Indigo railway parking notice

Joe_whenjung

Redx wrote: »

and because railway land is NOT RELEVANT LAND , keeper liability does not apply unless a keeper admitted liability (becasue POFA2012 does not apply on land covered using bylaws)

Under Byelaw 14 doesn't it already state that the keeper may be liable though?

I have no doubt I can spin this out over 6 months (almost half way there already), and even IF it landed in court, unlit signs in the dark, a ticket paid for, unclear instructions etc would be solid defense.

I just want to understand this as well as I possibly can. Based on what I've learned here already, I've helped 2 other use MSE forum as a resource to beat tickets.

waamo

The wording says owner not keeper. The owner, keeper and registered keeper are 3 different things and may not be the same person. In fact they can be 3 different people.

Castle

pappa_golf wrote: »

there was a FOI with the correct answer however I cannot locate it at the moment

Maybe this one?:-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/320696/response/791828/attach/2/FOIR5226%20R%20Bostock.pdf

pappa_golf

Castle wrote: »

Maybe this one?:-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/320696/response/791828/attach/2/FOIR5226%20R%20Bostock.pdf

meteor and vinci park are two seperate companies

indigo Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd (formerly Meteor Parking Ltd)

Indigo Park Services UK Ltd (formerly Vinci Park Services UK Ltd)

both have seperate company numbers at companies house , but often one claims to have rights to ticket cars on car park where the contract is with the other

Handbags-at-dawn

Joe_whenjung wrote: »

Under Byelaw 14 doesn't it already state that the keeper may be liable though?

I just want to understand this as well as I possibly can.

You might find post 56 on this Pepipoo thread helpful:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116115&st=40

Joe_whenjung

On that basis, Im looking to include the para below. Should I make a stronger suggestion that they are not an 'authorised person'?

11. Under Railway Byelaws defines an “authorised person” as:
"(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or
(ii) any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;"

Can you please provide me with evidence of the signed contract that designates “Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited” as an “authorised person”.

Redx

Joe_whenjung wrote: »

Under Byelaw 14 doesn't it already state that the keeper may be liable though?

no , it is definitely the OWNER

the owner and registered keeper and keeper and driver may all be the same entity , BUT could be 4 different entities

when I had a motability vehicle some years ago, MOTABILITY was the owner , they were also the RK, I was the keeper ( I did not have a V5C as I was effectively the lessee) and my wife tended to be the driver

if the vehicle in your possession was a hire car , it might be a bank or hire purchase loan company that is the legal owner , the hire co may be the RK, , the keeper is the lessee/hirer , and the driver could have been somebody else entirely (me for example)

Joe_whenjung

Hi guys,

I was wondering if someone a bit more experienced could cast their eyes over this for me. Second appeal in response to NtK. Its a rejigged version of the blue text appeal. My main questions are:
- Is point 10 un-necessary?
- Should I use point 12 now, or hold this back until my next email to them?



Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. XXXXXXXX

1. I write in response to your letter dated 14 December 2017 (Your Letter).

2. I challenge this 'PCN' as KEEPER of the car. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

3. The area of the alleged parking incident is not relevant land as defined under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, therefore the KEEPER cannot be held liable.

4. Your Letter makes it clear that if my appeal is rejected I will be provided with details of how to refer the matter to an Independent Appeals Service (“POPLA”), along with a unique reference number. To quote Your Letter:
“If your appeal is rejected, you will be provided with details of how to refer the matter to an Independent Appeals Service (“POPLA”), along with a unique reference number”

5. Should my appeal be unsuccessful, I will be requiring such details and unique reference number as specified in Your Letter.

6. To help resolve this matter I can advise that on the date of the alleged parking incident, the DRIVER purchased and displayed a parking ticket, of which a copy is attached. For the avoidance of doubt, you will see that the correct amount was paid, and the correct vehicle details were entered.

7. I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. The signage is not lit, and as the attached photographs demonstrate, no reasonable user of the car park would be expected to be able to read it.

8. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

9. You have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach.

10. Additionally, please note that as you have obtained my details from the DVLA under the KADOE contract, you may not pass them to any third party for any reason.

11. I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

12. Under Railway Byelaws defines an “authorised person” as:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or
(ii) any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;
Can you please provide me with evidence of the signed contract that designates “Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited” as an “authorised person”.

13. You must either offer me a POPLA code as offered in Your Letter, or cancel the charge.




Yours faithfully,
Name
Address

Coupon-mad

- Is point 10 unnecessary?

No, IMHO.

- Should I use point 12 now, or hold this back until my next email to them?

I am of the view that we should not hand PPCs the words they need to get things right. And I think that tells them what to do in order to show themselves as authorised, so I wouldn't quote it at all.

Joe_whenjung

I have received a response (as below) to my second appeal a little faster than I was expecting. I have plenty of queries to go back to them with and seek clarity on. I shall do so one at a time, and leave plenty of time between each response to make sure I fully understand each response.

my question for the learned members of the forum - who do I write to at Indigo? appeals@ipaymypcn.net was the address used for the appeal. Is there a better address to write to them at?

1. The response to my appeal to Indigo is from customerservices@zzps.co.uk. Why are ZZPS responding to my appeal email?

2. Plenty of points in my appeal have been missed. Ill have to chase up on that.

3. "Schedule 2, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Act are met" - Are they implying that 2(a) - The processing is necessary— (a)for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party

4. "the Owner will remain liable. We do not need the driver details as this will remain in your name." - But Im the KEEPER....

5. "Therefore a POPLA code will not be issued on this occasion." But their own process told me it would. Must seek some clarity on this.

6. "We will not be providing a copy of our contract with our client as this is business sensitive information." I asked for the Indigo/TOC contract, not the ZZPS/Indigo contract. Seems they misunderstood that. Id better clear that up too.


Good afternoon

106073828

Thank you for your email which has been noted accordingly, which we are treating as a formal section 10 Notice (“the Notice”) under the Data Protection Act (“the Act”).
Please accept this email as our formal acknowledgement and response to the Notice.
You have provided no justification for the Notice. The processing of your data is warranted.
The Protection of Freedoms Act is not relevant for Penalty Notices.In any event, section 10(1) of the Act does not apply in circumstances where Schedule 2, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Act are met, accordingly, we are permitted to continue to process your data at this stage.
If this is not clear, we suggest you seek legal advice.

Please be advised you have been issued a Penalty Notice under railway byelaws, not a Parking Charge Notice and therefore the Owner will remain liable. We do not need the driver details as this will remain in your name.


The original Penalty Notice was affixed to the vehicle, this outlined the appeals process with our client.

Photographic evidence is available to view at https://www.iapymypcn.net

The time to appeal has passed, however, your appeal would have been rejected as there is no valid pay and display ticket on display in the vehicle.
This is a breach of the Terms and Conditions of the signage which are all approved.

We will not be providing a copy of our contract with our client as this is business sensitive information.

Please note due to a recent change POPLA are currently not reviewing appeal decisions on Penalty Notices. This is still outlined in our letter as this decision may change.

Therefore a POPLA code will not be issued on this occasion.

Please arrange payment, in the absence of payment the account will progress.

Regards

Sarah