Indigo ITAL appeal

twhitehousescat

tick tock , you will not get a sensible answer to your questions and appeal


only this week there is a posting where ital admitted that debt collection letters should not be sent whilst appeal , apologising and stating it will not happen again


looks like ital have no balls

BT68

Appeal rejection received - oh well:

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the above referenced Penalty Notice issued on ....

The Railway Byelaws 2005 (“the Byelaws”), which regulate the use and parking of vehicles in railway station car
parks, permit ticketing. Under byelaw 14(3), a person using a railway station car park must pay the parking
charges which are levied by the operator. Further, it is stated in byelaw 14(4)(i) that the owner of a vehicle may be
liable to pay a penalty if it has been used, placed or left in contravention of byelaws 14(1) to (3).

Under the Railway Byelaws, the owner of the vehicle may be liable to pay a Penalty Notice. In the absence to any
documentation proving otherwise, the registered keeper is presumed to be the owner.

The Registered Keeper has no liability to accept making payment of the Penalty Notice, as the Byelaws hold the
owner liable and ‘contract law’ does not apply. The Registered Keeper is assumed to be the owner, unless proven
otherwise. The case can be allowed to possibly progress to the Magistrates Court.

The Parking Operator does not have to include any information regarding the landowner’s consent, their legal
standing to issue Penalty Notices or manage the car park within the evidence pack. The Parking Operator are
audited by the BPA who check this information, it is a key requirement for them to operate as a member of the
BPA.

The Appeals Service (AS) is not associated with the Parking Operator, or the Train Operating Company. AS
provide an independent service, which gives the recipient of a Penalty Notice the opportunity to further appeal.

I acknowledge the points raised by yourself and this case has been fully reviewed. Being confident that the
Parking Operator has followed the correct procedure in the consideration of your first appeal, I can confirm that
their initial decision remains.

You did not purchase a valid parking ticket or permit to cover vehicle ...on .... Therefore,
the parking notice was correctly issued.

AS’s decision is final, and the appeal is now closed with us. This does not prevent you from pursuing your issue
through other channels, such as the courts.

Payment of the full outstanding amount, as detailed in your Penalty Notice, must be received within 28 days of the
date of this letter. The Parking Operator reserves the right to pursue the full outstanding amount, plus any
additional associated costs, in accordance with their Terms and Conditions of parking. Full payment options are
detailed in this response.

As a company that is independent of Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited and ZZPS, we are unable to assist you
with your query regarding your Debt Collection Notice. As such, please contact Indigo Park Solutions UK Limited
in relation to this matter.

Yours sincerely

BrownTrout

The Parking Operator does not have to include any information regarding the landowner’s consent, their legal
standing to issue Penalty Notices or the car park within the evidence pack. The Parking Operator are
audited by the BPA who check this information, it is a key requirement for them to operate as a member of the
BPA.

That is quite a joke

nigelbb

The Registered Keeper has no liability to accept making payment of the Penalty Notice, as the Byelaws hold the
owner liable and ‘contract law’ does not apply. The Registered Keeper is assumed to be the owner, unless proven
otherwise. The case can be allowed to possibly progress to the Magistrates Court.

It looks like you are home & dry provided you pass the six months timeout for the magistrates as there is no way that Indigo could take you to court as this confirms that it's a penalty & contract law is not involved.

Usually the PPCs muddy the waters between Byelaw & Contract but in this case the appeals service is saying that the owner was offered the chance to pay the penalty as an alternative to prosecution. The owner is under no obligation to accept the penalty so it cannot become a debt

Umkomaas

Looks like the ITAL assessor has had a crash course in adjudication skills through the IPC's IAS!

Handbags-at-dawn

Umkomaas wrote: »

Looks like the ITAL assessor has had a crash course in adjudication skills through the IPC's IAS!

....where the Mad Hatter taught him a very weird version of the law:-

1. “The Byelaws permit ticketing”. No they don’t. There’s no mention of ticketing at all. .

2. “The Byelaws hold the owner liable”. No they don’t. They say the owner may be liable. “The owner may be liable; therefore he is” is an absurd interpretation of Byelaw 14/4/1.

3. “The registered keeper is presumed to be the owner”. They made that up. There’s no such presumption in real law.

4. “The Parking operator does not have to provide any information regarding the landowner’s consent”. Yes, actually, they do. It’s a fundamental part of their case. No authority, no case. Being a member of the BPA doesn’t prove it. (In fact the only contract that we’ve seen is with a different company - Indigo Park Services).

5. Indigo’s penalty, being pre-conviction, is based upon a presumption of guilt. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? No-one - not even the owner - can be required to pay a home-made pre-conviction penalty. It’s illegal.

6. “ Payment of the full outstanding amount ...must be received within 28 days....” No it doesn’t. The decision is NOT binding on the appellant.

nigelbb

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

5. Indigo’s penalty, being pre-conviction, is based upon a presumption of guilt. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? No-one - not even the owner - can be required to pay a home-made pre-conviction penalty. It’s illegal.

Incorrect. The penalty is offered as an alternative to prosecution in the magistrates court. The owner/RK has the option of accepting or declining payment of the penalty. When the penalty is declined it does not become a debt & cannot be pursued through the County Court. The only outcome is that the owner/RK may be prosecuted but even this times out six months after the date of the alleged crime.

This flawed & shoddy adjudication is in fact a gift to the motorist as it confirms that the penalty is an alternative to prosecution which may be declined.

The_Deep

If a motorist were to be taken to a Mags court and won, would the losing side have to pay his/her legal fees?

A relative of mine was wrongly accused of shoplifting some years ago. and elected a jury trial in the County Court. The CPS declined to prosecute and they were refunded their legal expenses of some £2,000.

Coupon-mad

Nice of them to confirm this in writing:

The Registered Keeper has no liability to accept making payment of the Penalty Notice, as the Byelaws hold the owner liable and ‘contract law’ does not apply. The Registered Keeper is assumed to be the owner, unless proven otherwise. The case can be allowed to possibly progress to the Magistrates Court.

The Parking Operator does not have to include any information regarding the landowner’s consent, their legal standing to issue Penalty Notices or manage the car park within the evidence pack. The Parking Operator are audited by the BPA who check this information, it is a key requirement for them to operate as a member of the BPA.

I would highlight that sentence in a complaint to Steve Clark at the BPA:

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

He was not happy when POPLA said that the BPA 'audit' the workings of ANPR systems, so I can't think he will like ITAL saying that an operator doesn't have to bother to show its landowner authority because 'the BPA check this' (which they don't).

Handbags-at-dawn

nigelbb wrote: »

The owner/RK has the option of accepting or declining payment of the penalty. When the penalty is declined it does not become a debt & cannot be pursued through the County Court. d.

Under real law you’re right.

But under Indigo/ITAL law, the owner/RK does not have the option of accepting or declining the offer. Non-payment is met with debt collectors’ letters, and sometimes even so-called solicitors’ letters, demanding payment. Words such as “recovery of the outstanding debt” and “you are legally liable for the penalty” and “payment is required “ are used.

And ITAL don’t confirm it’s an offer that can be rejected. They say the owner is liable for the penalty - ie legally obliged to pay it.

The only real outcome is the driver could be prosecuted. There’s nothing the owner can be prosecuted for.