Popla

peter_the_piper

Just for my edification and clarification.

I (probably incorrectly) thought that a ppc HAD to offer an "independent" means to appeal the ticket before going to court. If so how can Indigo get away with quoting Byelaw 14 as a means of bypassing the appeal system?

Umkomaas

how can Indigo get away with quoting Byelaw 14 as a means of bypassing the appeal system?

In clandestine meetings that nobody wanted to talk about. A FoI request did ferret some stuff out. Have a pick through this heavily redacted outcome.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discussions_with_british_parking_2#outgoing-666106

pappa_golf

iondigo will never tale a railway case to court , remember , only the TOC can do it

waamo

I think you are confusing criminal with civil proceedings. Most PPC tickets are a civil matter. The sue you for breach of contract.

Indigo are claiming this is criminal and threaten to prosecute you in magistrates court. A bit like shoplifting and other minor crimes.

peter_the_piper

So Indigo relinquish all right to the parking ticket and transfer to the TOC as surely a ppc can't pursue you through criminal courts.

waamo

peter_the_piper wrote: »

So Indigo relinquish all right to the parking ticket and transfer to the TOC as surely a ppc can't pursue you through criminal courts.

Correct. If it ever went to court the money would go in the national coffers hence their apparant reluctance to go to court.

Umkomaas

peter_the_piper wrote: »

So Indigo relinquish all right to the parking ticket and transfer to the TOC as surely a ppc can't pursue you through criminal courts.

A possibility. Then the TOC takes over (from the outfit they’ve employed to sort out their parking arrangements for them), they put hours into developing a case against the motorist, they proceed to the Mags Court, the motorist might be found guilty, he pays his fine - and off it goes to the Exchequer. The TOC see none of it.

Commonly known as ‘having a dog and barking yourself’, with no bone for the TOC, despite the barking. Seems like a plan!

peter_the_piper

Then what does indigo get out of it? Apart from the keepers who are frightened into paying and parking fees, its not worth them pursuing if a keeper says "Go Away"

Umkomaas

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Then what does indigo get out of it? Apart from the keepers who are frightened into paying and parking fees, its not worth them pursuing if a keeper says "Go Away"

Exactly. I bet there are so many running to the toilet to write out their cheques that the odd FRO case isn’t going to trouble them much, I would guess.

The only caveat is that Indigo were the PPC involved in the Cardiff nurses’ case and that came a bit out of the blue. So no one can tell what they’re really up to. But one-off tickets (where the Cardiff cases was multiple tickets) are going to be extraordinarily difficult to proceed with, given the bylaws complications.

dirtdog

I am wondering if Indigo is trying to get 'around' this issue by clamping (or threatening to) at the train stations again? It is a bit of a bigger headache or easier to just pay up up if your vehicle has been clamped?

Umkomaas

Clamping isn’t without its legalities. Papa Golf has already (on other threads) queried PPCs ability to clamp without SIA licensing.

Additionally, the FoI documents discuss this briefly and the impression is it would be a last resort and only for repeat offenders - that brings up the issue of how the data of ‘repeat offenders’ can be collected and stored - tricky one if there are a number of insured drivers on the insurance policy.

Then there’s always the case of Mr Nigel Edward James Barrington-Fuller, recently of bankruptcy fame ......