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
    • newbil
    • By newbil 16th Jun 17, 10:01 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 1Thanks
    newbil
    Indigo Parking Ticket Help - Misread FAQ Section
    • #1
    • 16th Jun 17, 10:01 PM
    Indigo Parking Ticket Help - Misread FAQ Section 16th Jun 17 at 10:01 PM
    Hi there,

    First of all thank you to anyone in advance who reads this and can help.

    I received a parking ticket by Indigo for parking at a train station on 8th May 17.
    I was actually parked on the road outside the station which is perfectly legal. It is a country lane with no road markings where everyone parks once the free car park (under Indigo control) has filled up. The car park has some double yellow lines as you exit to stop people obstructing the exit. I didn't realise that the rear of my car was overhanging the double yellow line of the exit as I was the first to park on the road that day having just missed the last space in the car park. Of course, I received a PCN for it. However, it is absolutely ridiculous that I did when you understand the setup in real life.

    This said, I read the FAQs on here that night and decided to wait until the NTK arrived. But yes, I misread the FAQs as I shouldn't have waited till the NTK arrived but should have responded on the 25/26th day like advised.
    Now what I believe to be the NTK has arrived today as: 'OVERDUE PENALTY NOTICE TO OWNER' from Indigo. They are requesting £124 as payment. What are my options from here considering I have done nothing since receiving the PCN (yes I know I should have sent the FAQ letter on the 25th day - idiot on my part!).

    Any help from here on out would be really appreciated. Any other details needed or if I need to make myself clearer please just say.

    Thanks.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jun 17, 10:27 PM
    • 49,019 Posts
    • 62,488 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 16th Jun 17, 10:27 PM
    • #2
    • 16th Jun 17, 10:27 PM
    Doesn't matter. Appeal now, as keeper.

    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.

    • newbil
    • By newbil 16th Jun 17, 10:44 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    newbil
    • #3
    • 16th Jun 17, 10:44 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Jun 17, 10:44 PM
    Ok, thank you!

    So just to confirm I am sending them this below??:
    And what is the best way to send this to Indigo?
    Thanks again!

    ---


    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No. ....................

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,


    THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER GOES HERE. THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 16th Jun 17, 11:01 PM
    • 40,231 Posts
    • 80,343 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #4
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:01 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:01 PM
    Indigo are BPA members, so you send the BPA template in blue from the NEWBIES.

    Send it by whatever method they tell you to use on the NTK. Don't forget to put the keeper's name on it as well as the NTK number. No editing, just copy and paste and send.

    After that you need to read up on how to beat this at PoPLA. Pay particular attention to the byelaws appeal point.
    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
    • waamo
    • By waamo 16th Jun 17, 11:15 PM
    • 1,935 Posts
    • 2,310 Thanks
    waamo
    • #5
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:15 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:15 PM
    The first appeal is moot really. The idea is to get a POPLA code so you can do a real appeal.

    If your brave you can put:

    Dear Indigo I wish to appeal innit.

    I did not park rong. I is innocent innit. Giz us de POPLA codez as I wishes to appeal. Dis is defo an appeal so sendz de code.

    LuvZ

    Xxxx


    I sent that to one company and they mailed back the ticket was cancelled. I think they knew I just wanted to cost them at POPLA.

    Only do this if you are brave though.
    This space for hire.
    • newbil
    • By newbil 16th Jun 17, 11:16 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    newbil
    • #6
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:16 PM
    • #6
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:16 PM
    Done as you said
    • newbil
    • By newbil 16th Jun 17, 11:17 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    newbil
    • #7
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:17 PM
    • #7
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:17 PM
    Haha that is pretty funny!
    It's done so I'll look out for the POPLA code response now and go from there.
    Do you have a suggestion as to the best thing to send to POPLA once it arrives for my case? Cheers
    • waamo
    • By waamo 16th Jun 17, 11:21 PM
    • 1,935 Posts
    • 2,310 Thanks
    waamo
    • #8
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:21 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:21 PM
    I'm confident though. I'm a total of 8 nil up. 6 cp plus 1 ukcps and 1 parking eye.

    Its POPLA that counts.
    This space for hire.
    • newbil
    • By newbil 16th Jun 17, 11:23 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    newbil
    • #9
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:23 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Jun 17, 11:23 PM
    Waamo, completely fair enough.

    For my particular case what is the best response to give to POPLA?
    I've seen loads of examples but not sure what is best for my specific case..
    • waamo
    • By waamo 16th Jun 17, 11:34 PM
    • 1,935 Posts
    • 2,310 Thanks
    waamo
    Use the examples on here. There are loads and they are very up to date. They really do work.
    This space for hire.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Jun 17, 11:40 PM
    • 14,054 Posts
    • 22,081 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Dear Indigo I wish to appeal innit.
    The waiter in a restaurant we frequent completes every sentence with 'innit'. So much so, Mrs U and I refer to him as 'Innit'.

    Lovely poppadoms though - innit!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Geoff1963
    • By Geoff1963 16th Jun 17, 11:43 PM
    • 1,019 Posts
    • 630 Thanks
    Geoff1963
    To waamo, I'm looking forward to the second part of your biopic, starring Denzil Washington.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 16th Jun 17, 11:53 PM
    • 1,935 Posts
    • 2,310 Thanks
    waamo
    To waamo, I'm looking forward to the second part of your biopic, starring Denzil Washington.
    Originally posted by Geoff1963
    I'm really not worthy of Denzil. He is better looking and far more talented than I. I'm more a Timothy Spall a la "Barry".

    Anyway on here there the recent examples of POPLA appeals are good. Innit.
    This space for hire.
    • newbil
    • By newbil 17th Jun 17, 12:23 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    newbil
    I have taken a mixture of some of the responses on here and have tailored them to my exact case. Could anyone be kind enough to give it a quick look through and confirm it is suitable for when i receive my POPLA code? Thanks in advance



    POPLA Ref ...................
    APCOA Parking PCN no .......................

    I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

    1) INDIGO not using POFA 2012 and stating that Railway Byelaws apply
    2) Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
    3) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive
    4) No keeper liability
    5) Appellant not being the individual liable
    6) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver
    7) Breach of DVLA’s KADOE contract with INDIGO
    8) Location of the vehicle


    1) INDIGO not using POFA 2012

    INDIGO’s rejection of my initial appeal, it appears that INDIGO are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under railway byelaws. This is shown below in response to my appeal against their PCN. I reject this and put to them strictly to prove on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay INDIGO.

    I also refer to Freedom of Information Act Request – F0013227 whereby the Department for the Secretary of State for Transport has categorically stated that no confirmation or change in laws since the Railways Act 1993 came into force, which empower any person or body other than the courts to impose a penalty for breach of Byelaws 14(1), (2) or (3) made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 (as amended) and made operational on 7 July 2005.

    Therefore, any breach of byelaws is a criminal offence, not a breach of any contract INDIGO may say the driver entered in to. If the driver is found to have breached byelaws 14 (1-3), the resulting penalty is paid to the government, not to INDIGO or the railway. Further, byelaw offences are decided by the court, not by INDIGO – the parking company or railway can only allege the breach.


    2) Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’

    Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that:

    “(1) This schedule applies where –
    (a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.

    Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable, as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask INDIGO for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under POFA does not apply, and therefore INDIGO are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details – see point 1 above as well.

    POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016 that land under statutory control cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of POFA 2012. ‘As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the keeper. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.’


    3) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive,

    This contravenes the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied without the vehicle even entering the car park. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

    Please see the attached photograph - that INDIGO supplied themselves as evidence in this case - showing the small signage. The car had not even passed this sign considering it was parked outside of the car park.


    (4) No keeper liability

    Having re-checked the date on the Notice to registered keeper issued by INDIGO, the driver is not known in this case. POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9, requires that, in order to make use of the provision to pursue the registered keeper, INDIGO must send a Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the alleged contravention. The alleged contravention happened outside Cowden Railway station Car Park on 8th May 2017. The Notice to registered keeper arrived on 16th June.
    The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Registered keeper that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

    The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

    Paragraph 14(2) and (3) of POFA 2012:

    (2) The conditions are that —
    (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the registered keeper a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to registered keeper”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
    (b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to registered keeper was given has elapsed; and
    (c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
    (3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a) “the relevant period” is the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the documents required by paragraph 13(2) are given to the creditor.[/I]

    - INDIGO was required to send this information to me (as Registered Keeper) within 21 days after receiving them from the lease/hire company .
    - I was informed of the PCN 38 days later.
    - As this has not happened, you cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability. There is more than one driver of the vehicle which you placed a PCN on.

    In Summary...
    - I wish to confirm to you I was NOT the driver of the vehicle.
    - I am not obliged to disclose the identity of the driver and this does not affect my liability in this matter.
    - As INDIGO has not complied with paragraphs 13 (2) and 14 (2) of POFA 2012, you cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold me liable as keeper.
    - You will need to pursue this claim with the driver once you identify them.
    Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper (or registered keeper) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

    popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

    I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

    “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.......
    .......... However keeper information is obtained, 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”.

    Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Registered keeper, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s registered keeper. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator’s claim against me is invalid.



    (5) Appellant not being the individual liable

    INDIGO has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103). 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. Any person(s), with the consent of the registered keeper, may drive a vehicle as long as the driver is insured.

    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 the registered keeper/lessee of the vehicle in question), 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.

    Not being the owner of the vehicle, under the Railway byelaws the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot assumed to be the owner anymore than they can assumed to be the driver.

    As the registered keeper/lessee of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if INDIGO is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only 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 INDIGO, 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.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 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."

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against 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."

    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point above.



    6) Non-compliant signage, forming no contract with driver

    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from the main road where the car was parked and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. Entrance signs which are mandatory under the code are not visible from where the car was parked and do not follow paragraph 18.2 of the code from where the car was parked on the main road.

    There was neither contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park, and furthermore a Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home “so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it” and agreed terms. I contend that this is not the case, and question the fact that the driver saw any sign specifying the amount of the ‘fine’ that would be due, and so there was no consideration or acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:


    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case (Cowden picture used from INDIGO evidence provided):



    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge, which is hidden in small print. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put INDIGO to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:


    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:


    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports My argument, not the operator's case:

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put INDIGO to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective from the main road having not even entered the car park. Equally, I require INDIGO to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat having parked a car before even reaching the car park, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking (and not even entering the car park) and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
    • newbil
    • By newbil 17th Jun 17, 12:23 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    newbil
    PART 2


    7) Breach of DVLA’s KADOE contract

    The DVLAs KADOE contract is the enabling mechanism for the DVLA to release data to INDIGO. It states that they can only use the data released to seek recovery from the driver, or the keeper if the procedure in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act is used. Since PoFA cannot be used under byelaws, for contract-based parking tickets, only the driver could be held liable. In such a situation the parking company might still write to the keeper to ask them to nominate the driver, but they cannot infer they have any liability.

    This illegal obtainment of the keepers’ details and implication of liability is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act and as such I shall be notifying both the DVLA and ICO accordingly. I shall also be seeking damages from INDIGO for £750.00

    8) Lack of standing / authority from landowner!

    Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Section 7.1 states:

    “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

    Section 7.3 states: “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.''

    I do not believe that INDIGO’s mere site agreement as a contractor issuing PCNs and letters 'on behalf of' a TOC gives the parking firm any rights to sue in their own name. This is insufficient to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and not enough to hold me liable in law to pay INDIGO (not that a keeper can be liable anyway on non-relevant land and INDIGO cannot enforce byelaws themselves, only the Train Operating Company (TOC) or site landowners can, by requiring the driver ONLY, to answer to a real fine at a Magistrates Court). INDIGO have no title in this land and therefore have no standing to enforce 'parking charges' or penalties of any description in any court. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that INDIGO are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require INDIGO to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for INDIGO merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority. I put INDIGO to strict proof of compliance with all of the above requirements.

    (8) Location of the vehicle

    Finally, I would like to bring the attention of the location of the vehicle. Having studied the Land Registry documents it is clear as to exactly where the car park starts and the public road begins. INDIGO have painted yellow lines, arguably and illegally, onto the public road and off of the railway land. The car is parked on public land and therefore the yellow lines have no specific ruling on the vehicle in question. I would ask INDIGO to prove that their yellow lines are within the boundary of the car park and do not extend onto the public road. This proof will need to be shown with fully scaled drawings and measurements of the location itself.




    Having stated all of the above points, I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jun 17, 8:26 PM
    • 49,019 Posts
    • 62,488 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You aren't at POPLA stage are you? Your OP and my reply suggests you are merely at first appeal. And it's not APCOA:

    APCOA Parking PCN no .......................
    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.

    • newbil
    • By newbil 17th Jun 17, 8:37 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    newbil
    Ah the Apcoa bit right at the start was the only thing I forgot to change from another template. Everything else I changed to Indigo and specific to my case and deleted some bits that didn't work with my case / added some bits to it.
    Not at Popla yet but I've got that above ready for when Popla arrives. Does it look okay in your professional eye? Spent an hour or so on it last night!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jun 17, 10:10 PM
    • 49,019 Posts
    • 62,488 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Not at Popla yet but I've got that above ready for when Popla arrives.
    OK, that's good, as long as you have done the first appeal, it's time to prepare a POPLA appeal. Yes it looks fine - good work!
    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.

    • newbil
    • By newbil 17th Jun 17, 10:21 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    newbil
    Yeah first appeal done last night so should receive Popla code soon. And the above is ready in a PDF with relevant photos etc for popla. Thanks everyone for their help!
    • newbil
    • By newbil 18th Jul 17, 2:01 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    newbil
    Quick question, still haven't received a POPLA code from Indigo and it's now been a month since I sent the original correspondence. Nothing in the post either. Is this normal? Thanks
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

4,518Posts Today

6,263Users online

Martin's Twitter