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
    • Shaker65
    • By Shaker65 30th Jul 17, 1:49 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Shaker65
    Complaining first ?
    • #1
    • 30th Jul 17, 1:49 PM
    Complaining first ? 30th Jul 17 at 1:49 PM
    Hi all,

    I know the Newbie thread says to complain first but in my situation is this really necessary ? The "Penalty" Notice was issued by Indigo at a Thameslink Station. I am loathe to provide Thameslink with any information that could potentially jeopardise my appeal to Indigo/Popla and I do not see any successful complaints in the list that details any complaints to Thameslink being successful, so I was intending to appeal directly to Indigo instead.

    Any thoughts please ?

    Thanks in advance
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Jul 17, 2:11 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 30th Jul 17, 2:11 PM
    • #2
    • 30th Jul 17, 2:11 PM
    I helped a friend complain about an Indigo one, and the local Govia Thameslink Manager wrote a letter telling them the PCN verged on 'pedantry' (out of bay when there were no marked bays, during building work!) and asked them to cancel it. They did.

    But I see your point and you can just crack onm with the appeal, unticking 'driver' and putting 'N/A' or 'you are not entitled to demand the driver's name' in the driver's details section.

    Make sure you read the Lewes station thread at POPLA stage and add the extra, new point for appeal, that the use of the word ' penalty' is misleading about the status of a private parking charge (since it's not really issued under byelaws an is ambiguous at best) and that word impersonates authority and is banned in the BPA CoP. So the PCN was not properly given.

    It's written out better on the Lewes station thread, easy to search for that word.
    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.

    • Shaker65
    • By Shaker65 30th Jul 17, 2:24 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Shaker65
    • #3
    • 30th Jul 17, 2:24 PM
    • #3
    • 30th Jul 17, 2:24 PM
    Thank you, I will do.
    • Shaker65
    • By Shaker65 30th Jul 17, 7:50 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Shaker65
    • #4
    • 30th Jul 17, 7:50 PM
    • #4
    • 30th Jul 17, 7:50 PM
    Right, have done a bit of drafting and have another question please. Do I bother mentioning another factor in the initial appeal or simply include it at the POPLA stage ? From other threads there is apparently an option online to select this as a reason but I was intending to put "other" and not even mention it as it sounds like they never uphold initial appeals anyway ?
    Last edited by Shaker65; 31-07-2017 at 8:31 AM. Reason: Removing specific references
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 30th Jul 17, 11:20 PM
    • 14,479 Posts
    • 22,763 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 30th Jul 17, 11:20 PM
    • #5
    • 30th Jul 17, 11:20 PM
    General forum advice is to keep all your powder dry for POPLA. Showing your hand this early might just give them a chance to find some weasel way around this.

    No matter what an initial appeal includes, 95% of the time (maybe higher), it makes no difference, so don't waste your time or give them an early view of your Ace cards. Less can be more!
    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.
    • Shaker65
    • By Shaker65 7th Sep 17, 1:49 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Shaker65
    • #6
    • 7th Sep 17, 1:49 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Sep 17, 1:49 PM
    I now have my POPLA Code. Before I submit my draft appeal on here for your sage advice, I have a quick question please. The Newbie thread says that having no follow on NtK after a windscreen ticket is a winning point at POPLA. I haven't received anything yet so presumably I wait until day 56 has passed before submitting the POPLA appeal ?
    • waamo
    • By waamo 7th Sep 17, 1:51 PM
    • 2,011 Posts
    • 2,429 Thanks
    waamo
    • #7
    • 7th Sep 17, 1:51 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Sep 17, 1:51 PM
    Don't miss the POPLA deadline. If the 56 days is within the POPLA deadline it certainly won't hurt.
    This space for hire.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 1:54 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 7th Sep 17, 1:54 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Sep 17, 1:54 PM
    I now have my POPLA Code. Before I submit my draft appeal on here for your sage advice, I have a quick question please. The Newbie thread says that having no follow on NtK after a windscreen ticket is a winning point at POPLA. I haven't received anything yet so presumably I wait until day 56 has passed before submitting the POPLA appeal ?
    Originally posted by Shaker65
    Yes, you should be OK if you also delayed the appeal as best advised, to day 26 at the start - that's the reason, delay both appeals by 3 weeks or so, and if you add in the time it took for the PPC to reply back to you with the rejection letter, most people can get past the 56 day line.

    Prepare your POPLA appeal and work out your 28 day use date for the POPLA code, hopefully you are comfortably past the post some time this month?

    It's a slam dunk winning appeal point. No NTK by day 56 and they are stuffed against a keeper!

    As it is Indigo, add in the point written in the Lewes station Indigo thread (search for it, using keywords Lewes Indigo) - that new point argues that, by calling it a penalty notice they've impersonated a level of authority that a civil contractual 'parking charge' cannot also have...

    To be used in all Indigo station cases where the original PCN is headed with the word 'penalty' instead of 'parking'.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-09-2017 at 1:58 PM.
    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.

    • Shaker65
    • By Shaker65 18th Sep 17, 7:07 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Shaker65
    • #9
    • 18th Sep 17, 7:07 PM
    • #9
    • 18th Sep 17, 7:07 PM
    Hi, it's now day 56 and no NTK received. I've drafted the following for POPLA and would be very grateful if one of you lovely people could take a look and advise whether it is good to go please. I'm sending in 2 parts as it is very long. Many thanks in advance :

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    This appeal is placed on the following grounds:

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    3. The location in question is not relevant land
    4. No Authority
    5. The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Indigo and the driver
    6. No working payment machines in the vicinity on three different floors of the car park
    7. 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.

    1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

    This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

    The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

    ''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
    4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

    (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

    *Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
    6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

    The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.


    2. 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.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made 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 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.

    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.''

    In addition, 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.


    3. 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 it’s 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.


    4. No 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.
    • Shaker65
    • By Shaker65 18th Sep 17, 7:10 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Shaker65
    Second part :

    5. The signage was not readable so there was no valid contract formed between Indigo and the driver

    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 only sign is on entrance to the car park. It is difficult to notice as it is placed to the right of the entrance (see photo 1). 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 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 sign also breaches another point in Appendix B, requiring the the sign to identify who the car park is ‘managed by’. This is not optional information, but is clearly marked as ‘required’.

    The BPA code of practice also states (18.3) You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. The badly positioned entrance sign is the only access point for this information. As stated by Indigo, the terms and conditions are only displayed at the entrance to the car park.

    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no 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.

    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:

    Link

    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:

    Link will be here

    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 (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). 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 the operator 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.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    Another link

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

    Link

    ''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:

    Link

    ''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:

    Link

    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 this operator 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. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, 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 mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    6. No working payment machines in the vicinity on three different floors of the car park


    The vehicle was parked on the 3rd floor at St Albans station and the pay machine was out of order and covered in plastic sheeting. The machine on the 4th floor up the ramp was the same, as was the machine on the ground floor by the exit to the station itself. I enclose a photograph taken at the time of the ticket machine on the 3rd floor which is where the vehicle was parked.

    7. 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

    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’.

    The PCN was described as, and purported to be a 'Penalty Notice' and this impersonates a level of authority a private parking charge does not have, meaning that this 'PCN' was not properly described in terms of status and authority, and thus not properly given. Not only is use of the misleading word 'penalty' a serious breach of the BPA Code of Practice but it is also a misleading business practice. It is trite law that any ambiguity in wording must be interpreted in the way that most favours a consumer; the 'most favourable' legal interpretation of course meaning that the PCN must be cancelled. The status of a 'penalty' charge notice is certainly ambiguous and misleading, especially when issued on byelaws land, and cannot be upheld by POPLA as if it was a private parking charge with a completely different legal status.

    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.''

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

    Sincerely,
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Sep 17, 9:58 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would remove this as it means nothing, everyone gets to see the evidence anyway:

    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.''
    Better if your appeal ends with your words just above that:

    ...cannot be upheld by POPLA as if it was a private parking charge with a completely different legal status.
    Apart from that, it looks fine.
    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.

    • Shaker65
    • By Shaker65 18th Sep 17, 10:01 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Shaker65
    That's great, will do and thank you again.
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

4,586Posts Today

9,253Users online

Martin's Twitter