11 Indigo PCNs

Handbags-at-dawn

It’s because ITAL have lifted their FAQs page, here:
https://www.asparking.co.uk/Faq
directly from Indigo’s, here:
https://uk.parkindigo.com/en/faq
(which was written before the BPA said independent appeals must be reinstated).

So much for independence!

Coupon-mad

Watch them scurry to edit that website again...

twhitehousescat

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

It’s because ITAL have lifted their FAQs page, here:
https://www.asparking.co.uk/Faq
directly from Indigo’s, here:
https://uk.parkindigo.com/en/faq
(which was written before the BPA said independent appeals must be reinstated).

So much for independence!

yup with one small edit

Should you remain dissatisfied with this decision, you may further your appeal to the Parking On Private Land Appeal service (POPLA) within 28 days of receiving your rejection letter. Details of this are available at https://www.popla.co.uk.

You’ll be issued with a 10 digit verification code, which you must use with your appeal to POPLA. This is shown at the top of your rejection letter.

The POPLA process does not apply in Scotland or to PN’s (Penalty Notices) received at a railway station car park.

Whatapain

So back to original question when appeal to ITAL - if I can - and then by post to 6 PCNs that I received to late to appeal on line, do I :

1. State I was the driver with name + address?
2. Explain the real reason i.e their app does not work and as one can not enter a new vehicule to pay for parking, even if make and reg are inverted, all info should be accessible to them, and if it does not, it is their issue not mine?

Quite “amusing” as reasons for appeal probably do not matter as they will reject and so will ITAL who is clearly not very agnostic and independent at all, and their only goal is to scare people off into paying their made up fake and arbitrary so called penalties.


Thanks!

Coupon-mad

1. State I was the driver with name + address?

Why admit to being the driver?

2. Explain the real reason i.e their app does not work and as one can not enter a new vehicle to pay for parking, even if make and reg are inverted, all info should be accessible to them, and if it does not, it is their issue not mine?

You would need to attach evidence, e.g. can you get a video on another phone, showing an attempt being made to change the vehicle, and what happens?

Whatapain

Thanks coupon mad.

1. True, I don’t have to admit I was the driver but why am I appealing if I am not the driver as I am not the owner nor the keeper..?

Leasing company has sent to garage who has sent to me as they know I was the driver and as such they are expecting me to handle it (which seems fair).

Not sure why/who would otherwise appeal..?

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Hmmm...it's a difficult one. If this was not a fake byelaws penalty, we would say to use the POFA and point out that the parking firm have not complied with para 13/14 and failed to issue a Notice to Hirer to transfer liability to the hirer (you).

But I worry that if you try that stance the PPC will say ''OK then you are not the liable party, the owner is, so we will revert to their liability under the bylaws''.

So to stop that disaster, I agree you should appeal as driver and go for this, with evidence for ITAL to see what happens when a person pays but tries to register a different vehicle (not 'vehicule'):

I am not even the keeper. Just someone who was driving the car, parked it, paid for parking and got 11 penalties as their own payment app does not show all the info they oblige you to enter to create/add a new vehicle..

And also cite the byelaw itself (byelaw 14) and show that by paying, you have NOT in fact breached any byelaw at all. A faulty app and or/or paying for the wrong vehicle, for whatever reason, is not a byelaw breach under Byelaw 14. Cite it, read it, throw that at them along with evidence in the form of a video of the fault.

Whatapain

Thanks Coupon-mad this makes sense. I will use that one to Indigo themselves by post for those they sent too late and I can’t appeal (and they will obiously reject on that basis) and directly to ITAL

Whatapain

I am guessing they will reply that paying for the wrong vehicule is not a breach of byepass 15 but not paying for the right one is . The cars they are trying to play is that I have not paid for the car whose reg does not match their payment database as I have used the car make. My point is that I may/app may have only displayed the make, but in order to be able to add the car in the forst place I had to enter the reg even if in the wrong cell/cells inverted so that info has to be available and visible to them, as what would otherwise be the point to ask for it and only allow to create a new car unless all of this info is entered? As someone also pointed out, if it were that crucial their app should not allow one to enter a make instead of a reg. I appreciate that a reg can technically be anything including a car make, but it would not be that difficult to display a message saying “it appears that you have entered a car make in the reg field, please ensure this is correct before confirming”. There aren’t hundreds of car makes so very feasible if one is in the business of really providing payment mechanism as opposed to be an accomplice of parking scammers, just as ITAL seems to be.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So to stop that disaster, I agree you should appeal as driver and go for this, with evidence for ITAL to see what happens when a person pays but tries to register a different vehicle (not 'vehicule')

Whatapain wrote: »

I am guessing they will reply that paying for the wrong vehicule is not a breach of byepass 15 but not paying for the right one is .

Hmmm, spelling lesson seems to have failed C-m.

@OP - byepass 15, or byelaw 15?