Indigo Railway Penalty Notice

u2_storm

Hello again - I've added photos below:

cash machine with wrong details on! hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/295a91t.jpg
photo of the sign when visiting again hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/15qw9du.jpg
Close up of sign when entering the car park hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/2dwf0ub.jpg
Sign at entrance hxxp://i63.tinypic.com/33y2uqt.jpg
Sign I took on the day so I could pay hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/10rmzk3.jpg

Umkomaas

cash machine with wrong details on!
http://i63.tinypic.com/295a91t.jpg

photo of the sign when visiting again
http://i63.tinypic.com/15qw9du.jpg

Close up of sign when entering the car park
http://i63.tinypic.com/2dwf0ub.jpg

Sign at entrance
http://i63.tinypic.com/33y2uqt.jpg

Sign I took on the day so I could pay
http://i64.tinypic.com/10rmzk3.jpg

u2_storm

Thank you for sorting those links out!

Would anyone be kind enough to look at my appeal and comment?
Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except I would remove this as it is out of date (UTCCRs no longer exist and were kicked into touch anyway, in the Beavis case). Astonishingly, the Supreme Court thought in their infinite wisdom that a parking firm doesn't have to show 'loss' and never mind the UTCCRs, the consumer loses because the out of touch Judiciary decided that the despicable, greedy industry of private parking needs supporting.

4. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms.
The charge being claimed by Indigo is a punitive sum. The following refers: Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999': ''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''

Test of fairness:
''A term is unfair if...contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.
5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.
9.2 ...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.''
The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

It is wholly unreasonable to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a driver who has proved they paid the tariff in good faith. Indigo require strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to a persons detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

u2_storm

Thanks!
I've submitted my appeal. Lets see how long it takes for them to reply....

pappa_golf

u2_storm wrote: »

Thanks!
I've submitted my appeal. Lets see how long it takes for them to reply....

as per the statement on POPLa , they can only adjudicate to say if you have broken a bylaw or not

so its a win win for you , if you have broke a bylaw , the PPC cannot chase you , if you hav,nt then you have won

BPA notes :

6th dec:
The British Parking Association (BPA) is in talks with the Department of Communities and Local Government and DVLA regarding PCN’s issued on railway land

no outcome of those talks (going on since 2012) have been released , POPLa have taken it on theor own heads to adjudicate

the question put to POPLa a long time ago , is "has POPLa any grounds to adjudicate on non relivent land"

POPLA statment 5 January 2017,

"we did not have the remit to consider if a Byelaw had been breached." this was not the question , and is a answer to a non asked question

u2_storm

I got my first letter asking for £124 now.. they asked DVLA for my details and send me an invoice even though I appealed to POPLA... uh!

twhitehousescat

formal complaint to the BPA , they are supposed to put the case on hold whilst POPLa is taking place

Umkomaas

u2_storm wrote: »

I got my first letter asking for £124 now.. they asked DVLA for my details and send me an invoice even though I appealed to POPLA... uh!

If your appeal is still with POPLA, then it's a strong complaint in to the BPA (cc to DVLA) that enforcement action has not been suspended while the appeal process is still underway, as per the BPA CoP. Ask them what sanctions they will be applying to Indigo as a consequence of them breaching the 'effectively binding' (use those words) Code of Practice.

Adexis

Hi u2_storm, best of luck with your appeal. I'm about to start an almost identical case so I watch the outcome of yours with anticipation of a positive outcome.