Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: St Albans Victoria Street Car Park Indigo/ZZPS
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Pages: 1, 2
A family member has received a number of "Penalty Notice By Post - Notice To Owner". The text states that "all vehicles are parked subject to Railway Byelaws. These have been issued by PCN Admin Center which is trading name of ZZPS. The appeals can only be made a domain called "" or directly back to PCN admin center which strikes me as not independent!

I have a few of questions:

1. Does the Penalty Notice have to be issue within 14 days to be enforceable as some are outside of this
2. Are these enforceable given the land is subject to Railway Byelaws?

Would someone be so kind to let me know if there are templates that I can use to refute these charges.

Below is the text of the Penalty Notice:

Any Help would be mostly appreciated

All vehicles are parked subject to the Railway Byelaws ("Byelaws") as displayed on the signage at the location.
The Byelaws were made under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 as amended under the Railways Act 2005, and an offence has been committed by breaching Byelaw 14. Having identified that an offence has occurred, your data has been released by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as our client has reasonable cause (under Regulation 27(1 )(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002). Their records indicate that you were the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date that the offence was committed.
The above penalty is now due plus any additional cost which may be incurred in its recovery.
In the event that this remains unpaid, then our Client may pursue you through the Magistrates Court by way of a private criminal prosecution. This can result in a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale set out in section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, currently £1000. We urge you to take up this offer of disposal. '
Additionally, Byelaw. 14(4)ii allows for vehicles to be clamped, and our client may well exercise this option in future. You will be liable for all costs associated with the clamp, its removal and potentially any unpaid notices outstanding for the same VRM.
The amount payable will be discounted to £60 if this is paid within 14 days.
Photographic evidence is held on file to support this claim in accordance with the Data Protection Act. The data is used for the sole purpose of pursuing settlement of this offer.
Please pay this penalty now or see overleaf for further details.
What is the exact reason for the Penalty Notice ?

Indigo notices often say that they're for "Failure to display a valid permit" which isn't a byelaw offence

There is no time limit to issue a Penalty Notice
The later the better because it's easier to drag the process out past six months after which no prosecution is possible

They can't be enforced because there is no legislation that enables it
They're offers to avoid prosecution and it's not an offence if you don't accept the offer

Private prosecutions by Indigo are almost unknown

Which Indigo and which railway station ?
Indigo Park Solutions issues a lot of these where Indigo Park Services has the contract

I would ignore ZZPS and wait until the second letter from QFD Solicitors
It often writes under the name Wright Hassall
Please show us the PCN, both sides, suitably redacted of identifying detail but leaving in dates.

I think we may be nearer the beginning of the process than may first appear apparent.
HI Redivi & Cabbyman,

Thanks for the initial response:

A copy of the redacted PCN can be found with this link:

According to Parkopedia and Indigo's own website, the parking at the location is managed by Indigo Park Services UK Ltd, not Indigo Park Solutions

ZZPS is contracted by Indigo to manage its appeal service
It also has the contract to pursue payment for the appeals that it rejects

You are correct to believe that it isn't independent

Didn't realise that you've just received the Notice to Owner
In which case you should appeal

Do not, however, appeal until as near to the deadline as possible
Do not identify the driver

Why do you think Indigo believes the parking wasn't paid for ?
Hi Redivi,

Does this mean that the penalty notice is being requested by the wrong entity?

What would be the basis of the appeal....the fact it has been "notice to owner"

The reason the parking was not paid for is that they did not believe that charges applied out of working hours so did not purchase a ticket. Unfortunately this was done for a few days in a row so there are several Penalty Notices which is why I am keen to find a way to mitigate it.


For each notice, you appeal as Registered Keeper, taking extreme care not to identify the driver, so that they receive it on about day 26. Draft your appeal and post it here for checking.

What happens next is a bit in the air at the moment. Originally, we would have expected a POPLA code for a further appeal but, it would appear that there is another appeals body, ITAL, that you may be invited to use for the second stage appeal. Regardless, you would make the same appeal as you would have to POPLA to cover non-relevant land for POPLA. One of the Indigo companies is a stranger to the contract. To decide which, you will have to obtain photos of the signs at the car park. Various other points can be thrown into a good appeal. Do some reading of other threads and start preparing your draft after you have drafted your first appeal.

Ultimately, everything goes as close to the deadlines as possible. The intention is to get beyond the 6 months mark when it becomes impossible to take action under byelaw 14, if it is even possible before that!
The Rookie
Worst still I would suggest that as the wrong company has issued the penalty it had no authority to do so, as such the penalty is a nullify. As it’s (claimed to be) a penalty issued under Byelaws the issuer has to have authority to do so and that can only come from the Train Operating Company via the contract with one of the Indigo’s.

With ITAL being new to parking I see an opportunity to really tie them up in notes and make them regret ever taking these cases on. A Template appeal which puts all the issues together along with whatever issues are unique to each case seems very attractive.

Thanks for feedback so far... would anyone know where I can find or be able to assist with a template appeal text?


Look in other threads. You need to do your own research so that you get an understanding of the principles involved.
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 08:53) *
Worst still I would suggest that as the wrong company has issued the penalty it had no authority to do so, as such the penalty is a nullify. As it’s (claimed to be) a penalty issued under Byelaws the issuer has to have authority to do so and that can only come from the Train Operating Company via the contract with one of the Indigo’s.

With ITAL being new to parking I see an opportunity to really tie them up in notes and make them regret ever taking these cases on. A Template appeal which puts all the issues together along with whatever issues are unique to each case seems very attractive.

Isn't ITAl to do with fare dodging penalties, rather than bylaw contravention?
Gary Bloke
Indigo are now using ITAL as the second stage appeal for Byelaws penalty notices at railway station car parks. POPLA is used for everything else.

Just as a point of clarification... does POFA apply under the railway byelaws in as much that the notice must be issued within 14 days?


Schedule 4 of POFA is all about making the keeper liable, usually for the driver’s breach of contract, when he would not be liable under contract at common law. It doesn’t apply to railway station car parks which are not “relevant land” because the parking is subject to Byelaws.

The 14-day time limit is just one of hoops the PPC has to jump through in order to claim keeper liability. Obviously it’s irrelevant in your case.
Just to add to this situation -... it seems that PCN Admin Center or Indigo are sending out 2 Penlaty Notices for the same alleged offence:

Does this happen often as this is clearly a duplicate right?

Thanks for all your help form the contributors on this forum

Click to view attachment
PCN Admin Centre is a trading name of ZZPS Ltd, a debt collector that Indigo employs to manage its appeal system

ZZPS is also contracted to pursue unpaid penalty notices including the appeals that it's rejected
It doesn't accept many appeals

It also pursues motorists that have won their appeals to ITAL, the independent body that's the second stage of the appeal process
Are they trying to make 2 charges, 1 for each day since the parking event spans 2 days? One says 30th, the other says 31st. Looks like that to me. Have they totalled the 2 charges anywhere?


This is my first attempt to appeal the Penalty Notice.....I would appreciate feedback, Thanks

With reference to your penalty notice by post letter date 9th January 2019, highlighting that my vehicle had on the 18th December 2018, been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for
“Failing to obtain a valid ticket or voucher”.

Please note that as the registered keeper I wish to appeal this penalty notice and the charges therein on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the NTK was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on Tuesday 18th December 2018.
The relevant period is therefore the 14-day period from: Wednesday 19th December 2018 to Tuesday 2nd January 2019 inclusive.
Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The “Letter Date” stated on the Penalty Notice is Wednesday 9th January 2019, and in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been “given” on Monday 14th January 2019 which is way beyond the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

2. As the registered keeper, I have no liability for this charge. Indigo Park Solutions Limited has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, no presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK. Additionally, as the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.

3. The NTK does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points: The notice must be given by—
warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
Upon reviewing the NTK, Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f).

4. Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim. It is suggested that Indigo Park Solutions Limited does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Indigo Park Solutions Limited. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

5. Furthermore, Indigo’s website states that this car park is managed by Indigo Park Services UK Ltd, however, the penalty notice has been issued on behalf of Indigo Park Solutions Limited. It is therefore unclear whether either of these have proprietary interest in the land and therefore I would need proof that they have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim.

Too long, that's for the second stage appeal. If this is the first appeal to Indigo, to get a POPLA/ITAL appeal code.

Dear sirs,

ref xxxxx VRM xxx

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle.

I am not liable for the above PCN because the land is NOT relevant land, as defined by Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, sched 4. You must therefore pursue the driver who I am not obliged to name.

I require you to cancel the charge or provide me with the means to appeal to POPLA where I will arrange for you to be instructed to cancel. I also require you to remove my personal data from your records.

Love and kisses.

Use the same method of sending as they used to notify you. First class post, but this time, obtain a certificate of posting from the Post Office Counter. Send to arrive on day 26.
I have another quick question....

If the PCN Admin Centre send a penalty notice that is within the 14 day time limit for the NTK is it harder to fight the charge?

...and what is the significance with respect to the Railway Byelaws?

Gary Bloke
Owner, keeper and driver could potentially be three separate people.

NTK letter is when the PPC wants the keeper to name the driver. If Schedule 4 of the POFA applies to the car park, then the keeper can be held liable for a breach of the parking contract by the unknown driver iff certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is the 14 day deadline for the keeper to receive the letter.

At station car parks Schedule 4 of POFA does not apply so there is no possibility of the keeper being liable for the actions of the driver. The PPC thinks that at station car parks the owner can be liable for a Byelaw breach by the driver. This is due to what it says in Byelaw 14.4.1 and the recent advice from the Dept of Transport. So the PPC sends out an NTO letter. But...the Byelaws rely on Transport Act 2000 and this Act says nothing about a non driving owner being liable for a Byelaw breach. So the PPC and DFT are wrong. Only the driver could ever be found guilty of a Byelaws breach and only in a Mags Court. The 14 day deadline does not apply in these cases, but POPLA have chosen to use this as their guideline for a correctly issued Penalty Notice. ITAL are not using this 14 day period at all.

Confused? So is the DFT, BPA, PPCs, TOCs, POPLA, ITAL, ZZPS etc. Not to mention the poor motorist!
So this is the reply from Indigo.....

Seems odd to me that they reference the driver as liable Penalty Charge Notice has been sent to the keeper!.

I guess next steps are to wait 28 days to reply, right?.....the original NTK was also beyond 14 days of the "offence"..

The Rookie
QUOTE (Bigden136 @ Tue, 19 Feb 2019 - 00:37) *
Seems odd to me that they reference the driver as liable Penalty Charge Notice has been sent to the keeper!.

Yes, by using/distorting Byelaw 14.4.1 as clearly mentioned above, nothing odd at all and entirely predictable.

If you don't understand what's being said, please ask for clarification.

Prepare your second stage appeal and submit as late as possible within the permitted deadline, that's not the same as " wait 28 days to reply" and you've already been told that the 14 days is irrelevant in post #2!
Hi Rookie...

Some clarification would indeed help a lot .. and how long should I wait for the second stage appeal?

Send it online so that ITAL get it just before the 28 day appeal deadline expires.

Draft your appeal and post it here for checking. It will need a bit of rejigging, I expect.

Point 1 should be that rail byelaws exist and it is not, therefore, relevant land under PoFA. Then, continue each point to lead down a pathway. 'However, if PoFA was to apply then [point 2], if point 2 was to apply the [point 3], etc., etc.'

It's interesting that they reference 'BPA has chosen not to use the Ombudsman Service.'
Given the complete bullshit of an appeal decision we've seen from ital, you should ensure you ask the,, if they reject your point, to cite the specific legislation or "guideline" they've used to come to their decision
Another update...

I sent an appeal - a simple one along the lines of what is in this thread.

ZZPS have now issue a Debt Collection Notice without having any courtesy to reply to the first appeal....straight to this debt collection notice (see attachment)

Any help would be appreciate on how and when I should respond to this.


Have you sent any appeal to AS Parking/ITAL yet? Have you been on to their site to check the status of the case with them?

They should show the case 'awaiting appeal' or something similar, assuming you are still awaiting the effluxion of time before submitting your appeal.
Who do you send your "simple" appeal to? ZZPS? ITAL?

ZZPS will of course just send out a template response. What else were you expecting?
Gary Bloke
You should reply to this letter, politely explaining that there is no debt.
Their Notice To Owner letter contained an offer - they promised not to prosecute for the alleged Byelaw breach if you paid them £100. This was an offered contract. There is no law in this country that requires an offered contract to be accepted, so nobody (owner, keeper or driver) has any legal obligation to pay their £100 charge.
Since all you have done is to decline their kind offer, you have not incurred any debt.
All references in their letter to a debt being outstanding are completely unwarranted.
Complain to the British Parking Association that you’re being harassed by debt collectors whilst your appeal is ongoing. This is a clear breach of the BPA’s code of practice. The same thing happened to me. The BPA took it up with Indigo and assured me that it was due to a “technical glitch”. Demand that Indigo is sanctioned for blatantly disregarding the BPA’s code of practice.
State this is the second time you know of this has happened, so it cannot be a "glitch"
Gary Bloke
The BPA code of practice is a pile of pants. The whole thing is based on the assumption that all private car parks are managed via contract law. There is nothing in the CoP about car parks being managed using Byelaws.

The BPA itself is a pile of pants. Whenever one of their members breaches the CoP, they quickly change the rules and claim that no breach has occurred. For example, when Indigo stopped offering POPLA as the second appeal process (as is specifically required in the CoP) they just claimed that the rules had changed but they had not yet updated the wording. Oh right, so that's all okay then.
Indigo instructing debt collection during appeals is rife. This is by no means only the second example. There are loads of people on the MSE Parking forum being hounded too. I was assured by the BPA’s compliance officer that a process had been put in place to stop this happening. The process is clearly not working. Bigden, please complain to the BPA saying you’re aware that this has already been escalated to them and that Zoe Rudwick was assured by Indigo it had been corrected.

Zoe Rudwick
AOS Investigations Team
British Parking Association
Tel: 01444 447340
@ nosferatu1001

I sent the original appeal to ZZPS not to ITAL. Was this an error? If yes how do i correct it?

What part of "send the appeal to ITAL" was so tricky?!?

Send it to ITAL
I have no idea why youre doing anything with ZZPS at all.,
When does the appeal deadline run out?> You know, we dont.
CORRECTION here...... The original appeal was to the PCN Admin Center which is where the original PCN came from.

The issue is that it was sent to the registered keeper without any mention that the driver is liable. As keeper the first appeal was sent as in Post #19. I therefore expect PCN Admin centre to reply to advise that appeal has failed and the offering me to pay to which I would sent second stage appeal as in Post #18.

Not sure why PCN Admin Centre sent this directly to ZZPS for debt collection.

Kind of feel I am in a dilemma now as i have around 6 of these because the driver failed to buy/display a ticket .. should i admit defeat and pay up or fight them?

Thanks for the help from all the contributors
No, why woud you do that?
You compalin to PCN admin centre that they did not reject or accept the appeal, and instead have used debt colectors.

Complain to the BPA as well that no rejection of the appeal was ever received and your irght to appeal further has been denied.
So the saga continues....

I have received a rejection to my appeal a copy of which is short it has been rejected (no surprise here) and it states that I can appeal to The Appeals Service details of which i can find at

Copy of the redacted reply is attached...... I assume I should wait until around day 24 and submit an appeal and should i use the wording i drafted in post #18 of this thread?

The Debt collection letter I received is related to another Penalty Charge for which I sent an appeal and for which I have proof of posting - so it seems they jumped the gun here.

I would appreciate any help with drafting a response for this.

Nothing is attached.

Yes you appeal to ITAL

Take notice of the OTHER ITAL Threads. This is a NEW SERVICE and they are so far making crap up as they go along.

Debt collection - complain to the BPA that no appeal response was received instead they went to a debt collector.
Redacted Appeal response is attached... original upload failed due to file size error
Hello Bigden. Yes, appeal online around Day 26. Take screenshots showing that your appeal docs have been loaded and keep a copy of th evidence pack you get sent. If your experience be anything like mine, they won’t take a scrap of notice of any of your appeal points. I’m having fun doing lots of complaining about ITAL’s scandalous non-impartiality.
I need a bit of help again please.. I seemed to have missed the 26 day deadline on one of the appeals and now have a debt collection letter.... £100 plus a ridiculous £70 admin charge.......what are my options given I missed the deadline?
Send in the appeal and ignore the debt collectors. The deadlines are of their own making
I note that the appeal can be submitted online or via post:

what would be the best option in this case and would it make a difference?
Gary Bloke
If you appeal using their website you may find that you are forced into answering questions that you'd rather not have to. If you write a letter and put it in the post, you retain control of the content. Allow 2 days for delivery using first class post. Get a proof-of-posting receipt.
so.. an update...

Received another "Final Reminder of Unpaid Debt"... see attached...

- Accuse me of ignoring their previous whereas I sent a letter to deny that a debt existed as Penalty Notice was in appeal. (how they can justify adding £70 admin charges to original Penalty Chrag is beyond me!)
- Now give me 14 days to pay or they will pass it on to debt collectors

Is best option here to write back again to deny debt and highlight they in fact ignored my last request not to harass me!??

Any help/comment is much appreciated

Gary Bloke
Ignore them, "legal debt recovery" means you get a couple of letters from QDR solicitors, alias Wright Hassall. They will also claim there is a debt. You might reply pointing out their error, or you could ignore them too.
SO ZZPS seemed to have completely ignored my appeal letters and now have sent a series of "Unpaid Debt" letters - do i just ignore these or reply citing the fact it is constituted as harassment?

What are they likely to do next?
Send a few more letters. You need to develop a thick skin to deal with them.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.