Indigo - appeal to pcn or wait for NtK?

jac265

Thank you fo all of your comments. I have drafted an email in response to the overdue penalty to owner as set out below.
Please let me know if you have any comments. Thank you.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have received your Overdue Penalty Notice to Owner dated Xxxx 2018 relating to Penalty Notice Number: XXXX

You state that the offence is in breach of Byelaw 14 and was failing to display a valid ticket or voucher. According to my understanding, this is not a Byelaw offence and, in any event, if payment was made by phone which is a legitimate method of payment for parking then there would be nothing to display. Please direct me to the specific paragraph in the legislation that confirms such an offence.

You state that the penalty notice is an offer to avoid prosecution. As this is an offered contract I assume that if it is not accepted then a charge will not be payable. Please confirm that this is the case.

The car park in question is on railway land and therefore not ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and therefore there is no keeper liability. Only the driver can be liable and I am not legally obliged to divulge the driver’s identity.

Your letter states that ‘You may be legally liable for this offence even if you were not the driver at the time’. The scope of the Railway Byelaws is limited to the railway land and therefore an ‘owner’ cannot be held liable for an alleged breach when there is no evidence that the owner has been there as this would be ‘ultra vires’. Please explain the grounds on which the owner is held liable for the charge.

You state that the vehicle could be clamped or removed in respect of ‘any unpaid penalty notices outstanding for the same VRM’. Clause 54(1)(a)of POFA bans the use of wheel clamps without lawful authority. Railway byelaws rely on the Transport Act 2000 as their enabling legislation and that Act makes no reference to clamping. Furthermore, the Byelaws state that clamping can only be used for a ‘breach’ of a Byelaw not an alleged breach. The defendant would have to be found guilty of the breach by a Magistrates Court before clamping could be used. Please direct me to the legislation on which your statement relies.

Accordingly I decline your offer of payment and request that you close this matter or take action against the driver of the vehicle at the time should their identity be known to you.

nosferatu1001

Please direct me to the legislation on which your statement relies. ... and were you directed to make this misleading statement by Indigo (full legal name here) or is this your invention?

financerulez

I would refer to it as a Notice to Keeper regardless of what they've called the letter. Owner has questionable liability in byelaws, Keeper has none. Why do them the favour of confirming you're the Owner when there is no way they can know that or find it out?

jac265

Yes good points thank you. In fact I may remove the paragraph on the questionable liability of the owner and save it for my next letter!

twhitehousescat

jac265 wrote: »

Yes good points thank you. In fact I may remove the paragraph on the questionable liability of the owner and save it for my next letter!

hang on

indigo / zzps speak "!!!!!!!!" ,


just take your time , 6 mths is the goal

jac265

Thanks everyone. So my appeal was unsurprisingly, rejected by ZZPS on the grounds that Railway Byelaw 14 (4) (i) makes an owner liable whether the driver or not. They gave me another 2 weeks to pay up which expires this week. so i am going to ask for a POPLA code which I know they will refuse and then wait for the solicitors letters. My concern however is their threat to clamp - the car is parked regularly at the station. Has anyone heard of a car being clamped recently for unpaid penalty notices? I know it is questionable whether they have lawful authority to do so but I suspect that won't stop them!

ampersand

It would be good to entice more made-up garbage from them, re:which local authority, police authority or named functionary of the DVLA intends carrying out clamping.

Here's a tale:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/22/southern-rail-trials-wheel-clamping-scheme-in-station-car-parks

nosferatu1001

ZZPS will do absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. SO you keep asking them questions to get it to 6 months, then tell them to FRO

ASk them about the scope of the byelaws, and whether they cover the entire UK or jus trailway grounds. Given the owner may never hae set fot on the gruonds o fthe railway, what regualtion entitles them to alter teh scope of the railway byelaws, did the PPC tell them this, or are they just making this up themselves and hoping you wont notice?

For clamping - absoluitely ultra vires. Ask them what part of the byelaws enabling legislation allows clampning, and what exempts railway land from POFA2012. You require specific refernce to the legislation allowing clamping, noting that the byelaws themsvels cannot override the primary legislation that is POFA2012.

Coupon-mad

Has anyone heard of a car being clamped recently for unpaid penalty notices?

Nope, last time when NCP tried it they got their fingers severely burnt. In costs and everything else in the Mayhook case I think it was around £100,000 NCP had to pay.

After all, how do they know it's the same driver and even, what if you'd sold the car in the meantime! These issues are significant, as is the fact the Dept for Transport is looking closer at the industry than before...this would not make good publicity for a firm already IMHO universally detested, for what they did to the nurses in Cardiff.

waamo

As a private company the individual doing the clamping would need an SIA licence. Given you can no longer get one good luck with that.