Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • nozza10
    • By nozza10 2nd May 17, 11:20 AM
    • 7Posts
    • 0Thanks
    nozza10
    Inidgo Parking fine, in which I forgot to purchase a ticket. Rejected appeal.....
    • #1
    • 2nd May 17, 11:20 AM
    Inidgo Parking fine, in which I forgot to purchase a ticket. Rejected appeal..... 2nd May 17 at 11:20 AM
    Hi,

    I'm fairly new to this so please bare with me. I'll try and keep it as brief as possible.....

    I drove to my local railway station, which I do from time to time, and one morning forgot to purchase a ticket. I had a penalty noticed when I returned that evening and, as the difference between a £6 ticket and £60-£100 penalty charge seemed excessive, decided to see if there was anything I could do to challenged it.

    I read your excellent forum and used the Blue template to challenge the charge, and followed your advice about keeping the driver's details a secret. This morning I received an email from Indigo informing me that my appeal had been rejected because 'because no payment was made'.

    My question is this; I understand there are questions about the legality on the enforcement of some charges due to technicalities, but as I had forgotten to purchase a ticket, does that make my argument null and void? Or do I still push on with the POPLA appeal and if so on what grounds?

    I really appreciate anyone's help on this, and if its a case of 'you didn't buy a ticket, so tough!' then I fully understand and apologise for wasting everyone's time.

    Thanks
Page 1
    • Mitsos17
    • By Mitsos17 2nd May 17, 11:41 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Mitsos17
    • #2
    • 2nd May 17, 11:41 AM
    • #2
    • 2nd May 17, 11:41 AM
    ...Hi, My question is this; I understand there are questions about the legality on the enforcement of some charges due to technicalities, but as I had forgotten to purchase a ticket, does that make my argument null and void?....
    Originally posted by nozza10
    Your argument is never invalid, these companies are scammers and you should never pay! You just said yourself the charge is excessive and never justified.

    Was the signage clear? Have you received any photos? Or did you take any photos that day?

    Of course every case is going to be different and maybe yours is more difficult to prove a point, but this doesn't mean you should give up! I would totally proceed with appealing to POPLA.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 2nd May 17, 12:31 PM
    • 7,379 Posts
    • 6,423 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 2nd May 17, 12:31 PM
    • #3
    • 2nd May 17, 12:31 PM
    This land may be subject to Railway-Byelaws which is a different ballgame from PPC PCNs issued under Contract Law, where keeper liability cannot be used if they do not know the driver . Do they use the word "penalty", do they mention bye-laws, POFA?

    Read this

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_en-GBGB707GB707&q=parking+fines+on+railway+land&gws_r d=ssl#spf=1


    there is much more.
    Last edited by The Deep; 02-05-2017 at 12:33 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 2nd May 17, 12:35 PM
    • 40,477 Posts
    • 80,859 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #4
    • 2nd May 17, 12:35 PM
    • #4
    • 2nd May 17, 12:35 PM
    You appeal to PoPLA using all the template appeal points available to you in post 3 of the NEWBIES. Your number one point will be non relevant land as byelaws (probably) apply.
    If that is the case, make sure you put the words "byelaws, not relevant land" in the title of your appeal.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • nozza10
    • By nozza10 2nd May 17, 3:10 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    nozza10
    • #5
    • 2nd May 17, 3:10 PM
    • #5
    • 2nd May 17, 3:10 PM
    Wow, I can't believe how quick everyone replied!! Thanks very much!

    So I now understand the 'Non relevant land as byelaws apply' appeal, after going through the Newbies PoPLA section and also reading some of the links to the (sort of) recent news articles. My only problem is that I am struggling to find the correct template.

    Also, just incase this any of this is important, as use of the word Penalty is used, here is the section from the letter that Indigo sent me regarding the rejection of my appeal;

    'Your appeal has been rejected because no payment was made. There is more than one method of payment. You were therefore in breach of terms and conditions

    Having reviewed the circumstances surrounding the issuing of the above Parking Charge Notice, and having considered your reasons for appeal, our decisionis to uphold the Penaly Notice. '

    Just incase that makes any difference.

    But as mentioned it seems the Non relevant land as byelaws appy is the way forward. I just would appriciate some help in finding a good template.

    Many thanks again with all this
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 2nd May 17, 4:50 PM
    • 7,379 Posts
    • 6,423 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 2nd May 17, 4:50 PM
    • #6
    • 2nd May 17, 4:50 PM
    Having reviewed the circumstances surrounding the issuing of the above Parking Charge Notice, and having considered your reasons for appeal, our decisionis to uphold the Penalty Notice. '

    Adjudicators are aware of the significance of the "P" and will usually find for the motorist. See post number 2575 here.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4488337&page=129

    You should therefore allege misrepresentation of authority at PoPLA.
    Last edited by The Deep; 02-05-2017 at 5:59 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • nozza10
    • By nozza10 8th May 17, 8:43 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    nozza10
    • #7
    • 8th May 17, 8:43 PM
    • #7
    • 8th May 17, 8:43 PM
    Hi,

    So below a copy of the pdf I will send to POLA. Do you think this is ok?

    Appeal re POPLA code: 606xxxxxxx –xxxxxxx xxxxxxx v Indigo Ltd I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was NOT the driver. I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:


    The use of the term ‘Penalty Notice’

    I consider this to be a misrepresentation of authority in accordance with Section 14 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within this, it states as follows:
    “14.1 You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority”. 14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.”
    From this it is clear that parking operators who are approved by the British Parking Association should not misrepresent its authority to the public. With the use of the phrase “enforcement charge”, it is my belief that motorists could mistakenly believe that the parking operator is carrying statutory enforcement work “under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority”. From this, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to adhere to the minimum requirements of the BPA Code of Practice also.

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. 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.
    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. 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, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.
    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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. They cannot –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me.
    The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-
    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.'


    No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    • Redx
    • By Redx 8th May 17, 8:57 PM
    • 16,540 Posts
    • 20,699 Thanks
    Redx
    • #8
    • 8th May 17, 8:57 PM
    • #8
    • 8th May 17, 8:57 PM
    I would be basing it on something like this recent appeal they didnt contest

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5609664

    just put the following search words into the forum search box to find other similar examples

    INDIGO RAILWAY POPLA
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • nozza10
    • By nozza10 9th May 17, 11:27 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    nozza10
    • #9
    • 9th May 17, 11:27 AM
    • #9
    • 9th May 17, 11:27 AM
    Ok, does this then cover the points I need to make?

    1. The location in question is not 'relevant land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as it is owned by Southern Rail and is subject to the Railway Byelaws. The Operator is not the owner of the land in question, and therefore does not provide any consideration which may form a contract with motorists. Any consideration, in the form of a parking space, is provided by the landowner, in this case Southern Rail, and any liquidated damages for breach of contract would be owed to the landowner, not to the Operator. The Operator has provided no details showing their authority to exercise parking controls on railway land, nor provided contact details at the Southern Rail to whom I can direct a complaint. Further, the Operator has not provided an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner as required under Section 7 of the BPA code of practice. The operator has omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.
    2. The Operator has affixed a “Penalty Notice” to the vehicle which is a misrepresentation of authority under clause 14.2 of BPA code of practice, with whom the Operator is affiliated. It appears this has been done in order to intimidate the general public into paying a legal penalty such as a traffic warden would issue, rather than a Parking Charge that the operator is able to issue. The term “Penalty Notice” is used twice with prominence on the issued paperwork. (Appx 3)
    3. I believe that the signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. The unremarkable and obscure signs are blocked by other vehicles parked in bays directly in front of them, and cannot be read by drivers. The photograph submitted by the Operator showing terms and conditions on site is illegible, and cannot be accepted to form the basis of an offer resulting in agreed contract.


    I also took a pic of the main sign at the entrance to the car park this morning, (i'd upload it but I'm not sure how to) and it mentions 'Penalty Notice' quite prominantly twice, along with something about 'Railway Byelaws'. Surely they can't be allowed to carry on using this information on signage?!?

    Many thanks again to all thise who've helped btw....
    • nozza10
    • By nozza10 6th Jun 17, 9:29 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    nozza10
    Hi,

    So I appealed to POPLA on the terms of Non-Relevant land, incorrect use of 'Penalty Charge' and Signage, but have now heard back from POPLA in which they attached a letter from the Railway Company Govia basically giving Indigo authority to 'debt recover for GTR' among other things. (I've attached the letter below) Does this mean I have lost, due to the agreement between Govia and Indigo? Popla are asking for a response, but only on the grounds that I have already put forward. Not sure what to do next.

    Thankyou in advance

    unfortunately am unable to post a link to the letter.

    It also adds that 'The parking control, as emvisaged by the Agreement, involve the issuing of PN's (Penalty Notices)
    • waamo
    • By waamo 6th Jun 17, 10:17 PM
    • 2,095 Posts
    • 2,501 Thanks
    waamo
    It doesn't mean you've lost it means POPLA are asking if you want to comment on it.

    I would state that the proper procedure is for this to be prosecuted in Magistrates court and this letter only allows them to place a ticket on the vehicle. It does not confer the righ to prosecute. Make them prove they have that right.

    You haven't mentioned Prosecution but I suspect this letter falls short of giving that power.

    Wait for other opinions too.
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Jun 17, 11:30 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So I appealed to POPLA on the terms of Non-Relevant land, incorrect use of 'Penalty Charge' and Signage, but have now heard back from POPLA in which they attached a letter from the Railway Company Govia basically giving Indigo authority to 'debt recover for GTR' among other things.
    Originally posted by nozza10
    You haven't heard back from POPLA. You've got Indigo's evidence pack, surely?!

    Come on, see this for what it actually is, it amazes me when people get the POPLA evidence pack from the PPC and somehow think it's ''from POPLA''. How come? Anyway you now need to rebut the evidence, like everyone else does. This it is a normal stage you should be expecting from your reading of other POPLA appeal threads.

    So stop taking this so seriously and spot the holes in their 'evidence' and prepare your comments for POPLA.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nozza10
    • By nozza10 9th Jun 17, 4:29 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    nozza10
    Yes it was Indigos evidence pack, which mainly consisted of their letter of Authorisation to undertake all aspects of the management and enforcement of the station car park car park.

    After more research, I came across a very detailed rebuttal from Maddiction. I presume this is the sort response you were pointing me to?

    One question though. In the Indigo/Govia letter it states that 'We acknowledge that in some cases this will require pre-debt recovery actions to be undertaken on behalf of GTR'. Should I flatly refute this and push for Govia to take me to the small claims court?

    Thanks again
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th Jun 17, 4:44 PM
    • 16,540 Posts
    • 20,699 Thanks
    Redx
    I doubt it

    GOVIA can only take you to the magistrates court, if bylaws apply

    this means that the small claims court option is the wrong court

    GOVIA cannot allow a third party to act for them on bylaws issues, other than maybe a solicitor and take you to magistrates court

    any rebuttals should be about the fact that bylaws apply and INDIGO cannot act in this manner

    just rebut what they say and say that bylaws apply, but this has not been issued under the bylaws and so POPLA does not apply either as a suitable ADR
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • nozza10
    • By nozza10 9th Jun 17, 5:35 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    nozza10
    Thanks.

    This is what I sent off. you don't get a lot of space to argue, only 2000 characters!

    GOVIA cannot allow a third party to act for them on bylaws issues, other than maybe a solicitor, and only they can take me to a magistrates court.
    The location in question is not 'relevant land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as it is owned by Govia Thameslink Railway and is subject to the Railway Byelaws. The Operator is not the owner of the land in question, and therefore does not provide any consideration which may form a contract with motorists. Any consideration, in the form of a parking space, is provided by the landowner, in this case Govia Thameslink Railway, and any liquidated damages for breach of contract would be owed to the landowner, not to the Operator. The Operator has provided no details showing their authority to exercise parking controls on railway land, nor provided contact details at the Govia Thameslink Railway to whom I can direct a complaint.

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. 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. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party 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, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jun 17, 7:38 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    you don't get a lot of space to argue, only 2000 characters!
    We know - we do this all the time - that's why we tell people on rebuttal/comments threads, to email instead...
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

174Posts Today

1,717Users online

Martin's Twitter