are being appealed to POPLA.

Yes

Clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice 22.12

22.12 If you reject an appeal you must:

• tell the motorist how to make an appeal to IAS.
This includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal and a valid 10-digit verification code.
Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appeal form, it must still be in a prominent position on the first page of the rejection letter.
• give the motorist a reasonable amount of time to pay the charge before restarting the collection process.
We recommend that you allow at least 35 days from the date you rejected the challenge.

22.12a If an appeal is being considered by the IAS, the debt recovery process must not be commenced/ recommenced until the outcome of the case is known.
We would expect operators to have systems in place to ensure that this does not happen.

As an aside, I wonder if ITAL knows that Indigo sub-contracts the appeal process to ZZPS

If not, there may be a delay before ZZPS learns of the appeal ,that prevents it sending the evidence pack in time

Is that from the IPC CoP? (Use of IAS)? Aren't Indigo BPA members? Although I'm sure there is a BPA equivalent clause in their CoP too.

Manx - no, BPA. THey use "IAS" to mean they dont have to refer to POPLA, which is a trademark.

As above. complaint to Steve Clark.

should be fun

Freddy, seeing that mad screenshot again has made me smile and lowered my blood pressure significantly. Thank you! I’ve sent a complaint to Steve Clark. I’ll keep you posted with progress.

AS-appeals , has no telephone number , if you rung them you would have spoken to ITAL (prosecution services) , if you completed online form or posted one to them it would have gone to PO BOX 267
Petersfield GU32 9FH , which takes you to IRCAS https://www.ircas.co.uk/Home/AboutIrcas

Our company assists the transport industry in the administration and collection of outstanding penalty notices.

We offer a fully supported service that handles all areas of revenue protection processing, from initial mobile notice issuing to final payment or prosecution. IRCAS brings independence to customers and valuable auditing, reporting and processing to businesses.

we work with

https://ibb.co/t8trkR1

asc stated before , done like a kipper

Next instalment.
Today, the RK has had an email from ZZPS saying:

Subject: ACTION REQUIRED: Urgent Contact

Please contact ZZPS Limited in relation to a personal business matter. You can reply to this email, telephone us, or visit our websites.

Email: customerservices@zzps.co.uk

Websites: www.zzps.co.uk & www.ipaymypcn.net

Telephone: +44(0)1932 918916

It is important that you make contact and please quote our reference: xxxx

Regards

Customer Services
ZZPS Limited

Totally separately, the BPA have today confirmed they are following up on my complaint about ZZPS sending a debt collection letter whilst an appeal is ongoing.

Possibly linked to you rattling the BPA cage? But I think most here would counsel against contacting a debt collector or PPC.

If it's that urgent, they'll email you again, perhaps with a better description of what they want (but it's only usually your money!)

I have no intention of letting the RK make contact with ZZPS. No this email hasn’t been sent as a result of my complaint. That was made in my name with no case reference numbers. The RK has a v different name. I took up this cause on behalf of someone with less experience of life than me, less time and a whole lot less patience.

Have you also forwarded that text to the BPA to add to your complaint? You MUST give them the PCN ref or they can't look at it.

Are ZZPS regulated by the FCA? If so, also complain to them about this conduct.

But don't expect much reaction

Collection of parking notices doesn't come under any regulations or authorities

The DVLA originally required parking companies to follow the FCA rules but dropped the requirement when they discovered this

Nothing prevented the BPA imposing it

Hello. I have given the BPA copies of both the letter and the text. My initial complaint was sent without specific details. The BPA replied within 24 hours asking for copies of the penalty ticket, evidence that a 2nd appeal was received and copies of ZZPS’s debt collection correspondence.

Thank you, SchoolRunMum for your idea of complaining to the FCA. From their website, they don’t seem to cover this sort of debt collection but they link to the Financial Ombudsman, who seems to.

This is from their complaints page:
“First of all, give the business the chance to sort things out. Get in touch with them to explain what's happened - and how you want things put right.
“Once you’ve complained, the business has to give their "final response" to your complaint. They have to do this within eight weeks at the most, depending on what you’re complaining about.
“If you're not happy with how things turn out – or you don't get an answer from the business – let us know.”

I’ll file a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman if I’m not happy with Indigo’s response following the BPA’s intervention.

I can’t tell you what a difference being a member of Pepipoo has made to me. It’s a real case of a problem shared being a problem halved. Thank you all.

This post has been edited by HappyHarry: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 11:43

My appeal was structured around six different reasons why the penalty was wrongly sent. I’ve been sent the evidence pack. It only addresses one of the six points.

What’s the best way forward? I know I shouldn’t respond until just before the 14 day deadline, but can you successfuI appealers please advise what works best next? The one point the parking operator has addressed will be difficult to refute. They haven’t responded to five of my other points, should I reiterate them?

I think I’ve read that only one of my six points has to be agreed with by the assessor for me to win but the parking operator has to disprove all six for the penalty to be upheld. Is that correct?

Many thanks,
HH

From what I recall, some of the points are specific to parking notices issued under contract law, not railway penalty notices

It's a long thread so can you list the six points again and summarise Indigo's response ?

It's logical. One agreed point = a win. If point 1 isn't agreed, move onto point 2. If that isn't agreed, move onto point 3, etc. In, say, six points, you only need one to succeed; they must successfully rebut all six.

Thank you Redivi and Cabbyman. My appeal was based around these six points:
1. No Keeper Liability
2. Penalty Notice was received after required 14 days
3. Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd’s authority to:
- manage the car park
- issue charges
- take court action in their own name
4. Landowner authority
5. Signage was incorrect/misleading
6. Unfair terms - The advertised payment methods unavailable
Indigo's evidence pack includes:
- summary of the PCN
- screenshots of original first appeal
- scan of first appeal rejection letter
- ANPR shots (with dates and times) of vehicle entering and exiting car park
- photos of signage
- blank page that says "Plan/map of signage" - "Map available on request"

As only signage has been addressed - and not to my satisfaction - I am optimistic that my appeal will be upheld on at least the other five points.

I am going to summarise all points again and give notes for the assessor showing that Indigo hasn't refuted them (unless I get advice to do things differently).

This post has been edited by HappyHarry: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 - 15:26

Things have changed a bit since you put in your appeal. Initially, ITAL’s FAQs were a bit of a giveaway as to their coziness with Indigo (the Qs and As were lifted directly from Indigo itself). They’ve realised their bloomer and changed them now:
https://www.asparking.co.uk/Faq

So now we can see that ITAL will not be deciding these appeals in accordance with the law. They are saying, firstly, that the owner may be liable for the penalty; therefore he is. Huh? It sounds like a perversion of Descartes’ argument: “I may be, therefore I am”.

Secondly, they are saying the keeper is presumed to be the owner unless proved otherwise. There is NO such presumption in law. This is similar to PPCs’ attempts to presume the keeper is the driver, which the previous chief adjudicator of POPLA Henry Greenslade scotched very firmly - see p13 of POPLA’s 2015 report, here: https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/def...15.pdf?sfvrsn=2

So now we know the way they are thinking, you may want to adjust your replies. It might be worth pointing out that no-one is liable for these penalties since a) the driver is presumed to be innocent of the alleged offence until proved guilty, so there is nothing the owner can be penalised for; and b) there is no independent appeal tribunal established by law as required by Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights.