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
    • squidster69
    • By squidster69 22nd Jul 17, 12:32 PM
    • 27Posts
    • 12Thanks
    squidster69
    Indigo 14 day appeal refused - Ticket not displayed
    • #1
    • 22nd Jul 17, 12:32 PM
    Indigo 14 day appeal refused - Ticket not displayed 22nd Jul 17 at 12:32 PM
    Hi,

    I've read through post sand stickeis and believe I have found the correct POPLA dispute template, which I'll include below. I would appreciate if you could review and advise me if there's anything else that I can add or have missed?

    In addition to all the standard sections of the template, I'm appealing on the basis that I had purchased a ticket from a machine that I was required to enter my vehicle registration number, neither the machine, ticket or nearby signage mentioned that the ticket had to be displayed, so I assumed it was not necessary to do so, otherwise why else would the registration need to be entered? ...I usually pay by phone and no ticket is displayed when that method is used.

    My 14 day appel to Indigo:-

    Reason for Appeal: I have a valid permit †
    Any Other Details:
    I usually pay by phone but thought I'd save the 30 pence charge so opted for the machine instead. I assumed that as I had to enter my registration that there was no need to place the ticket in my car. The ticket itself make no mention of having to do this either. As I've obviously paid and not attempted to park without payment I assume there will be no issue with this appeal being approved. May I also suggest you change the ticket so it actually states the requirement for it to be displayed.
    Do you have any evidence?: Yes - (ticket scans supplied)

    Were you the driver?: Yes


    I wasn't aware of the not admitting I was the driver bit so that point is too late to do anything about, so here's my POPLA appeal so far:-



    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Parking Charge Notice:

    I am appealing a parking charge notice (PCN) from Indigo Parking Solutions at Lewes Station Car Park. This appeal is placed on the following grounds:

    1. No person or body other than the Courts can impose a penalty for breach of Byelaws 14(1), 14(2) or 14(3) of the Railway Byelaws 2005.
    2. No breach of Byelaw
    3. Failure to establish owner
    4. The location in question is not relevant land
    5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
    6. Signage
    7. Valid payment was made

    1. No person or body other than the Courts can impose a penalty for breach of Byelaws 14(1), 14(2) or 14(3) of the Railway Byelaws 2005.

    As persuasive evidence, see the Freedom of Information Request here:

    (link removed to be able to post)

    Any definition of “authorised person” (if Indigo argue they are such) is not relevant in this context. There is nothing in the Railway Byelaws 2005 which states that such a person or private firm has any power to impose a ‘penalty’.

    Only a Magistrates’ court can, upon laying of the case by the landowner, who are the Train Operating Company (TOC).

    Certainly a private firm cannot dress up a ‘charge’ and call it a ‘penalty’ just because they happen to be agents of a TOC at a Railway car park and they feel that calling their charge a penalty gives them a more imposing and intimidating status than issuing ‘parking charges’.

    I put Indigo to strict proof to show the basis of their ‘penalty’ and state the type of court within which they believe they would be able to enforce this ‘PN’ in their name, as required by the BPA CoP. If it is the Magistrates Court I put them to strict proof that they have the power and authority to do this and that they have done so, showing case files, claim numbers, and evidence from the TOC as well as a rebuttal of the publicly-available FOI information, if Indigo submit it is incorrect. Indigo will also have to prove with documentary evidence that the money from these alleged 'penalties' goes to the TOC (as a fine or penalty must) and not to Indigo (as a contractual charge dressed up to impersonate a penalty would).

    2. No Breach of Byelaw

    The Penalty Notice mentions 'This cark park is regulated by the terms and conditions of parking displayed at the car park in accordance with Rail Byelaw 14' (See Document - PCN Scan)

    There is no Railway byelaw known as: 'Breach Code 01 - Parked without displaying a valid payment’. If Indigo attempt to hold me liable under byelaws, despite the fact it's not relevant land (no POFA keeper liability possible) then breach of byelaws, too, is denied. Railway Byelaw 14 (3) says specifically:

    ''No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place''.

    As far as 'appropriate charge at the appropriate time is concerned', I submit that a parking ticket valid on the date mentioned in the penalty notice had been purchased and photographic evidence of the steps taken to make payment was provided to Indigo when I first appealed. This bylaw is about NOT PAYING and it is not disputed that the driver had paid and had no further fee to pay – hence no contravention of the byelaw has taken place.

    3. Failure to establish owner
    Sites designated as Railways by the Secretary of State are subject to statutory control in the form of byelaws. POFA 2012 does not apply because land subject to statutory control is not 'relevant land' - this was found as fact by Senior Assessor Chris Adamson in POPLA ref 6060164050.

    My understanding is that the owner of the vehicle is liable for any penalty, if it applies, and the owner has not been identified. As such, I am able to appeal as keeper (going by the POFA 2012 definition) but cannot be held liable under any byelaw because the Train Operator would have recourse only to pursue the owner via the Magistrates Court and that has not occurred. This is a third party agent pursuing the day to day keeper.


    4. The location in question is not relevant land (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150).

    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 British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) states in section 7.1 “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.”

    The Operator has not provided an unredacted copy of such authorization. In the event that proof of such authorization can be provided I challenge its validity should the date of commencement, termination date and validity of the signatories’ identity of the contract be unclear. The Operator has failed to comply with any such authorization by breaching BPA code of practice as identified under item’s 2, 5, 6 and 7. Furthermore the operator has omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.

    5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
    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. I do not believe that Indigo has landowner authority and, as such; the operator has not met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice.

    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

    Indigo are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. 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 the Operator 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 any landholder). 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 otherwise there is no authority.

    As Indigo do not have proprietary interest in the land, I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such authority.

    Indigo has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

    As a third party payment system is operational at this location, any landowner contract and supplementary site specific user manual, must also provide evidence that this company has a contract with the landowner permitting the following:
    a) payments by this system
    b) Indigo have a contractual agreement with the pay by phone company granting this consent for use at this location.
    c) No DPA rights have been contravened as a consequence of using such a system
    d) Full planning consent is in force for the signage at the location.

    6. Signage

    The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and was not seen before parking - so there was no valid contract formed between Indigo and the driver. There was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and the driver which could have created any contract for the driver to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid.

    Indigo state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park. I made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the sign. The sign at the entrance of carpark is difficult to notice as it is placed to the right of the entrance and covered with overgrown shrubbery (see photo 1 – car park sign). The size, positioning, size of font and colours used make it impossible to read without stopping and getting out of the car. Even then, the sign is not easily accessible. The car park is busy and having to dodge exiting cars to actually read the sign breaches the BPA code of practice.

    Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about Indigo’s terms and conditions' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.


    The third party telephone payment system (Connect Cashless Parking) does not communicate any terms and conditions. Therefore, if you pay for your parking by phone, there is nothing to clearly advise how any terms and conditions may be breached.

    To be clear, there is nothing to communicate full contractual terms & conditions.

    I would also like to formally request to see all evidence presented by Indigo regarding this appeal and the opportunity to refute any evidence submitted by Indigo regarding this appeal.

    To quote Henry Greenslade; a highly respected, longstanding lead adjudicator of parking ticket appeals across the board (Council statutory tribunals as well as private parking issues via POPLA), with a reputation for fairness and high integrity.

    From the Final Report:

    ''At POPLA, Assessors consider the evidence produced by each party, all of which evidence the other party has the opportunity to see and comment upon.''

    and from page 15 of the POPLA Annual Report 2015:

    “…it is certainly a basic principle of a fair appeals service that each party is given the opportunity to see the other party’s case and to comment upon it. This is the position at POPLA. Appellants should obviously receive the operator’s evidence in its entirety.''

    7. Valid payment was made
    As the keeper of the vehicle, I refute any argument by Indigo that payment was not made, received or validated.


    I usually pay by phone but on this occasion opted for the machine instead as my phone had no charge. I couldn’t use the blue ticket machines as these were not working and so had to use the Southern Rail ticket machine (copy of tickets issued are attached).

    I assumed that as I had to enter my registration, that there was no need to place the ticket in my car, in the same way that as with payment by phone, no ticket is required to be displayed.

    Additionally, neither the ticket machines, or the ticket mention having to display any part in the vehicle.

    That completes my case for appeal. I request that my appeal is upheld.

    Sincerely,
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Aug 17, 8:20 PM
    • 51,584 Posts
    • 65,205 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ah, that is odd! Sorry, I was convinced you had another PCN and could use this code for it!

    I think I would mention it when you get to the 'comments on the evidence' stage, to show POPLA that Indigo appear to have no evidence of the contravention alleged and can't even decide about it, and have issued two conflicting rejection letters.
    • squidster69
    • By squidster69 2nd Sep 17, 9:46 AM
    • 27 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    squidster69
    I've now received my first debt collection letter from zzps.

    Having read the stickies and linked posts there is obviously much debate on whether or not to reply to them. I'm not asking for a whole discussion of this on my thread, but all I would ask is whether they should even be attempting to pursue me as the matter is obviously still in appeal stage with POPLA? ..or does this only apply to PPC appeal stage? ..the stickies were a little unclear on this point.

    If the answer is no, they shouldn't, then I think a strong response advising them of this wouldn't hurt any.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 2nd Sep 17, 11:44 AM
    • 6,353 Posts
    • 8,166 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I've now received my first debt collection letter from zzps.

    Having read the stickies and linked posts there is obviously much debate on whether or not to reply to them. I'm not asking for a whole discussion of this on my thread, but all I would ask is whether they should even be attempting to pursue me as the matter is obviously still in appeal stage with POPLA? ..or does this only apply to PPC appeal stage? ..the stickies were a little unclear on this point.

    If the answer is no, they shouldn't, then I think a strong response advising them of this wouldn't hurt any.
    Originally posted by squidster69
    Until there is a POPLA decision everything is on hold.

    ZZPS are just timewasters which you ignore, no point in
    contacting the brain dead

    BUT ...... can can complain to the BPA and DVLA about this
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Redx
    • By Redx 2nd Sep 17, 12:02 PM
    • 16,579 Posts
    • 20,739 Thanks
    Redx
    I've now received my first debt collection letter from zzps.

    Having read the stickies and linked posts there is obviously much debate on whether or not to reply to them.

    If the answer is no, they shouldn't, then I think a strong response advising them of this wouldn't hurt any.
    Originally posted by squidster69
    there is no confusion on here or in the sticky threads about debt collectors and their letters

    its simple - IGNORE

    thats it , nothing more to do

    read post #4 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread

    and CM wrote this due to the sheer amount of time wasting posts about debt collectors like ZZPS , DRP etc

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5035663

    so as I said , IGNORE - DO NOT ENGAGE - DO NOTHING

    no they should not do it, but no matter who you complain to about it , NOTHING WILL BE DONE , but if you do contact anyone , its the BPA , the DVLA and your MP, not the DCA

    so dont waste any more of your time or our time on DCA issues

    its simple, IGNORE the DCA letters , IGNORE the debt collectors , dont think we can be any clearer than that
    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
    • squidster69
    • By squidster69 7th Sep 17, 11:28 AM
    • 27 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    squidster69
    Another win for the team!!
    Hi all,

    Received an email from Indigo, a bit confusing in content, but I guess that's not too surprising. Result is they have decided not to contest my POPLA appeal. I think my second appeal to them that I mentioned must have confused them and led them into the administrative error to which they attempt to refer:-
    Good Evening

    I am writing in relation to the above notice which has been appealed at POPLA.

    As part of the process I have reviewed the notice. When doing this I have noted there is prominent signage stating the car park is “pay and Display” and as such any ticket would need to be displayed as per the terms displayed at the entrance.

    Having concluded the penalty notice was issued correctly I have then reviewed the response to your appeal. Whilst doing this I have noted the letter incorrectly refers to a parking charge notice on one of the lines. Due to this I have concluded an administrative error occurred and the appeal was not responded to correctly.

    Based on this administrative error I have informed POPLA and all relevant departments of my decision that we do not wish to contest your appeal and will be closing the case.

    Kind Regards

    Anthony Hamblin
    Customer Support Advisor
    Which was then followed up with an email from POPLA:-

    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.
    An Appeal has been opened with the reference 3912027203.

    Indigo Solutions have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team
    So, a most warm thank you to all that helped me with this. You all do a grand job and I am most grateful.

    I wonder if they'll let the debt collectors know? ...I know I won't
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 3:41 PM
    • 51,584 Posts
    • 65,205 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Nice result!

    I love the fact Indigo think the error is in calling it a 'parking charge' on the letter! In fact the error is surely, calling it a penalty notice in the first place, which impersonates a level of authority a contractual breach charge from a non-landowner, non-authority entity like poxy Indigo, cannot have.

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

285Posts Today

1,467Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @TfLTravelAlerts: Oxford Circus and Bond Street stations now both reopened and all trains are stopping normally.

  • RT @metpoliceuk: We have not located any trace of suspects, evidence of shots fired or casualties. Officers still on scene. If you are in a?

  • My hopes and prayers are that this turns out to be nothing. Stay safe.

  • Follow Martin