Indigo - appeal to pcn or wait for NtK?

jac265

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qlncw3teggzg4vp/qdr.jpeg?dl=0

jac265

And here's the reply from Steve Clark
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2sb66j4lschhb1i/AABtDSteNWuhkDvpJWAGjDHea?dl=0

Handbags-at-dawn

Unbelievable. Seriously unbelievable. Here are some comments on the QDR letter for starters:-

"Whilst Railway Byelaw Section 14 states that the owner may be liable, the car park operator, who in this case is Indigo Park Services ".....er, no, its Indigo Park Solutions actually.... "...has decided that you the owner are liable to pay the penalty" . That's very interesting but the parameters within which the owner might become liable are not defined in the Byelaws and it's not open to Indigo to fill in the gaps. Even so, one thing is certain: no-one - not even the owner - can possibly be liable until the allegation has been proved. .

"A penalty is an offer to the registered keeper/owner... . well which? .... to allow them to avoid further actions" Hang on a minute, didn't they just say the owner was liable - ie legally obliged to pay? And now they are saying it was an offer, which like all offers can be accepted or rejected,

"For Penalty Notices issued under Byelaws, the owner is liable. We have no cause of action against a driver. A driver can make an offer of payment however we cannot contact or chase the driver as the owner is liable as they are deemed "in charge" of the motor vehicle at the time of the contravention" . Huh?? They are saying the owner, and not the driver, is deemed to be in charge? They've just completely made that up. And it's obviously utter rubbish. It would mean a car owner can't walk to the pub and get merry because he would be still be guilty of being drunk in charge! (There's lots of guidance on the meaning of "in charge" in the drunk-in-charge cases, and basically you've got to be driving or intending to drive at the relevant time. )

"Your account has been placed on hold, which will stop any collection activity until 12 July 2018 " Collection activity? This a very nasty threat, scarcely veiled. Makes people think of bailiffs, CCJs etc.. But there is nothing to collect.. Their offer has been turned down. No money is owing. This is an unwarranted demand with menaces. See s21 'theft Act 1968.

QDR is an offshoot of Wright Hassall, a supposedly well respected important firm of solicitors. This letter is nothing short of a catalogue of aggressive and misleading assertions. They are sticking up two fingers to the rule of law and are bringing the legal profession into serious disrepute.

Where to turn?

Coupon-mad

Email Steve Clark this time, thank him for his reply and say you now have a pressing issue that is a breach of the BPA CoP. Attach a copy of QDR's letter.

State that QDR have sent a threatogram dated July 2018, on behalf of Indigo, which is well past the limited six months pre-action phase by which Govia have to lay a case before Magistrates.

Remind Steve C that the PCN was dated January and thus, it is timed out.

There is also no flimsy excuse that Indigo can continue to harass people and process data beyond the six month period, to chase a contractual charge instead because:

- the PCN that was issued was not a contractual charge

- data cannot be used for any other purpose than it was provided by the DVLA

- the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 makes the 6 month limitation clear in law

- the contract with Govia that Steve admits to having seen - and has been shown on MSE forum - only allows Indigo (one of them...) to process personal data when performing 'pre-Action Services' on behalf of Govia (no more and no less):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74509463#Comment_74509463

That 'pre-action' phase, for a byelaws penalty, is now well and truly over in this case. So the continued processing and sharing of your data in the trough shared by Indigo, QDR and ZZPS, is illegal.

Show Steve Clark a link to this thread as well as the one shown...

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Sorry Steve, if you read this thread, the two decisions off the top of my head that made me personally lose almost all faith with the BPA were:

- allowing Wright Hassall to pretend they were POPLA and proceed to sneakily (BUT IT DID HAPPEN) tip off PPCs to provide missing evidence, and no-one did a damn thing to stop the farce.

- allowing Indigo and CP plus to pull the POPLA rug from consumers' feet ''just because you're losing''. Shocking. No excuse to force the Government to 'clarify' something your members want. Tough. Wait for legislation like the public have to wait, don't force an issue.

Oh, and all the watering down of the BPA CoP and the woeful lack of customer service now coming out of your team, every time someone complains, such that we have to tell people to write to you personally if they want a well considered and fairer response.

jac265

Yes i agree that the QDR letter is absolute rubbish and full of misleading assertions. It is dated June 28th so came just before the 6 month date had passed but i will email Steve Clark and point out to him the glaring inconsistencies and rubbish in the letter. And i will look into reporting QDR to the Law Society for making threats and basically making up the law!

Umkomaas

Good - and great attitude. Nice to see.

We have so many snowflakes here who want to do everything, short of doing anything!