Appeal - Indigo

Coupon-mad

Remove this as it's too easy for them to rebut:

7. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
The parking charge did not fall under the category of a GPEOL on the following points:

i. The correct charge for the period in question, which was paid in full was £6.30, as per the attached photograph of the receipt.
ii. The parking contravention charge of £100 is out of all proportion to any potential loss on the part of Indigo and therefore does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
iii. There is no loss flowing from this parking event. This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

If a contract was formed between the driver and Operator it would be a simple financial consumer contract. An offer of parking for a set sum was made in return for a small payment. This makes plain that the sum being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors or minor underpayment, and is consequently unenforceable.

As this is a simple financial contract any claim for liquidated damages for breach of contract must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If The Operator believes that inadequate payment was made (which their PCN fails to make clear) their demand should be for any unpaid tariff as that would be their only loss. The charge is clearly extravagant and unconscionable compared to the supposed unpaid tariff. If The Operator believes their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss I demand they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of how this has been calculated.

However, as it's an Indigo byelaws case, you WILL win in March.

Gioino

will do - thank you.
everybody says I am going to win and that's delightful, I'll just keep you updated to confirm that (fingers crossed)

cheers

Gioino

As you guys had predicted my appeal was successful.

Thanks for your valuable help, see you when I'll get the next ticket :rotfl::rotfl:

Coupon-mad

you WILL win in March

We are psychic!

Well done on taking that leap of faith in the forum and thanks for confirming.

sli88

Hi everyone,

I've got an extremely similar case to this.
In as brief as possible,
I got a Penalty Notice from Indigo on my windscreen for failing to display a ticket. I did however pay for it but neglected to display it properly.

(Like above) they cite bye-law 14 and Breach Code: 01 - Parked without displaying valid payment..

My Indigo appeal was not accepted. Should I now appeal to POPLA?

Do I cite that my payement under (3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place. Satisfies the byelaw. Because they may argue that I did not display it accordance with the instructions?

As stated, I can prove I paid for a ticket.

Thanks for any responses and advice.

Coupon-mad

Of course you do POPLA because you will win! But this isn't your thread so if you want help, start a new one.