Noticed some changes? You can read all about the improvements we've made on the Forum in our latest announcement. We also have a new set of Forum rules so please take the time to give them a read and familiarise yourself.

Indigo Southern Rail POPLA

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
22 replies 2.4K views
windsmurfwindsmurf Forumite
20 Posts
Hi,

Firstly thanks to all the contributors to this site - it's a great resource and reassuring to all of us who feel aggrieved by the behavior of these PPC's. My situation:

Parked at Chichester Station.
Completed payment by phone an hour later (technical issues with the service)
Ticket on car on my return. ("Penalty Notice" more later)

I found the site a little too late so I've already made two mistakes:
1) confirmed I was the driver (via a tick box on the Indigo Appeals website - this is covered in a thread elsewhere and I'll be complaining to the BPA about it)
2) Appealing within the 14 day limit rather than waiting 27/28 days. Hence lost 14 days of "spin out" time.
Anyway, having received the inevitable rejection from Indigo (usual guff, having reviewed the "evidence" we uphold the appeal. I don't believe they actually look at any evidence you submit) I'd be grateful for some feedback on my letter to POPLA (to be submitted 28 days from date of Indigo rejection letter). I believe I have reasonable grounds, especially having paid the original parking fee, albeit slightly late (mitigating circumstance so I suspect this is irrelevant sadly).

Letter will read as follows:
  1. On the material date, the driver parked the vehicle at Chichester station, and caught a train. The driver attempted to make payment using the Indigo system by mobile phone, but the system would not accept the location code. After several attempts, the system finally processed the payment at 1420hrs. Please find enclosed invoice from the operator (Appx. 1)
  2. The driver was unable to contact the helpline number as it was obscured on the sign detailing how to pay by mobile. (Appx 2)
  3. The location in question is not 'relevant land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as it is owned by Southern Rail and is subject to the Railway Byelaws. The Operator is not the owner of the land in question, and therefore does not provide any consideration which may form a contract with motorists. Any consideration, in the form of a parking space, is provided by the landowner, in this case Southern Rail, and any liquidated damages for breach of contract would be owed to the landowner, not to the Operator. The Operator has provided no details showing their authority to exercise parking controls on railway land, nor provided contact details at the Southern Rail to whom I can direct a complaint. Further, the Operator has not provided an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner as required under Section 7 of the BPA code of practice. The operator has omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner.
  4. The Operator has affixed a “Penalty Notice” to the vehicle which is a misrepresentation of authority under clause 14.2 of BPA code of practice, with whom the Operator is affiliated. It appears this has been done in order to intimidate the general public into paying a legal penalty such as a traffic warden would issue, rather than a Parking Charge that the operator is able to issue. The term “Penalty Notice” is used twice with prominence on the issued paperwork. (Appx 3)
  5. I believe that the signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. The unremarkable and obscure signs are blocked by other vehicles parked in bays directly in front of them, and cannot be read by drivers. The photograph submitted by the Operator showing terms and conditions on site is illegible, and cannot be accepted to form the basis of an offer resulting in agreed contract.
  6. The Operator's charges do not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The sum of £100 is clearly an arbitrary figure designed to deter breach of contract, and is therefore a penalty charge, unenforceable in any civil action. Other operators have attempted, in previous submissions to POPLA, to justify their charges by citing items such as staff wages, uniforms, trade association memberships and so on, but all of these are normal business running expenses which do not arise as a direct consequence of this incident. Furthermore, costs incurred such as those involved in dealing with appeals, and subsequent submissions to POPLA, should not be considered as they are ex post facto costs which had not been incurred at the material time.

    The assessor is therefore invited to allow this appeal.
Any feedback most welcome.

Thanks in advance
«13

Replies

  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    95.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Remove this #6 because 'no loss' has no legs, not since ParkingEye v Beavis in 2015 when the Supreme Court swallowed the (IMHO) woeful evidence from the parking firm and found against the consumer, in National Consumers' Week:
    The Operator's charges do not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The sum of £100 is clearly an arbitrary figure designed to deter breach of contract, and is therefore a penalty charge, unenforceable in any civil action. Other operators have attempted, in previous submissions to POPLA, to justify their charges by citing items such as staff wages, uniforms, trade association memberships and so on, but all of these are normal business running expenses which do not arise as a direct consequence of this incident. Furthermore, costs incurred such as those involved in dealing with appeals, and subsequent submissions to POPLA, should not be considered as they are ex post facto costs which had not been incurred at the material time.

    And replace it with some of the appeal points shown here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71020167#post71020167

    - you need 'no owner liability' as discussed in that thread
    - you need 'the signs do not state a time by which a payment by phone must be made'


    And it won't be a letter, it will be a PDF, uploaded on the POPLA website under OTHER (only tick 'other' and ignore the lie that this is less likely to be successful).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • pappa_golfpappa_golf Forumite
    8.9K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    Remove this #6 because 'no loss' has no legs, not since ParkingEye v Beavis in 2015 when the Supreme Court swallowed the (IMHO) woeful evidence from the parking firm and found against the consumer, in National Consumers' Week:



    And replace it with some of the appeal points shown here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71020167#post71020167

    - you need 'no owner liability' as discussed in that thread
    - you need 'the signs do not state a time by which a payment by phone must be made'


    And it won't be a letter, it will be a PDF, uploaded on the POPLA website under OTHER (only tick 'other' and ignore the lie that this is less likely to be successful).


    with big words at the top saying "BYLAW CASE"
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • Thanks both for the quick response.

    I'll delete item 6 as advised and be sure to title using the word byelaw in blindingly obvious manner. Also will submit as pdf with concurrent pics alongside the points mentioned.

    Coupon- can I please double check my position regarding owner liability. Bearing in mind that
    - I have acknowledged that I am the driver through the indigo online appeals process
    -I failed to state in that letter to indigo that I didn't permit them to contact the dvla in order to ascertain who the registered keeper was. (I came to this forum a little late)
    - indigo could have obtained my details fromthe dvla and matched the driver and RK name.

    The basic premise we're proposing to exercise with POPLA here is :

    - Byelaw states that OWNER of any motor vehicle is liable.
    - Just because I'm a driver and RK (which indigo may or may not have bothered to check) doesn't necessarily make me to the owner.

    Is that a fair summary? Sounds like there is precedent so happy to take the advice, but I'm surprised it works! Laws a funny thing....

    Point of note-signs state 30 mins to pay online, but the system wasn't working and the helpline number was missing from the sign so I'll miss that bit out.

    Thanks, & happy new year!
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    95.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    The basic premise we're proposing to exercise with POPLA here is :

    - Byelaw states that OWNER of any motor vehicle is liable.
    - Just because I'm a driver and RK (which indigo may or may not have bothered to check) doesn't necessarily make me to the owner.

    Is that a fair summary?
    Yes, exactly. The owner, the keeper and the driver can very easily (and quite often, in families and/or with leased cars) be 3 different people and POPLA have agreed before (in the Summer, when they were not 'staying' byelaws cases).
    Point of note-signs state 30 mins to pay online, but the system wasn't working and the helpline number was missing from the sign so I'll miss that bit out.
    Oh, OK, good plan.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • pappa_golfpappa_golf Forumite
    8.9K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Point of note-

    indigo are asking you to pay a bribe , of you pay , they will not tell the TOC that you were a naughty boy

    t6he TOC only have 6 mths to press charges , and whilst indigo are involved this allows you a POPLa appeal

    huge things are happening with the DVLA , BPA and others scratching their heads over the legaily of indigo (and others) going down the private parking route

    an answer will be announced , but when?

    so time it out ,6 mths https://popla.co.uk/ , any casesx submitted back in september have now timed out
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • The_DeepThe_Deep Forumite
    16.8K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    It has now been over 4 months since PoPLA stopped adjudicating these cases.


    How long would it take before one could reasonable argue that, because no independent appeal is offered, the claim has no validity?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • pappa_golfpappa_golf Forumite
    8.9K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    NO , POPLa HAVE been adjudicating on odd cases with bylaws , check completed cases ,,,,,,,,,,,just odd ones with no reasoning , they all seem to go against the PPC , or at least the ones we hear about
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • nigelbbnigelbb Forumite
    3.5K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    The_Deep wrote: »
    It has now been over 4 months since PoPLA stopped adjudicating these cases.


    How long would it take before one could reasonable argue that, because no independent appeal is offered, the claim has no validity?
    It is not necessary to offer an independent appeal or indeed any form of appeal for a claim for breach of contract to be valid.

    People who don't understand these matters properly are forever conflating different elements of the whole parking scene & making 2+2=5 e.g. there is no requirement in POFA to offer an appeal but if it is offered then it must be described in the NTD/NTK.
  • nigelbb wrote: »
    It is not necessary to offer an independent appeal or indeed any form of appeal for a claim for breach of contract to be valid.

    People who don't understand these matters properly are forever conflating different elements of the whole parking scene & making 2+2=5 e.g. there is no requirement in POFA to offer an appeal but if it is offered then it must be described in the NTD/NTK.

    But is the offer a valid one when also quoting byelaws?
    REVENGE IS A DISH BETTER SERVED COLD
  • Well there's a spanner in the works....

    Tried to submit my POPLA appeal today as my 28 days expires tomorrow. However, the 10 digit verification code I've been provided won't work.

    Message states: "Sorry the verification code you have entered is used, you cannot reuse this code. Please use the track appeal page to login and view the appeal status."

    I haven't started an appeal - perhaps Indigo have accidentally provided an old code?

    Can anyone suggest an email address at POPLA I can contact? I can only see [email protected]

    Thanks
This discussion has been closed.