11 Indigo PCNs

waamo

Whatapain wrote: »

Why are there posts about some sollicitors sending letters before court claim again? Who would have initiated that if NOBODY can do anything?

Byelaws cases are different to run of the mill ppc cases. A letter before claim from a solicitor is a real and genuine threat.

Look how many threads are "help I've got a ccj".

Whatapain

So a letter from Sollicitors can not be sent in that case if I understand correctly..!?

twhitehousescat

the invite to pay a bribe can be sent by a solicitor , BUT you are unlikely to get a letter before claim from a solicitor in regard to a INDIGO bylaw case

if you want to appeal your cases with as parking (ital) then do so , we cannot stop you , you have been given suggestions on wording and timing


after the appeals are heard (if you appeal) , report back to this thread and update us

Fruitcake

The only advantage of appealing to Indigo (or in any other bylaws case) as far as I can tell is to slow them down.

If ignoring will have no detrimental affect, then there is no harm in advising posters to ignore. If appealing to Indigo will actually have the effect of slowing them down a bit and or running the clock down, then that is a viable option and should be advised.

I agree with the comments that most NEWBIES want to do "something" rather than ignore. We already get people who refuse to ignore debt crawlers so it is even harder to convince them to ignore a PPC.

I am uncomfortable with advising anyone to appeal to ITAL as there may be a possibility that somehow court proceedings could be started.
If only the owner can be prosecuted in Mags court by the TOC, and they can't get the owner's details (even if known) from the PPC, but could get it via ITAL, then an ITAL appeal should not be attempted.

Other opinions are available.

Handbags-at-dawn

The only person who could be prosecuted is the driver, for the susbstantive offence. The owner cannot be prosecuted. It’s not an offence to be the owner of a car allegedly parked in breach of the Byelaws.

Even so...... ITAL specialise in prosecution services, and they clearly have an uncomfortably close relationship with Indigo - even sharing FAQs - so I agree, it may be better not to engage with them.

By the way, there’s an example of a typical QDR Solicitors’ letter at post 22 here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5794130/indigo-train-station-pcn&highlight=jph572&page=2#topofpage

Whatapain

Fuitcake I hear you. But as they can not anything there is nothing to “slow down”. Whether one receives 10 letters in 6 months or 200 does not make a different is they are powerless..!

twhitehousescat

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

The only person who could be prosecuted is the driver, for the susbstantive offence. The owner cannot be prosecuted. It’s not an offence to be the owner of a car allegedly parked in breach of the Byelaws.

Even so...... ITAL specialise in prosecution services, and they clearly have an uncomfortably close relationship with Indigo - even sharing FAQs - so I agree, it may be better not to engage with them.

By the way, there’s an example of a typical QDR Solicitors’ letter at post 22 here:
Actually QDR solicitors sometimes send out very dubious threatening letters - see post 22, here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5794130/indigo-train-station-pcn&highlight=jph572&page=2#topofpage

I can confirm that it has taken over 2 years for us to reach this position. Our staff have been fully trained** and our assessment criteria reviewed by both the British Parking Association and the Department for Transport.

The information on our website is currently being reviewed, this includes the code of practice and the frequently asked questions. We are hoping to have more comprehensive guidance appearing by the beginning of next week.

**telephone call to them this morning



is the non display of a parking ticket a bylaw offence?

Ital reply


answer (please put coffee cup down)

it is an offence not to show tickets when a conductors asks to see them

ok :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Whatapain

By the look of it, they (ZZZ in that case) do use sollicitors for byelaw 14 as per twhitehousescat last email and link to DDQ ..?

twhitehousescat

zzps send letters on solisitors notepaper , pretending to be the solisitors

if solisitor works for parking firm , why does supposed solicitors letter say to pay debt collection company?

the email above came from ital , pretending to be an independent appeal service https://www.ital-uk.com/about/

the options have been explained to you , do as you wish now

Whatapain

I will thank you for all the help and info. I have been trying to make my own judgement based on all the info.
Parking firm using sollicitors when they can not take one to court as just 2 conflicting pieces of info and trying to make sense of all of this. If they can’t there is no point using sollicitors, especially of this is magistrate court and they would recup anything.