Notice to Owner Received from ZZPS

mirrormermaid

I've received the Notice to Owner from ZZPS (Indigo obtained the details from the DVLA and I have sent an info request to the DVLA about this already), following a Penalty received at a railway station (Byelaw 14 quoted).
I understand my next step is to appeal, on the basis that the Notice to Owner doesn't meet the requirements that allows the Keeper to be held liable (Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act).
Have I got this right? I've read so many posts I'm feeling a bit bamboozled!
Thanks!

pappa_golf

please read the numerous other indigo threads , any replies to your post will be duplicate to the 100s of replies on the other threads

financerulez

As PG says read the other threads. Click on my profile and read my thread if you like, it will likely be similar.

In short, POFA doesn't apply - it's railway land so byelaws.

Not a civil matter, contravention of byelaws is criminal. Your goal should be to run the counter down on 6 months, after which time a prosecution cannot be brought. The other threads will explain the process.

StaffsSW

The owner is liable according to Byelaw 14.

Ask ZZPS to contact the owner, not the registered keeper who may or may not be the owner of the vehicle - the V5 document will confirm that it is not proof of ownership.

Also remind them that it is a statutory matter, not a civil dispute, therefore you will ignore everything besides a magistrates court summons - and there is more chance of snow in the Sahara than that happening.

If you are really persistent it will go from ZZPS to Wright Hassall, then to QDR solicitors.
QDR have backed off now as I was rather blunt with them on the phone.

Ok, so I was in a very bad mood and let rip at the solicitor, questioned her ability to do her job, I may have questioned her ability to function as a human and I definitely suggested she may be better suited mugging blind pensioners if she genuinely thinks her current role is not morally questionable.

Fruitcake

Also complain to your MP.

These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

The_Deep

As FC says, complain to your MP, but watch this video first


http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

financerulez

StaffsSW wrote: »

The owner is liable according to Byelaw 14.

Ask ZZPS to contact the owner, not the registered keeper who may or may not be the owner of the vehicle - the V5 document will confirm that it is not proof of ownership.

Also remind them that it is a statutory matter, not a civil dispute, therefore you will ignore everything besides a magistrates court summons - and there is more chance of snow in the Sahara than that happening.

If you are really persistent it will go from ZZPS to Wright Hassall, then to QDR solicitors.
QDR have backed off now as I was rather blunt with them on the phone.

Ok, so I was in a very bad mood and let rip at the solicitor, questioned her ability to do her job, I may have questioned her ability to function as a human and I definitely suggested she may be better suited mugging blind pensioners if she genuinely thinks her current role is not morally questionable.

In case it wasn't obvious from this post, make sure to appeal as Registered Keeper on day 25/26. You want to run it past the 6 month deadline. You can say that you as Reg Keeper have no liability, and suggest they contact owner or driver directly as Staffs says. You have no relevance to this matter, and any further attempts to contact you as Registered Keeper, when there is no liability as such in either Criminal or Civil law, will mean you treat all further communications as harassment and will bring a claim as such.

Or play ping pong, raising stupid questions, demanding POPLA, etc until the 6 months passes, and then go on the offensive as above, up to you!

Coupon-mad

Ok, so I was in a very bad mood and let rip at the solicitor, questioned her ability to do her job, I may have questioned her ability to function as a human and I definitely suggested she may be better suited mugging blind pensioners if she genuinely thinks her current role is not morally questionable.

Love it, StaffsSW.

mirrormermaid wrote: »

I've received the Notice to Owner from ZZPS (Indigo obtained the details from the DVLA and I have sent an info request to the DVLA about this already), following a Penalty received at a railway station (Byelaw 14 quoted).
I understand my next step is to appeal, on the basis that the Notice to Owner doesn't meet the requirements that allows the Keeper to be held liable (Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act).
Have I got this right? I've read so many posts I'm feeling a bit bamboozled!
Thanks!

That's odd, The DVLA said that Indigo had assured them that they were NOT obtaining keeper data for these byelaws cases. A MAJOR series of complaints needs to go into MPs, DVLA and the BPA for:

- allowing Indigo to decide to stop offering POPLA, seemingly: 'just because you're losing'

- believing Indigo when they said they were not getting DVLA data for these cases

- allowing ZZPS to ride roughshod (seemingly) over BPA and DVLA rules, and do what they blinking well like, telling keepers that they MUST name drivers or they can't appeal on the one hand, and getting DVLA data for Indigo on the other hand, while Indigo told little stories to the DVLA that they were 'not getting this data'.

Unless we have understood all this wrong? But a poster showed their reply from the DVLA saying that Indigo had assured them that they were NOT getting DVLA data for byelaws cases.

Please copy into your MP and DVLA complaint, Mr Clark at the BPA:

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Someone needs to sort this 'outrageous scam' (Hansard, 2.2.18) out, sharpish, otherwise any right-minded consumer might agree with the MP who said in Parliament this month:

''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''.

I fancy that in my signature next time I change it!

Please show him (Steve Clark, who does read MSE threads) a link to this thread, be open about it, but NO saying who was driving, to anyone. You are the keeper and your data appears to have been obtained against the DVLA rules, by a firm who refuse to offer POPLA, and the BPA seems to have its fingers in its ears going 'laalaalaa' like they did with the Wright Hassall 'let's play at POPLA and tip off the parking firms about missing information, so they win*' outrage.



*yes, I saw some of those WHOPLA 'tip-off the PPC about missing evidence' letters with my own eyes. So did others.