Inidgo Parking fine, in which I forgot to purchase a ticket. Rejected appeal.....

Coupon-mad

nozza10 wrote: »

So I appealed to POPLA on the terms of Non-Relevant land, incorrect use of 'Penalty Charge' and Signage, but have now heard back from POPLA in which they attached a letter from the Railway Company Govia basically giving Indigo authority to 'debt recover for GTR' among other things.

You haven't heard back from POPLA. You've got Indigo's evidence pack, surely?!

Come on, see this for what it actually is, it amazes me when people get the POPLA evidence pack from the PPC and somehow think it's ''from POPLA''. How come? Anyway you now need to rebut the evidence, like everyone else does. This it is a normal stage you should be expecting from your reading of other POPLA appeal threads.

So stop taking this so seriously and spot the holes in their 'evidence' and prepare your comments for POPLA.

nozza10

Yes it was Indigos evidence pack, which mainly consisted of their letter of Authorisation to undertake all aspects of the management and enforcement of the station car park car park.

After more research, I came across a very detailed rebuttal from Maddiction. I presume this is the sort response you were pointing me to?

One question though. In the Indigo/Govia letter it states that 'We acknowledge that in some cases this will require pre-debt recovery actions to be undertaken on behalf of GTR'. Should I flatly refute this and push for Govia to take me to the small claims court?

Thanks again

Redx

I doubt it

GOVIA can only take you to the magistrates court, if bylaws apply

this means that the small claims court option is the wrong court

GOVIA cannot allow a third party to act for them on bylaws issues, other than maybe a solicitor and take you to magistrates court

any rebuttals should be about the fact that bylaws apply and INDIGO cannot act in this manner

just rebut what they say and say that bylaws apply, but this has not been issued under the bylaws and so POPLA does not apply either as a suitable ADR

nozza10

Thanks.

This is what I sent off. you don't get a lot of space to argue, only 2000 characters!

GOVIA cannot allow a third party to act for them on bylaws issues, other than maybe a solicitor, and only they can take me to a magistrates court.
The location in question is not 'relevant land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as it is owned by Govia Thameslink Railway 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 Govia Thameslink Railway, 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 Govia Thameslink Railway to whom I can direct a complaint.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

Coupon-mad

you don't get a lot of space to argue, only 2000 characters!

We know - we do this all the time - that's why we tell people on rebuttal/comments threads, to email instead...