Penalty Notice Railway Land

Fruitcake

ImportantNotice wrote: »

The registered keeper is now getting very worried and wants to pay to make all the stress go away...

The keeper isn't liable, so I'm baffled as to why they would be worried. Only an idiot would pay this.

ImportantNotice

If I understand correctly, now that it has been established the the "Penalty" was issued for an alleged breach of Railway Byelaws (and Indigo used this reason when requesting the keeper's details from the DVLA), the driver can now be identified?

If so, and in the spirit of helping along the remaining 3 month, is there any harm in the keeper responding, by letter, to ZZPS with:

"You have been passed my details by Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited unlawfully, and I was not the driver at the time of the alleged breach. Please direct all future correspondence to the driver: [insert driver details]."?

KeithP

Why on earth would you want to send that?

It helps no-one.

The keeper is perfectly safe.

waamo

ImportantNotice wrote: »

If I understand correctly, now that it has been established the the "Penalty" was issued for an alleged breach of Railway Byelaws (and Indigo used this reason when requesting the keeper's details from the DVLA), the driver can now be identified?

If so, and in the spirit of helping along the remaining 3 month, is there any harm in the keeper responding, by letter, to ZZPS with:

"You have been passed my details by Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited unlawfully, and I was not the driver at the time of the alleged breach. Please direct all future correspondence to the driver: [insert driver details]."?

Which part of ignore it are you struggling with?

nosferatu1001

Indeed, why on earth would yo unow identify the driver?
How could that possibly help you or the driver?
You could have named the driver regardless of it being a penalty or otherwise.

ImportantNotice

Ok, I got it. Ignoring mode: ON
...................................................

waamo

Six months after the henious crime took place you can write to them demanding they delete your data.

They will write back confirming it has been deleted.

Handbags-at-dawn

ImportantNotice wrote: »

BPA response:
" Government committed at a meeting in January 2017 to provide clarification, but due to various circumstances, some beyond their control, this has not been forthcoming. Please note that we do anticipate a resolution by the end of this year.

As the BPA does not offer an appeals service, this means that if you remain unhappy with the outcome of your appeal you need to refer the matter to a Magistrates Court, or alternatively you could seek legal advice yourself to ascertain how you can contest the charge further.

"

Of course the BPA's suggestion you should refer the matter to the Mags Court - ie prosecute yourself - is complete nonsense. Perhaps even worse: they have not been completely open with you either. They suggest the "clarification" promised by the DfT in January 2017 has not been forthcoming. In fact, the DfT circulated a letter dated 18th June 2018 to the BPA, Transport Focus, London Travelwatch, the AA and the RAC. The letter says:

"It is the view of the department that if a person is issued with a parking ticket then, as a matter of good industry practice, they should be provided with the opportunity to appeal against it to a body which is independent of the parking operator. There is nothing stated in the Byelaws which prohibits parking operators from providing an avenue of appeal. The department would therefore encourage parking operators to re-instate their independent appeals processes with immediate effect. " (my bold)


Clearly the DfT's "encouragement" isn't enough. Tell your MP the Government's wishes are being ignored; and that evidently the parking operators will only respond if the Government applies something that hurts.

ImportantNotice

Update
Ignore mode remains ON.
Day 112: Second demand from ZZPS received, now £170.
Day 120: Response from BPA to my request for additional information regarding no independent appeal route since DfT gave response in June and they are still not offering; and suggestion that I take to Magistrates Court:
Apparently, despite the DfT's clear encouragement the BPA had to "respond back to the DfT for clarification on further issues before the independent appeals service could be re-instated". They "believe this matter is reaching a conclusion now." Breath 'bated!
Also, "for the matter to be heard in a Magistrates court, the Operator would have to escalate it there ..." so a contradiction to their previous advice! Guess the keeper will have to wait for the Operator to contact them, then ... except that the Operator (Train Operating Company I presume, not Indigo) doesn't (shouldn't/ can't) know who the keeper is? Although, as Indigo has passed information to ZZPS when it shouldn't have then who knows who else they might pass information to?

Also written again to my MP as my point that the BPA was ignoring the DfT's letter of 18th June 2018 to re-instate was missed. I'll update again with MPs response...

ImportantNotice

Today, day 126, the keeper has received "Final Reminder" from ZZPS now threatening that they:

"could instruct a local agent to discuss payment of the debt" whatever that means or
recommend to their client that "a private criminal prosecution be brought against" the keeper.

The keeper now has 14 days before ZZPS seek confirmation from their client that they can pass the account for legal debt recovery.

Ignore mode still ON, but should the keeper write to ZZPS at this point to tell them that as their client passed them the keeper details illegally they should not pass them any further, and should delete them from their records? Or have I misunderstood this "passing on of information" point?

Thanks.