Indigo Penalty Notice - Misinformation given by station staff

tbh2012

Hi all,

I've read the very useful Newbies post and wanted to check something before I sent the template letter.

My car was parked at a station car park on 2nd-3rd December. The car park ticket machine only gave the option to buy a ticket for the day, or for the entire week, when two days were required.

A ticket was purchased and displayed in the vehicle windscreen for day one, then on buying a train ticket at the ticket office the member of staff (whose name was noted) was asked whether the ticket for day two could be purchased on return to the station, and the answer was 'yes'.

Upon return to the station on the 3rd, a ticket for the second day in the car park was purchased, but on returning to the car there was a penalty notice on the windscreen citing failure to display ticket.

Is it appropriate or recommended to amend the template letter to explain that:

1. The machine only gave the option to buy a ticket for a single day, and not two consecutive days as required

2. Misinformation was given by the landowner who said that the ticket for day two could be purchased upon return to the station

3. Two days' parking were paid for covering both days

Thanks in anticipation!

pappa_golf

await more knolageable , but a quick question for you .

on the signage in the car park or on the notice on your windscreen , are the words "bylaws" or "bylaw 14" to be seen?

Umkomaas

No amount of 'explanation' will change the outcome of your initial appeal - it will be rejected. Mitigation counts for nothing until or unless it reaches a court case. But you're way off that at the moment.

Your initial appeal should be sent off on or around day 26 - not now. You need to drag this out as railway parking is governed by byelaws and you need to bone up on this. The issue is not a simple one, until you get your head around it. Here's a starting point for your research - hot off the press today.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/railway-byelaw-fiaso-warming-up.html

Coupon-mad

pappa_golf wrote: »

await more knolageable , but a quick question for you .

on the signage in the car park or on the notice on your windscreen , are the words "bylaws" or "bylaw 14" to be seen?

They will certainly mention byelaws, because this is a 'penalty' (allegedly!). Indigo think they can issue penalties, I've seen 3 of them recently when I got a friend off them at POPLA. So this is one that POPLA will put on the too difficult pile and the OP needs to be careful not to imply who the OWNER was, because Railway byelaws hold 'the owner' liable. But that's not the same thing as the keeper of course.

pappa_golf

yes CM , and I cannot recall an offence of "fail to display" mentioned in said bylaws

I worry when you say "recently" , you and I know that all cases regarding Bylaws are supposed to be put on hold , and not adjudicated on until an outcome of book reading is done ? , why did they accept and adjudicate on those cases?

Coupon-mad

It's in 'POPLA Decisions' and was about a month before POPLA got too scared to decide them. I was lucky, it went through easily and Indigo dropped out I think; I can't recall an evidence pack.

tbh2012

Hi All,

Thanks for the quick replies. I have checked the notice, and it does mention Byelaw 14.

pappa_golf

OK , follow the link to the newbies thread , and send the BLUE template letter at the date suggested , don,t alter or amend it , at this point you just want a code for POPLa , once you have recieved that (jan/feb next year) return here and you will get help in composing a POPLa appeal

link to newbies thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

tbh2012

OK thank you. Apologies if I shouldn't have started this thread, I wanted to double-check in case any of the circumstances surrounding this penalty altered any of the details in the newbies post. Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

No worries, your thread is fine (excuse the pun!). And you won't be paying. Come back to update it as you get replies.

HO87

Were proceedings to be issued in the magistrates court then you can argue that they are an abuse of process as a result of your having specifically sought advice from staff (because the instructions were otherwise vague) and that you are therefore entitled to rely on that advice.