Indigo rail car park penalty notice/online appeal

Coupon-mad

Yes if you lose but that is somewhat unlikely. And by stringing it out, once it gets to six months and because it was MISLEADINGLY described as a penalty under byelaws, as and when they send a threatogram you can get our input into complaining to Trading Standards. But you only need to cross that bridge if it comes to it if the POPLA appeal isn't won; it's no biggie either way.

Penalties can only be enforced if they are laid before Magistrates (not small claims court) within six months, under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Look at the limitation of time in the law applicable to penalties:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/127

No excuses. Indigo will be doomed even if they win this at POPLA, but we like to try to beat them first!

Spacesimian2016

A quick query after scanning POPLA decisions and with the end of my 14 days to make £60 payment being tomorrow - it looks like my main chance of getting a POPLA decision in my favour is over whether Indigo can prove they have the right to represent the land-owners. However, I did not query this in my initial Indigo appeal ie. I did not ask them to provide proof of this. By not doing so have I missed the opportunity to incorporate this point into a POPLA appeal? If so, do I get in touch with Indigo again to ask for them to prove it now/in the meantime? Thanks
Many thanks

clint_S

The appeal to Indigo and POPLA are different and you don't need to include the same points.


Have you read the Railway Byelaws and the BPA guidelines?


Section 18 on signs is interesting, most of the Indigo railway car parks I've come across don't meet the requirements.
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf


There is no Breach code 3 in the railway byelaws the closest is Section 14.2
No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway:
(i) in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or
(ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

Fruitcake

Spacesimian2016 wrote: »

A quick query after scanning POPLA decisions and with the end of my 14 days to make £60 payment being tomorrow - it looks like my main chance of getting a POPLA decision in my favour is over whether Indigo can prove they have the right to represent the land-owners. However, I did not query this in my initial Indigo appeal ie. I did not ask them to provide proof of this. By not doing so have I missed the opportunity to incorporate this point into a POPLA appeal? If so, do I get in touch with Indigo again to ask for them to prove it now/in the meantime? Thanks
Many thanks

What's this rubbish about the end of the 14 day period? You have 28 days to appeal. What you want is the 100% MSE discount.

The initial appeal only needs to consist of the BPA template in blue from the NEWBIES thread. It could even consist of a one liner denying that the event occurred. All you want is the PoPLA code.

As above, the PoPLA appeal points are where you give them everything in your arsenal.

Clint has given you some very useful advice about Byelaws. Only the landowner can make a claim against you where Byelaws are concerned, and they only have six months to do it. So, your plan is to run the clock down with Indigo. Appeal to them as late as possible. Appeal to PoPLA as late as possible. By the time you get a decision and by the way you should win a PoPLA appeal using Byelaws as your defence, and the six months will nearly be up.

Coupon-mad

Spacesimian2016 wrote: »

A quick query after scanning POPLA decisions and with the end of my 14 days to make £60 payment being tomorrow - it looks like my main chance of getting a POPLA decision in my favour is over whether Indigo can prove they have the right to represent the land-owners. However, I did not query this in my initial Indigo appeal ie. I did not ask them to provide proof of this. By not doing so have I missed the opportunity to incorporate this point into a POPLA appeal? If so, do I get in touch with Indigo again to ask for them to prove it now/in the meantime?

You appear to be off on several unimportant tangents:

- the 14 days is irrelevant because you aren't paying the daft 'discount' (BRIBE). You have a MONTH to appeal.

- POPLA appeals are ALWAYS (on here, anyway) completely different from the first appeal, but you would have seen that on every other similar Indigo thread after doing the suggested forum search.

- why scan 'POPLA Decisions' because it doesn't give you your appeal wording (rarely do people show their appeal as well as the decision - and often the appeals are a little out of date in the way of wording, by the time the decision arrives). I rarely suggest looking at 'POPLA Decisions'.

- Just a search of the forum is needed now, as already said. Find other Indigo Railway POPLA appeals already written, never mind trying to work out how other completely different ones were won (that doesn't help you write the appeal).

it looks like my main chance of getting a POPLA decision in my favour is over whether Indigo can prove they have the right to represent the land-owners.

Really? The most recent Indigo Railway 'fake byelaws penalty' one I recall at POPLA was won because Indigo could not evidence who the OWNER was, as opposed to the keeper or driver.

I can recall some real humdingers of POPLA appeals, just waiting for you to search & find them. Search terms already suggested.

Spacesimian2016

Thank you for all of your comments, very useful for the next steps. On the keeper/driver point - I declared myself the driver on my Indigo appeal, which was fired off in anger and before I had found this forum. Cheers

Coupon-mad

OK (that's a shame) so you will have to press the points on unclear signage, no landowner authority and the fact Indigo have failed to evidence who the OWNER is, the only party who can be held liable under a byelaws penalty, which is how the PCN was described. They can't change it now to a 'parking charge notice' under contract law all of a sudden - it CANNOT be both! Say that in your POPLA appeal but use a good one people have shown here before, as your draft.

A POPLA appeal to Indigo should be long and robust - and submitted as LATE as possible, day 30 after the rejection letter is recommended, because POPLA codes still work for a few days longer than the 28.

Spacesimian2016

As I put together my POPLA appeal with a few days left before the code expires - I have trawled numerous threads/post on this aspect but it is still not clear to me. In haste/error I declared myself as the driver in my Indigo appeal - how does this affect the NTK liability part of my appeal? Even if Indigo have not supplied one nor established keeper liability themselves - could it be argued that the reason they have not done so is down to their not needing to do so as I have already confirmed myself as the driver - albeit not the owner ? Thanks

Coupon-mad

In haste/error I declared myself as the driver in my Indigo appeal - how does this affect the NTK liability part of my appeal? Even if Indigo have not supplied one nor established keeper liability themselves - could it be argued that the reason they have not done so is down to their not needing to do so as I have already confirmed myself as the driver

It means you can't argue 'no keeper liability' at all, nothing about the POFA and yep, you got it, they do not have to (they cannot in fact) get the DVLA data of a keeper and issue a NTK, if they already know the driver's details. That door is closed.

Luckily, Indigo appeals to POPLA are currently mostly won on 'no owner liability' along the lines of the point 2(b) here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71008027#Comment_71008027

An 'Indigo' version of that should be your point #1. You will have to remove (a) completely and remove the bit that says 'they should have issued a ''penalty charge'' instead of a PCCN'. Because Indigo do issue penalty charges, unlike NCP. And remove 'or the driver' when saying Indigo have failed to evidence the identity of the owner.

Then the usual other points. Show us your draft with the above tweaked version, as your point #1.

Spacesimian2016

Thanks again, I have amended as per your comments, hopefully this works - bit unsure of the areas I have underlined:-

[FONT=&quot]1. 1.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]No Owner Liability[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Indigo’s position is seemingly based on railway byelaws, which can be found at:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[Their signage is entitled 'Railway byelaws: car park terms of use' but do I want to acknowledge that I have seen them at all?]

The Railway Byelaws state, under 14 (4), that:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] “In England and Wales (i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Accordingly, under the Byelaws the owner of a vehicle is liable to pay any outstanding penalty for contravention of the Byelaws. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

From the evidence provided to POPLA by the operator, I believe POPLA will be unable to determine that it has identified the appellant in this case, as the owner of the vehicle. It is a fact that the owner has not been identified. The POFA positively enshrines the right of a keeper not to name the driver nor be 'assumed' to be that individual and nor can it be reasonably assumed in the absence of any evidence, that a keeper or driver is necessarily the owner.

Therefore, in this case, the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing for the charge is in fact liable:

- POPLA cannot lawfully 'presume' that a keeper may be held as the owner, and
- Henry Greenslade has confirmed that POPLA cannot lawfully 'presume' that a keeper may be held as if they 'might' be the driver.
[I declared myself the driver so is this line not valid?]

As the burden of proof rests with the operator in both showing that the appellant has not complied with terms in place on the land, AND showing that the appellant is liable for the parking charge issued, POPLA will be unable to reach any lawful and factual conclusion regarding a keeper appellant like myself being liable, without the POFA having been followed


Thanks again[/FONT]