Indigo - appeal to pcn or wait for NtK?

jac265

Thank you. Apologies for technical failure!
Im going to reply to DVLA and say that they shouldn’t have released the keeper info as conditions of KADOE weren’t met - no keeper liability as not relevant land and there’s no proof as to driver and they have misrepresented the reason for the request using breach of t&c and not railway Byelaws.
I have been reading similar threads on pepipoo and there’s reference to the contract between GTR and Indigo but a different company - indigo services. Indigo Park Solutions issued ticket and applied to dvla but they presumably don’t have legal authority to do so?

financerulez

The DVLA don't care, they won't take any responsibility and just palm you off. Their operating instructions are to release the info in this situation, ludicrous as it sounds. They are more likely to do something if you say Indigo are blending together criminal and civil law in an attempt to confuse you as to what you have allegedly done.

Handbags-at-dawn

jac265 wrote: »

I have been reading similar threads on pepipoo and there’s reference to the contract between GTR and Indigo but a different company - indigo services. Indigo Park Solutions issued ticket and applied to dvla but they presumably don’t have legal authority to do so?

The DVLA only has power to release data to a requester who can show he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him (Reg 27, Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002). If IP Solutions were not appointed by the TOC to pursue car park infringements, they would have no more "reasonable cause" to request keeper data than you or me. The DVLA would not have the power to release the data to them, and would be in serious breach of the DPA by doing so.

You might also add that your data was used for an illegal purpose, namely sending you a fraudulent and/or misleading NtK which in particular falsely asserts the recipient may be liable for the offence even if not the driver at the time. (On the contrary: only the driver can be guilty of an offence under Byelaw 14.) By no stretch of the imagination can such an illegal purpose fall within the ambit of "reasonable cause".

The_Deep

When this has timed out, consider sending the PPC a Letter Before Claim. It will cost them money to deal with it.

https://www.rocketlawyer.co.uk/documents-and-forms/letter-before-action.rlm?msclkid=29a39228cf13169f9d19c8e4541f6f4e&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=BSN%20-%20Letter%20before%20action&utm_term=letter%20before%20claim&utm_content=Exact%20-%20Letter%20before%20action

and you then have up to six years to consider whether you wish to proceed or not.

jac265

So next instalment!
DVLA replied saying that they had nothing further to add from their previous reply - no surprises there i suppose.
BPA is still considering its response to my complaint.
The latest communication from ZZPS is set out below:


The British Parking Association removed the need for operators to issue POPLA codes as POPLA will not review cases where parking is being enforced under primary legislation. You have received a parking notice that has been issued by an operator that is a member of the British Parking Association's ('BPA') Approved Operator Scheme, by law we are required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (https://www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, the BPA have chosen not to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.

Byelaws
The current national Railway Byelaws were introduced by the Strategic Rail Authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State for Transport in 2005. They regulate the use and working of, and travel on or by means of, railway assets, the maintenance of order on railway assets and the conduct of all persons while on railway assets. Railway assets include railway stations, approach roads, car parks and other associated land.

Car parking on railway land is covered by Byelaw 14: Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking. Paragraph 4 states:

"(4) In England and Wales
The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an Operator or authorised person.

The owner of the motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that the costs incurred by an Operator or an authorised person for this may be recovered from the vehicle!!!8217;s owner

The power of clamping and removal provided in Byelaw 14(4)(ii) above shall not be exercisable in any area where passenger parking is permitted unless there is on display in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped and/or removed by an Operator or an authorised person.!!!8221;


Byelaw 24: Enforcement also allows for the possible sanction for breach of any Byelaw of prosecution through the Magistrates Court and a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (presently up to £1000). [insert footnote - except Byelaw 17]

!!!8220;Owner!!!8221;, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.

!!!8220;Operator!!!8221; means a Train Operating Company (TOC), Network Rail, or a person appointed by them to provide and operate and control vehicle parking on the railway.

In practice, most train operators choose to engage a third party company to administer parking on their behalf. Train operators and their subcontractors are referred to in this communication as "Parking Operators". Where the Parking Operators are a sub-contractor they are generally members of the British Parking Association (BPA) or the International Parking Community (IPC) and are required to sign up to that body!!!8217;s code of practice. These codes reflect provisions POFA such as a ban on clamping and towing; provision of an appeals process against parking charge notices although railway land is specifically excluded from the provisions of POFA.

The Railway Byelaws provide the legal framework for parking on railway land and enforcement action. What happens in practice is largely as follows:
Any person in charge of a vehicle must pay the appropriate charge, where notices indicate there are charges for parking (Byelaw 14(3)). Where a vehicle is parked in contravention of the Byelaws then a penalty as displayed in that area (commonly known as a penalty charge notice) may be issued by the parking operator under Byelaw 14(4)(i).

Byelaw 14(4)(i) states that the owner of a motor vehicle may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area (the car park). This permits Parking Operators to issue penalty charge notices to the owners of vehicles they determine have breached Byelaws 14(1) to 14(3). The penalty will usually, in line with industry practice, carry a charge not exceeding £100 although the final sum is set by the Parking Operators.

The owner of the vehicle will be required to pay the amount as set out on the penalty charge notice.

The Railway Byelaws provide Parking Operators with a large amount of discretion as to how they decide to implement the enforcement regime on Railway Land. However, they are required to display the details of any scheme. In practice, Parking Operators will generally provide the option to pay a smaller amount in settlement of a penalty charge notice if this is done within a set period, say within 14 days. If the penalty charge notice is settled no further action will be taken by either the Parking Operator.

In practice, if the owner of the vehicle is not content with a penalty charge notice issued by the Parking Operator then they have the opportunity to make representations to them. Details of how to appeal will be displayed in the car park and are also provided by the operator normally on the penalty charge notice.

We can confirm that our client has been provided with authorisation to make enquiries in respect of enforcing land under Byelaws by the DVLA; the processing of your data is warranted.

Regards,

Jaime

The definition of !!!8220;Owner!!!8221; is interesting - can!!!8217;t see that in the Byelaws.
They have also ignored my point that a breach is not the same as an alleged breach.

So I guess I shall just repeat the same old questions.

twhitehousescat

that seems t5o be quite funny

the land comes under bylaws ,

Operator -means a Train Operating Company (TOC), Network Rail, or a person appointed by them to provide and operate and control vehicle parking on the railway.

umm does it?

only the train co can start action in a magistrates court , not a trumped up french mob


so ask zzps to pass this back to indigo and ask THEM to start a claim in the magistrates court , I think they will struggle (loose lots of money) also remind them that if indigo pass this back to the TOC , then they will be breaking KODOe rules with DPA , and you will yourself bring charges under data protection

Coupon-mad

OK same as advised already:

Get past the 6 month prosecution deadline and do not reveal the driver/owner.

Let them bleat about bylaws, and reply slowly each time. Once GDPR comes in later this month, send Indigo a SAR - we will be encouraging ALL recipients of PCNs to request a SAR, every time.

PPCs will be regretting ticketing.

jac265

Thanks again everyone for all of your help. Yes good point re GDPR and subject access requests - that!!!8217;s now on my list.

jac265

I have played email / letter ping pong and passed the 6 month deadline ( ticket issued 5th Jan) but i thought that you may like to see the last letter i had from QDr as it's quite amusing. Link posted below hopefully
Also i would like to write to Indigo/ ZZPs and QDr requesting that they erase my data under Article 17 of GDPR on the grounds that the data is no longer necessary for the purpose for whoch it was originally collected. Has anyone done this and been successful. Thank you.
i wrote to Steve Clark at BPA asking him to explain how Indigo were able to issue tickets and threaten wheel clamping etc under railway byelaws and i will upload both my letter and his reply in case anyone is interested. I intend to use his reply when i write to my MP and to whoever is now in charge of the Private Parking Bill.
Thanks to everyone for your help.

Handbags-at-dawn

Can you have another go at posting the link for the QDR letter - I don't think ti copied itself.
It'd also be very interesting to see Steve Clark's reply.