Indigo Railway Ticket Ping Pong Letter Advice

fuziduck

Hi,

Going through the usual letter ping pong with Indigo to get the 'Penalty Notice' over the 6 month mark.

I'm just about to send another letter to Indigo and I just want to check this question is relevant and may provide an interesting response for all?

The letter from them says: 'The owner of the vehicle is held liable for all Penalty Notices issued on Railway assets in all circumstances, as such we have no course of action against the driver or hirer of the vehicle.'

My question back to them is: 'Please provide the relevant extract of the railway byelaw that states the owner of the vehicle is held liable for all Penalty Notices issued on Railway assets. '

Does this seem a reasonable question?

fisherjim

Why not if you are stringing it out.

waamo

Ask them anything you like. It's just about playing ping pong. They should be able to answer that one easily as it's a matter of fact.

When they reply you could ask them why are they assuming you are the owner?

fuziduck

Perfect,

I'll ask that!

Is it worth asking for a POPLA code again as they are legally obliged to off ADR?
(Date of 'offence' was 3rd October so half way there!)

waamo

Again you can ask for what you like. They won't give you a POPLA code but it leads to more questions. You can ask why not as the BPA and Department of Transport says you can have one.

If you get a code for an organisation called ITAL let us know as there is a cunning plan.

The_Deep

Ownership of a vehicle can be transferred at any time, (and transferred back), there is no document that denotes ownership AFAIAA. Why not reply thusly

Thank you for your letter reference xxxxx dated xxx. The contents of which have been noted.

May I suggest that you address ant further correspondence to the owner of the vehicle.

and complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the pub

Fruitcake

All good advice from the regulars.

As the Deep has said, why not tell them to contact The Owner who they have admitted is the person liable, not you, The Keeper.

Remember, only one question per ping, then another when they pong.

Please do complain to the BPA that they have refused (use that word) to provide a PoPLA code in breach of the ADR Act 2015 and the DfT's advice on June the 18th to PoPLA.

Likewise, please do complain to your MP as advised above about this unregulated scam, especially complaining about their refusal to follow the requirements of an Act of Parliament.

fuziduck

Ok. On review this is what I shall send to Indigo. (The letter I received was from the PCN Admin Centre, and references Indigo as the Client so I am going to respond directly to Indigo)

A letter has been received by the Registered Keeper on the XXX from ‘PCN Admin Centre’, based in Bacchus House, Addlestone with the above Penalty Number and Reference Number XXX.
This letter states that Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited are the client, and goes on to explain that the owner of the vehicle is liable. Indigo have incorrectly passed on the Registered Keepers details to ‘PCN Admin Centre’ and the Registered Keeper requests that all records of the Registered Keeper are deleted by both parties.

Fruitcake

I would specifically add that all future correspondence should be sent to The Owner, who will not be identified, not The Keeper since they have refused to allow The Keeper the opportunity to appeal.

I would also instruct, not request, that The Keeper's data is deleted and confirmation sent that this has been done.

None of it really matters. You are just watching the calendar click away to six months.

Please do the complaints as requested.

Spursmad

It gets better esp when the vehicle is not on lease

The Owner is the person who has title to the car
The Registered Keeper is the person whose name is on the V5
The Keeper is the person who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of any parking infringements

That is how it was explained to me some time ago. and could be important how the reverse of any invoice is worded However, If wrong please amend

Fruitcake

Spursmad wrote: »

It gets better esp when the vehicle is not on lease

The Owner is the person who has title to the car
The Registered Keeper is the person whose name is on the V5
The Keeper is the person who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of any parking infringements

That is how it was explained to me some time ago. and could be important how the reverse of any invoice is worded However, If wrong please amend

Basically correct. The owner or registered keeper could also be a company, or agency such as Motobility.
The driver could be any or all or none of the above.
In addition, for hire or lease cars there is yet another entity in the equation.

However, where byelaws apply, only one of the above could be liable, and the scammers must be told firmly to only deal with that entity, which could of course be a company or government organisation or an individual or group of individuals.