Paid for wrong car at station Indigo

ViciousHippo

Hi

I am in dispute with Indigo over a parking ticket. It has now gone to solicitors who are threatening to take it to Court. I now feel out of my depth and not sure what to do next.

Background - I parked at my local station with the Indigo app. I paid correctly but chose wrong registration from my list. I paid for my other half's car when I should have paid for mine.

I got a ticket understandably, but I wrote to them with evidence that I had paid for a ticket. This was rejected on the basis that my ticket was not valid. My argument is:

1 Nowhere on the signs of the station does it say what constitutes a valid ticket. It just says parking is covered by Railway Byelaw 14 which states you must abide by the instructions of the operator.
2 The signs are clear on the parking charges that apply, and I paid the correct amount (a daily ticket) of £6.35.
3 The confirmation I received (by email) does NOT mention the car registration. Merely that I have paid for a daily ticket. There is no way of knowing from the confirmation that you have entered the wrong registration.
4 The T&Cs for Indigo can be found online and these do state (a few pages down): "The use of the Parking Services is only valid for the vehicle specified in the accepted booking request"
5 I have accepted that I made an administration error in informing the operator of the incorrect vehicle and have offered to pay for the costs in them having to write to me.

I have not accepted a breach as I have complied with the signs at the station - which is to pay for a daily ticket to park. Furthermore I can evidence this with the confirmation email. I have proof therefore that the operator is therefore not out of pocket. I liken this to paying an bill by bank transfer with the wrong reference quoted. If you did this with any other bill, you would not be treated in this way.

My questions are;
A They are threatening a private criminal prosecution with a fine up to £1000, as set out in s37 Criminal Justice Act 1982. If this goes to Court, am I obliged to hire a solicitor to defend me in Court, as this would be very expensive.

B Is there any basis for setting aside the T&Cs of the operator - for example on the basis that this is an unfair contract since the contract is for an insignificant amount (£6.35), and it is unreasonable and unreallistic to impose such a lengthy contract to read for such a small transaction. If not, I think the judge would presumably be compelled to accept the T&Cs.

C I thought because it was a private operator that the issue of damages would be in point. And since I had paid, the damages would be small. However presumably as it is a criminal prosecution, damages are not in point, so that defense will not help me.

Sorry this is so long. I feel very uncertain about what to do next - pay the current £187.50 they are demanding or risk a private criminal prosecution.

My last point is - why are they pursuing this, given I can prove I have paid. Is this a form of abuse of monopoly power, if there is such a thing. And is that clutching at straws.

Thanks for any comments!!

fisherjim

Search for other Indigo railway station threads on here, Indigo cannot take you to court over a byelaw they are only engaged to manage the car park and frighten you.


Only the TOC can take court action and they won't especially if you have proof you paid.

PPC's are liars and scammers they are only interested in money, they love mistakes like this it means they can scam unsuspecting people out of even more cash don't consider paying it.

This needs stringing out for six months and then it times out.

waamo

In answer to your questions

A) it won't go anywhere near a court.

see A

C) see B.

Reply to each letter they send asking them to clarify a point. It can be any point. To start you off question why you haven't been offered POPLA.

Then ask them who exactly is liable the driver, owner or keeper. Just string it out.

Indigo will actually make it really easy. They love playing mail ping pong and will happily send gobbledygook answers.

ViciousHippo

Thanks for this and apologies I didn't see all the Indigo threads. (I did try a search but did something wrong!)

With all the useful advice I was going to try to reconstruct the process how we get from Byelaw 14 through to s127 Magistrates Court Act 1980 with the 6 month time limit. I am really worried about this, can you tell!!

Anyway I was stumped at the first hurdle. ZZPS have written that th echarge is issued under s219 Transport Act 2000 as amended under the Railways Act 2005. However, looking at this, the Railways Act repeals s219. It does replace it with new rules, but I do not see how ZZPS can say it is issued under a section that has been repealed. Makes no sense to me.

219
Power to make bye-laws.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1
S. 219 repealed (16.10.2005) by Railways Act 2005 (c. 14), s. 60(2), Sch. 1 para. 36(c), Sch. 13 Pt. 1 (with s. 14(4)(5), 46(4), Sch. 11 para. 11(2), Sch. 13 para. 2); S.I. 2005/2812, art. 2(1), Sch. 1

Le_Kirk

ViciousHippo wrote: »

Makes no sense to me.

Well, contact them and ask for an explanation, six months will fly by!

fisherjim

ViciousHippo wrote: »

Thanks for this and apologies I didn't see all the Indigo threads. (I did try a search but did something wrong!)

With all the useful advice I was going to try to reconstruct the process how we get from Byelaw 14 through to s127 Magistrates Court Act 1980 with the 6 month time limit. I am really worried about this, can you tell!!

Anyway I was stumped at the first hurdle. ZZPS have written that th echarge is issued under s219 Transport Act 2000 as amended under the Railways Act 2005. However, looking at this, the Railways Act repeals s219. It does replace it with new rules, but I do not see how ZZPS can say it is issued under a section that has been repealed. Makes no sense to me.

219
Power to make bye-laws.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1
S. 219 repealed (16.10.2005) by Railways Act 2005 (c. 14), s. 60(2), Sch. 1 para. 36(c), Sch. 13 Pt. 1 (with s. 14(4)(5), 46(4), Sch. 11 para. 11(2), Sch. 13 para. 2); S.I. 2005/2812, art. 2(1), Sch. 1

Of course it makes no sense they are debt collectors that tell lies and they like to bluff and confuse you hoping you'll pay them.


Stop worrying and stop over thinking this.

ViciousHippo

Haha I love you guys - so positive.

I will write to them and in fact the 6 months is not far. Just 3 weeks away, so I am feeling much more confident. I do note the solicitors are referring to a PCN, but presumably it is not a PCN as well as a criminal offence. It cant be both surely.

ZZPS explain it better in their earlier letter - "The Charge is an offer to make a payment of an alternative charge under Railway Byelaws". I read this as meaning - pay this and we won't pursue charges against your criminal activity. That sounds a little like a bribe to pervert the course of justice.

To me this is a jumbled mess and I would certainly make that point to a Magistrate (which I know wont happen!)

ViciousHippo

Well I never - just found this which comes to a similar conclusion to my bribe point;

Since this model does not generate revenue, some parking companies have attempted to get around this by layering a contractual model over the top. After the parking event they send a Notice to Owner alleging a breach of Byelaw 14 and offer the motorist an opportunity to pay the parking company a charge (e.g. £100) to avoid criminal prosecution. They state the alternative is that their client (the railway company) may pursue the recipient through the magistrates court under a criminal prosecution which could result in a fine of up to £1,000. As a side note, some allege this sort of arrangement could be considered solicitation of a bribe, since they are requesting payment to avoid prosecution.

waamo

I told you they rely with gobbledygook. They will happily reply like that to every letter you send.

Once a month ask them what on earth their letter means. Wash, rinse then repeat.

Stop over complicating it. 10 minutes a month saying (in the words of a greater man than I) "Wot you talkin' bout Willis"? Sees this off.

Coupon-mad

When it gets past the six months, as soon as the next demand arrives, send a copy - and a copy of the original pseudo 'Penalty Notice' - to Steve Clark at the BPA (a reasonable man, IMHO) and complain that ZZPS are pursuing 'Indigo fake byelaws penalties' beyond the 6 months statutory limitation bar, again:

steve.c@bristishparking.co.uk

You can show him the link to this thread if you like so he can see the timing and that it is statute barred for Magistrates court, and that ZZPS are demanding money beyond the very limited period that the TOC had, to lay the case before Magistrates.

Wait till the NEXT letter, dated AFTER the six months has been and gone. NOT YET!

You could also sue Indigo if you like, high time more people did this, for misuse of data to demand money (with menaces, and the debt collectors know all this) beyond the time limit for the TOC to prosecute. More people should start throwing £500 court claims for DPA breach, and SARs at Indigo, left right and centre, as well as BPA complaints every time once the 6 months is passed.

If this happened more, it would make the business model far less attractive for Indigo.

HTH

Redx

whilst you are stringing it out past the 6 month deadline , with slow emails to INDIGO (IGNORE zzps) , read these sagas


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5789847/adaptis-solutions-railway-byelaw-s14


and



https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5782017/popla-on-hold-due-to-bylaw


and


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5803499/indigo-railway-pcn-clarifying-the-process


and


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5806785/indigo-station-parking-fine


and


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5814594/indigo-zzps-response-to-template-letter