Indigo £1000 penalty fine

Parkingfines

Hi yes.

A good few years ago I was a McKenzie friend for two peoplei nvolved at Doncaster Mags.

Handbags-at-dawn

Parkingfines wrote: »

No it's only the holder of the bylaws who can prosecute a case in the magistrates court.

Where is the authority for this? As far as I know, anyone can bring a prosecution if they really want to. VCS have done it for alleged parking offences on land owned by Bawtry Parish Council - presumably pour encourager les autres.

twhitehousescat

ok , lets step back a bit

indigos contract (with TOC) forbids them from starting COURT action

I suspect that no definition is quoted on this , magistrates or county

so , keep ital out of the equation , bide time no pointless "gobbin" to ital ,

Ital are keen to say how good there name/address database is , i would suggest that you do not join this

PS: in every other aspect of there work , ie fare dodging etc , if you are not happy with appeal result you can complain above them (transport???? ombudsman) , but nothing for the newly (and rushed) setup for parking

Parkingfines

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

Where is the authority for this? As far as I know, anyone can bring a prosecution if they really want to. VCS have done it for alleged parking offences on land owned by Bawtry Parish Council - presumably pour encourager les autres.

Yes this the council, it was actually Excel, but they are really one and the same! about 5/6 years ago. Excel were actually running the parking management on behalf of the council

twhitehousescat

Parkingfines wrote: »

Yes this the council, it was actually Excel, but they are really one and the same! about 5/6 years ago. Excel were actually running the parking management on behalf of the council

many yrs ago then before this was stopped and fred flintstone got his 1st print of POFa2012

counsil never was and never will be bylaw land (in the context of railway car parks)

waamo

I think before an appeal is made to ITAL it needs to be checked so that it is clear as day no driver or owner has been identified.

As long as this is the case I don't see that an appeal can hurt. If the RK has sent anything other than the blue template as an initial appeal then it probably needs to be a case of holding fire.

If a Newbie reports sending their own appeal or amending the template then no matter what they assert then it should be assumed they've blabbed.

Coupon-mad

Parkingfines wrote: »

Yes this the council, it was actually Excel, but they are really one and the same! about 5/6 years ago. Excel were actually running the parking management on behalf of the council

They still are, there is a Bawtry case on pepipoo where Gan and I have said to pay.

Coupon-mad

Parkingfines wrote: »

Yes this the council, it was actually Excel, but they are really one and the same! about 5/6 years ago. Excel were actually running the parking management on behalf of the council

They still are, there is a Bawtry case on pepipoo where Gan and I have said to pay.

Robert_Min

So i’ve had a reply in the form of an ITAL pack from SABA and it seems they have actually sent someone to sight to take some very dodgy close up pictures of the signage as I provided a 360 with no signage viewable

Theyve also brought up I hadnt made a purchase since september before this, I’d been on Holiday more fool them as thats very close to breach of data.

They also say SABA park services offer numerous method of vertification booking and tender? Saber bought Indigo in December and I have absoloutely no transaction history with them they have come out of nowhere and are not on any signage

-Theyve said I have 14 days to appeal from 18th kf feb
-They advertise on the back of their appeals letter how to pay Indigo?!?!
-One of theyre pictures shows a sign saying people will be clamped which I presumed was illegal?
-Can i request proof of contract
-Do I actually have any dealings with SABA who bought Indigo as I purchased the ticket before this
-Data protection act?

Anyone any ideas with these points

waamo

I would ignore them from now on. I see no advantage in appealing any further. We know they are powerless if a driver isn't named so why risk anything?