Help with POPLA Evidence Pack from Indigo

dr1981_2

Hi there,

I'd welcome some help responding to POPLA now that I have received my evidence pack from Indigo.

This is the first time that Indigo have included a letter claiming they have authority from Govia Thameslink Railway to issue tickets on the land; this is the point on which my previous appeals have been successful as this has not been included. I have attached a link to the letter:

http://imgur.com/nDhcddi
http://imgur.com/CgbzVua

This was my appeal point to POPLA:

The lack of Indigo Park Solutions’ proprietary interest in the land and no contractual authority from the landowner.

Indigo Park Solutions do not own the land where the PCN was issued and have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or vehicle keeper. I requested in my appeal to the operator that they provide evidence of a contract with the landowner and they failed to provide this. I believe it would not be compliant in accordance with the British Parking Associations’ (BPA) Code Of Practice (COP) Section A, sub-section 7 and without it, Indigo Park Solutions have no legal standing nor authority which could impact on future visiting motorists. In the event that Indigo Park Solutions should produce a ‘witness statement’, I would contend that there is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms or indeed, is even an employee of the landowner. I would contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.

I also appealed on the following two points (amongst others) that i feel are pertinent to this appeal being successful:

Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not ‘relevant land’ and the conditions of PoFA have not been met. The parking operator has no legal right to enforce this charge against the keeper of the vehicle as 'keeper liability' is excluded under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. The Parking Operators PCN clearly states that ‘This car park is regulated by the terms and conditions of parking displayed at the car park in accordance with Rail Byelaw 14.

No keeper liability
The driver is not known in this case. Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the conditions set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 have not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

My questions are:

1 - Is Govia Thameslink Railway the landowner in this case? I thought the land was owned by Network Rail (or similar) and therefore Indigo do not have authority from the landowner.
2 - Under 'No keeper liability' is it the owner or driver that is liable? They do not know the driver, only the registered keeper

Any advice on these questions and how to respond would be much appreciated!

Thanks

DR

twhitehousescat

the "ticket" is asking you to pay a charge instead of being prosicuted by the train Co

the train Co can only prosecute within 6 mths of the offence

the PPC cannot pass your info to the train Co

go slowly , very slowly to time this out

Coupon-mad

Under 'No keeper liability' is it the owner or driver that is liable? They do not know the driver, only the registered keeper

Under railway Byelaws it's the owner, and they do not know that party (who is not necessarily the car's keeper).

You need to rebut the evidence, state that Indigo have not shown that the appellant is the person liable (owner, if Railway byelaws apply, driver if contract law applies) and the Govia letter doesn't seem to mention vital details like dates of contract start/end, locations of car parks covered (or not) and nor does it meet the criteria under 7.3 of the BPA CoP.

Additionally, the signage in place at the location and the letter from Govia refers to a “penalty charge” yet Indigo's initial PCN and rejection letter refers to terms and conditions under contract and requires payment to Indigo, a private firm, not to Govia. It is unclear whether this is a 'real' penalty charge, which only Govia themselves could pursue at a Magistrates' Court within six months (since only courts can enforce fines). It seems to be dressed up to imitate a penalty yet with payment for alleged 'breach of contract' to Indigo.

This is a misrepresentation of authority in accordance with Section 14 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within this, it states as follows: “14.1 You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority”. 14.2 You must not use terms which imply that parking is being managed, controlled and enforced under statutory authority. This includes using terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.”

The_Deep

Have you read this recent PoPLA win against a bye laws ticket?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72001510#Comment_72001510

dr1981_2

Thanks to everyone for all the help! It is much appreciated,

The recent POPLA win is really interesting and I'll emphasise the key points in my response.

I'll let you know how I get on in the POPLA decisions thread.

DR

The_Deep

Another one today

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72014578#Comment_72014578