Clarification for failure to display

suzigun

Hi All
I've read the NEWBIEs thread but come to it a little late. I received a 'failure to display' PCN for a railway station car park. I have missed your standard initial appeal suggestion having already submitted a copy of the valid ticket for the car park and this has been rejected by Indigo. Their reply is accompanied by photos demonstrating that the ticket isn't visible in the windscreen. The signs are new and not at fault so I can't see an argument there.

What is annoying is that I had paid to park but can't see a way to dispute the non-display.

Any basis for an appeal here or do I just pay?

Thanks

Fruitcake

Nobody here will suggest that you should pay.


Did you appeal as driver (I hope not) or as keeper? Railway land is covered by byelaws and the keeper is not liable, so only the driver can be pursued.

In any case, Indigo are BPA members so you should have been given a PoPLA number with the rejection. Check that it is valid on the Parking Cowboys website then research PoPLA appeals here using post 3 of the NEWBIES thread and the most recent successful results in the POPLA decisions thread.


I bet the new signs do not meet the BPA CoP requirements. Parking scumpanies lie and don't follow their own trade association guidelines, so don't go round thinking what they do or say is correct.

suzigun

Thanks for the quick reply. In my initial reply I did say that 'I had received' the ticket on 'my car' so not sure what can be implied from that. In the past (under Meteor) this would have led to a reply cancelling the PCN.

I do have a POPLA number which checks out OK.

I did look through the threads showing successful appeals but can see lots of examples of success against what appears to be unreasonable fines as opposed to ones where the reason for the PCN is legitimate (in this case not displaying the ticket). Will have another look.

System

Did you get a POPLA code? If so use it.

The key issue boils down to the purpose of the scheme. The amount is penal - Beavis case says so - but it is an acceptable amount if there is a legitimate purpose (commercial justification)

Your argument will be that it is a nonsensical scheme which penalises parkers for a minor indiscretion while levying the same amount on those who park and do not pay.

As such, the amount claimed for such a small indiscretion is extravagant and unconscionable.

suzigun

Good point. I don't want to give in and pay because I had already paid to park but I don't want to go through the hassle of appealing (& the cost going up) if I can't win.

System

What is annoying is that I had paid to park

Your argument will be that it is a nonsensical scheme which penalises parkers for a minor indiscretion while levying the same amount on those who park and do not pay.

Why was it not there in the first place?

The whole Beavis issue hinges on the comparison with statutory penalties and that scheme. The "fluttering ticket" is a common problem and they tend to find for the driver on the reasonable assumption they had displayed and the ticket fluttered off. So if you want to roll over and pay without fighting for your own rights, no one can stop you.

However not wanting to fight the ticket suggests there is more to your statement that is not being revealed.

suzigun

Goodness - nothing more to it. It wasn't there because they don't provide 'sticky' tickets so it isn't attached anywhere - when there was a tax disc holder I used to fix it to that. 'Fluttering' is a good description.

I don't really want to pay £60 but I'd prefer that to the £100 it will go up to.

pappa_golf

if the land comes under railway bylaws they have no authority to chase the owner.


under railway bylaws there is no such offence as failing to display a ticket.


does the land come under railway bylaws?

suzigun

Thanks for the tip. I guess that's down to the signage (well, that's how I would know) and I can't read the print in the photo from Indigo. Will have to look properly on next trip to the station.

pappa_golf

do not look at indigos signs , they will not mention bylaws , return to the carpark and check for network rail (maybe) signage

Fruitcake

suzigun wrote: »

Thanks for the tip. I guess that's down to the signage (well, that's how I would know) and I can't read the print in the photo from Indigo. Will have to look properly on next trip to the station.

Inadequate signage will be one of your appeal points. It is imperative therefore that you take pictures of the actual signs rather than rely on the parking scumpany providing them for you. If possible, take a ruler and lay it on the small print of the sign when you take pics.
One poster got their PCN cancelled by showing that the font size was too small and didn't meet the requirements of the BPA CoP.


Also add that the ticket you purchased was not fit for purpose because it didn't stick and therefore caused a "frustration of contract," thereby meaning that no contract was formed between the driver and Indigo.