Indigo | Train Station | QDR solicitors

failedcommuter

For everyone's reference (including those who intend to follow a similar course of action), I sent the email to QDR & Indigo stating that my address has changed and requesting the following information:
- Evidence of the validity of the claim
- A statement of the terms under which they are pursuing this claim
- Evidence that they have the authority of the TOC and / or Landowner to pursue this particular claim

Automated email received from QDR stating they aim to respond within 10 days, good luck to them getting back to me with a court summons before the 28/3.

Coupon-mad

Well done, you have strung this out to get past the 6 months.

ZZPS have demanded money after the 6 month deadline recently, and that then opens the door to a massive complaint to:

- the BPA
- the DVLA
- your MP
- Sir Greg Knight
- local Trading Standards

...pointing out that this debt collector is (once the deadline is gone) demanding money under excuse of 'byelaws' after the time has expired to lay the matter before Magistrates, and they refused to provide a POPLA code. They have denied the consumer a fair appeal and are threatening to pursue money that is unrecoverable.

They cannot have their cake and eat it.

Either it's a byelaws penalty (no POPLA, and expired by the 6 month deadline and then unrecoverable) or it's a parking charge notice under contract terms, in which case they failed to provide a POPLA code. Either way, it's a misleading business practice, a breach of the CPUTRs 2008 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice for not issuing a POPLA code and using misleading terms that suggest a level of authority they do not have (Mags court penalty when they cannot do this).

failedcommuter

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well done, you have strung this out to get past the 6 months.

ZZPS have demanded money after the 6 month deadline recently, and that then opens the door to a massive complaint to:

- the BPA
- the DVLA
- your MP
- Sir Greg Knight
- local Trading Standards

...pointing out that this debt collector is (once the deadline is gone) demanding money under excuse of 'byelaws' after the time has expired to lay the matter before Magistrates, and they refused to provide a POPLA code. They have denied the consumer a fair appeal and are threatening to pursue money that is unrecoverable.

They cannot have their cake and eat it.

Either it's a byelaws penalty (no POPLA, and expired by the 6 month deadline and then unrecoverable) or it's a parking charge notice under contract terms, in which case they failed to provide a POPLA code. Either way, it's a misleading business practice, a breach of the CPUTRs 2008 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice for not issuing a POPLA code and using misleading terms that suggest a level of authority they do not have (Mags court penalty when they cannot do this).

Coupon - can you send the link to the thread(s) where ZZPS have tried to demand money after the 6 months please? I want to get ahead and research (in the anticipation) that they will attempt to do this, but I have struggled to find the thread myself.

If one doesn't exist, I would be happy to make this thread the case study...

Handbags-at-dawn

This one of them?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5805822

Coupon-mad

Here's one where the OP's elderly Dad paid ZZPS, when he got sent a letter by them, which the OP says was after the 6 months, and when her case (as driver) was still held at POPLA:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5782017

Then there was one where they (reportedly) reverted to the registered keeper hire company who paid them, even though there was an appeal in from the named driver which prevents a PPC from reverting to a keeper at all.

failedcommuter

Quick update, I received a reply from QDR:

"With reference to your recent correspondence, the contents of which have been duly noted.

We can confirm we have updated your new address on our file.

Please see attached photographic evidence obtained at the time of the contravention. Our clients have confirmed their correspondence sent to you clearly set out their stance in this matter.

Your account will remain on hold for 14 days to allow time for payment of this Penalty Notice

Please see below our payment methods we have enclosed for your convenience.

Debit Card/Automated Phone Payment: Call 01926 758736
Postal Orders & Cheques: Post to; Olympus Avenue, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire CV34 6BF

Please quote our reference number with all payments."


A couple of things, they are definitely referring this as a Penalty Notice, and the original PCN referenced Byelaw 14 as the justification.

I appealed at the time as the driver, and they are relying on the Byelaw route in writing (both at the time, in the appeal, and now latterly in this email), and they did not provide a POPLA code on the rejection of my appeal.

Would this mean I am correct in thinking that should they try to revert to contract law beyond the 6 month window (28/3/18) that would open them up to a claim? Additionally since I appealed as the driver within the 28 days of their allegation that I breached a Byelaw, they would have no reason to use the DVLA to get my Father-In-Law's details (the owner of the car), and if they did revert (as in the other cases I've read on the forums) to try and extract payment then this would be a clear-cut breach of law / BPA code?

Basically I have the time and resources to make a point here, over and above avoiding the 6 month time limit, if they continued to send me letters, so I want to understand my route, rationale, and ability to put a claim to them in Small Claims Court.

twhitehousescat

a wierd situation , reverting from bylaws to contractual , would cause them and the BPA a headache

why no popla code?

indigo decided to go this route , effectively trying to CON money out of people , knowing all along that this is a bribe they could not follow thru , "pay us £100 or we will tell train Co to prosecute"

its getting close to fraud , money by fraudulant means


hey cannot change to contractual , as both you and them would have to agree to it , in fact if they tried it , I would sue them for breaking the bylaw contract

failedcommuter

Just to add to my previous post, QDR claim the following Our clients have confirmed their correspondence sent to you clearly set out their stance in this matter. well they previously stated that their client is ZZPS, and I have had no correspondence from them in regard to this at all.

financerulez

There is no reason they can't enforce the parking as a civil matter. I'll try and explain my understanding:

Let's say they hadn't mentioned byelaws. Although the byelaws may govern the land in question, there is nothing as far as I'm aware that would stop them offering a contract as per a normal private land parking model. There would be terms and conditions that you are invited to read, you would pay for parking if you accepted them. If you didn't adhere to the t&cs, you would have allegedly broken the contract, and they would pursue you for such. However the key difference to a normal private land parking model is that POFA 2012 Sch 4 would not apply, so they would have no recourse against the Registered Keeper. This makes it an unattractive choice as if the RK didn't state who the driver was, they would have no recourse against anyone.

it gets more complicated when they mention byelaws. We would need to see exact wording of all correspondence and signage to analyse whether a contract exists and what is included in that contract, but my understanding is broadly:

If they have referred to the byelaws then they could become part of a contract. The contract may be an offer to park with the condition of adhering to the byelaws, acceptance is the driver parking there, and consideration is the payment to park. For them to prove the contract was broken they would need to then show you had breached a byelaw. The only way they could do that is back to the original byelaw way of proving it in the Mag Court, which they would need to do within 6 months. There may be a situation that could arise where their terms and conditions together with the byelaws form part of the contract, and they would argue you breached the terms and conditions, not the byelaw, thus breaking the contract, but this is all very hazy untested stuff.

There are also multiple problems with this contract:
1. They specifically refer to charges as penalties. PE v Beavis did not change the law on contractual penalties, only that charges may be allowed if commercially justifiable. Penalties are still banned in contracts, and their referral to 'penalty enforcements' would surely kill their case immediately.
2. Contracts need to be understandable, and clearly this one isn't because no-one knows whether the matter would even be civil or criminal law!
3. All the general problems with private parking contracts that can be found elsewhere on here.
4. Usually they don't know who the driver is, and the RK has no liability on byelaw land.

Other responses may be able to offer further info on contracts where byelaws also govern, or correct me if my understanding isn't there. The conclusion is they'll lose whichever way they want to pursue it.

financerulez

failedcommuter wrote: »

Just to add to my previous post, QDR claim the following Our clients have confirmed their correspondence sent to you clearly set out their stance in this matter. well they previously stated that their client is ZZPS, and I have had no correspondence from them in regard to this at all.

Smash them on every mistake they make.

Make sure you wait their 14 days before replying, and get it past the 6 months