All Parking Services LTD

chocolatesocks

Hey again all! So I’ve got my rejected appeal back from ZZPS :)

Here was their response:

Thank you for your appeal regarding the above Parking Charge. Your submission has been reviewed together with the information and any evidence provided.

Appeal Decision

After careful consideration your appeal has been unsuccessful and has therefore been rejected.

This Parking Charge was issued correctly. We previously requested the driver's details, as they were not provided.

This has resulted in additional correspondence and has subsequently affected the processing of your appeal response.

We allow motorists to submit evidence before a final decision is made. We have received your appeal as the Registered Keeper. The contravention occurred on 12 May 2026, and the Parking Charge was issued on 18 May 2026, which complies with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as it was issued within 14 days of the event. While we note your comments, clear signage, including at the site entrance, advises that motorists must be authorised to park. As the vehicle was not authorised, the terms and conditions were breached and we are unable to uphold your appeal. Please ensure you read and follow the site signage to avoid future Parking Charges.

For reference, the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis confirms that Parking Charges of this nature are valid and enforceable.

So I’ve got my POPLA code now. Are my next steps to appeal under ‘Other’ grounds and input the message shared earlier in the thread?

TIA

Le_Kirk

Yep, appeal as keeper under "Other" using the suggestion by @cooldude255220 posted here: -

8 June at 1:57PM

chocolatesocks

So finally got the response from POPLA… unsuccessful. What's next for me?

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Sultana Yasmin

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to unauthorised parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below.

• The appellant states that they are appealing as the registered keeper and have not identified the driver.

• The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore keeper liability has not been established.

• The appellant argues that the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with paragraphs 9(2)(b), 9(2)(d), and 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4.

• The appellant states that, because the Notice to Keeper is not POFA-compliant and the driver has not been identified, the operator has no right to pursue them as the keeper.

• The appellant states that the operator has not demonstrated that it has the necessary landowner authority to issue and enforce parking charges.

• The appellant requests that the operator provide an unredacted copy of its landowner contract showing authority to manage parking and pursue charges in its own name.

• The appellant believes that the PCN is unenforceable and requests that the appeal be allowed. The appellant has provided 1. Parking Charge Letter After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided a copy of their parking charge letter to support their appeal. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise that motorists must comply with the parking conditions applicable at the site, including obtaining the appropriate parking authorisation and adhering to the advertised parking restrictions and requirements. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £ 100.

The operator has provided ANPR images of the vehicle, photographs of the site signage, a copy of the Notice to Keeper, and a redacted landowner authority agreement to demonstrate that the vehicle was present at the site during the parking event, that the PCN was issued in accordance with the site’s terms and conditions, that the Notice to Keeper was issued to the registered keeper, and that the operator held authority to manage and enforce parking at the location.

I acknowledge the appellant’s submissions and note that they have appealed as the registered keeper without identifying the driver. As such, I have considered whether the operator has established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper issued on 18 May 2026 in relation to the parking event on 12 May 2026. I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper was issued within the timescales prescribed by POFA. The notice advises the keeper that the driver is required to pay the parking charge, identifies the amount outstanding, invites the keeper to provide the driver’s details if they were not the driver, and warns that the operator may seek recovery from the keeper if the charge remains unpaid and the driver’s details are not provided. Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper as a whole, I am satisfied that it conveys the information required to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4.

I have carefully considered the appellant’s specific submissions regarding paragraphs 9(2)(b), 9(2)(d), and 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4. However, I am not persuaded that the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with those provisions. The notice clearly states that the driver is required to pay the parking charge, specifies the amount payable as £100, and explains the circumstances in which liability may transfer to the registered keeper if the driver’s details are not provided. On balance, I am satisfied that the statutory information has been adequately conveyed.

As I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper complies with the relevant requirements of POFA, I do not agree that the operator is prevented from pursuing the registered keeper solely because the driver has not been identified. Schedule 4 provides a mechanism by which a parking operator may recover unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper where the relevant statutory conditions have been met.

I have also considered the appellant’s submission regarding landowner authority. The operator has provided evidence of its authority to manage and enforce parking restrictions at the site, including a copy of its agreement with the landholder. The agreement confirms that the operator is authorised to issue parking charges and pursue enforcement action in respect of unauthorised parking at the location. While the appellant requests an unredacted copy of the agreement, I am satisfied that the evidence provided is sufficient to demonstrate that the operator held the necessary authority at the time of the parking event. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued.

Having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the operator has demonstrated compliance with the relevant requirements of POFA and has provided sufficient evidence of its authority to operate at the site. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

Accordingly, I refuse this ground of appeal.

ch3shirecat4

So frustrating that especially after going through the whole process! Seems like a real headache 😬

Gr1pr

Post it in the Popla Decisions thread in announcements

Ignore the powerless debt collectors letters

Come back to this thread if or when you receive the following

1 a Letter of Claim giving you 30 days notice

2 an N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL in the post within the next 6 years

chocolatesocks

Thanks both, have posted it.

ChirpyChicken

Why would there be anything next?

Get on with your life and forget about it

Coupon-mad

Ignore them and the £170 threatograms shown in post 4 of the NEWBIES thread, unless you move house (of course you must tell them as you must open each letter because there will be a DCB Legal court claim).

Then they'll discontinue, later in 2027.