Parking ticket from Indigo - despite having annual parking ticket

aaj123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Email POPLA and copy in Indigo. Tell them you have NOT received the evidence (which comes directly from Indigo, BTW, not via the Portal).

Ask POPLA for a stay of the decision until you have been served with the evidence pack that matches that sent to POPLA and have then been allowed seven days to comment.

Anyone know good email addresses for POPLA and Indigo for above purpose? The websites do not really encourage use of any email address. Rather they just point to the appeal process using the web forms.

Coupon-mad

Oh come on! You HAVE an email for POPLA - you just reply to it of course! And you HAVE the Indigo PCN which also gives an email.

aaj123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Oh come on! You HAVE an email for POPLA - you just reply to it of course! And you HAVE the Indigo PCN which also gives an email.

Right, I have emailed info (at) popla (dot) co (dot) uk, complaints (at) popla (dot) co (dot) uk and copied in customerservices (at) ipaymypcn (dot) net and contactus (dot) uk (at) parkindigo (dot) com.

Now that this is done, would you suggest I submit a comment back on the POPLA appeal tracking page saying I have not received any evidence and have requested a stay via email? I say this because that form may be locked by day after tomorrow (which was the deadline for me to submit back comments).

Coupon-mad

No, I know what you mean but DO NOT use the comments box on the Portal which is automated and will make the case 'go forward' for assessment, in my view! They would treat whatever you put there as your comments. Leave it.

When you eventually get the evidence pack you can email your comments (been there, done that, I promise it is OK under these circs).

aaj123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

When you eventually get the evidence pack you can email your comments (been there, done that, I promise it is OK under these circs).

I received an email from POPLA today and the evidence pack was attached. They have given me time until 4th July to provide my comments.

As for the pack itself, it has got nothing that I wasn't already aware of. The first part contains a copy of the PCN, the second is a copy of the rejection letter of my original appeal to Indigo (this also shows a copy of my appeal itself which included my parking season ticket as attachment). The third section is a bunch of photographs of my car and a photograph of the car park notice of terms and conditions. The last part is a plan/map of parking site. Interestingly, this plan/map is only of one section of the station car park and this was not the section where my car was actually parked on the day I got issued with the PCN.

All in all, the evidence pack in no way attempts to counter any of the grounds listed in my POPLA appeal.

Shall I just express the above view in the comments I send back to POPLA?

Umkomaas

You need to do the best dismantling as possible of any points which are wrong or with which you disagree, otherwise it is likely that POPLA will assume you agree with them.

Coupon-mad

Are you sure the email came from POPLA? Normally Indigo send it, with a POPLA cover sheet of course but it's still not 'from POPLA'. But I can see you say they've extended your time as well so was that all in the same email from POPLA?

Was there NO LANDOWNER AUTHORITY or witness statement at all? Nice one. Point that omission out, just bullet points not a re-hashed appeal.

Was there a link to the byelaws?

Surely there must be some blurb trying to explain the rationale of the charge, saying whether they are holding you liable under the byelaws - if so, that's odd - only the OWNER can be liable under railways byelaws IIRC and the owner of the car is not necessarily the same party as the 'registered keeper' and the owner has never been established.

aaj123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Are you sure the email came from POPLA? Normally Indigo send it, with a POPLA cover sheet of course but it's still not 'from POPLA'. But I can see you say they've extended your time as well so was that all in the same email from POPLA?

Was there NO LANDOWNER AUTHORITY or witness statement at all? Nice one. Point that omission out, just bullet points not a re-hashed appeal.

Was there a link to the byelaws?

Surely there must be some blurb trying to explain the rationale of the charge, saying whether they are holding you liable under the byelaws - if so, that's odd - only the OWNER can be liable under railways byelaws IIRC and the owner of the car is not necessarily the same party as the 'registered keeper' and the owner has never been established.

The email definitely came from POPLA and it was in reply to my email to them which asked for a stay until the operator case file was provided to me to comment on.

The file is very short on specific details (no landowner authority or witness statement) and I plan to send back the following comments:

I have gone through the case file provided to me by POPLA on 28th June and I have the following comments:

1. The case file continues to state that my breach was 'Failing to display a ticket or voucher'. It fails to counter my stand that this is not a valid breach under Rail Bye law 14 which regulates the terms and conditions of the car park. This is especially so since the case file confirms that I had provided evidence of my annual parking ticket as part of appeal to Indigo (which they chose to ignore when rejecting the appeal). Hence, my stand remains that I did not breach Rail Bye Law 14 which only asks that the appropriate charge be paid (and this was clearly done).
The pictures of my car in the evidence pack, in no way serve to counter my above argument as the only show failure to display a voucher - which I have argued is not an offence under Rail Byelaw 14.

2. The pack fails to provide evidence of 'Landowner authority' which was the second ground of my appeal to POPLA.

3. The plan/ map of the parking site on page 12 of the evidence pack is actually not even an accurate map of the site where my car was parked. South Croydon station has two car park sections and on the date of the incident, my car was NOT parked in the section depicted on the map in the evidence pack. Hence the indicators on the map showing the signage locations are irrelevant to the fourth ground (Signage not readable) in my appeal.

I therefore regard this evidence pack as insufficient for me to consider withdrawing my appeal.


Do these comments appear reasonable?

Coupon-mad

Yes, nice and short and concise. Submit them, no need to add anything more IMHO. You will win on 'no landowner authority' then...

aaj123

My POPLA appeal has been successful! Thanks to all who helped, especially Coupon-Mad.


Here is the assessment rationale:


The appellant states that the operator that there was no breach of byelaws, that the operator had no authority to issue charges and that the charge is an unenforceable penalty. The appellant states that the signage at the site was not readable so no valid contract was formed. By issuing the appellant with a charge, the operator has implied that the appellant has either not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question or breached a byelaw. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with or which byelaw they have broken. In this case, the operator has not provided clear legible evidence of the signage at the site, as such the terms are unclear and it is not possible to assess an appeal without the guidance of the terms. The charge given to the appellant is not clear as the operator has referred to both a Parking Charge Notice and a Penalty Charge Notice. This is contradictory and again I am unable to assess the reason for issue and if it has been issued correctly. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle at the site; however it has failed to show where the signage is in respect of where the appellant’s vehicle was parked. As such I am unable to determine that the appellant would have seen the signage sufficiently to form a contract with the operator. Further it is not clear from the evidence pack whether they are pursuing the owner or the driver or verified if a liability trail is needed. The burden of proof lies with the operator to ensure that it has supplied sufficient, concise and clear evidence that a contravention has occurred. On this occasion I am not satisfied that the operator has demonstrated this sufficiently. Accordingly this appeal should be allowed.