11 Indigo PCNs

Whatapain

Apologies, byelaw 14 indeed and vehicle! English is not my mother tongue and my spell check does not always default to English. This is what happens when one relies on technology too much: Brain becomes lazy!

Whatapain

This is what I am planning to send to Indigo to appeal to the 6 PCNs I can’t appeal to online via post, and to ITAL. Your thoughts/comments/additions/changes are most welcome.

Dear Sir, Madam,

I have received 6 PCNs including this one ref: from the car leasing company and delays to send it from your side, did not make it possible to appeal online as per your process, and I am therefore doing this in writing via post, having no other choice.

The driver paid for the day this PCN was issued, using Indigo’s online payment mechanism, Connect Cashless parking (receipt attached).
In order to add a vehicle for payment for parking through the mobile phone app, user needs to enter 3 pieces of information, Colour, Car make and Car registration (account login page attached).
If any piece of information is missing, the vehicle can not be added.

1. All information entered by user has therefore to be made available for payment and can be accessed by Indigo.

2. It is up to the payment mechanism provider i.e Connect Cashless parking i.e. Indigo’s own payment mechanism to ensure the app functions properly. If any information added by the user is not displayed when buying the parking time, due to app not working/user field error, it should be linked to all other information entered by the user as requested by the app, and can/should be visible to Indigo.
Where/if information requested and provided by user is field sensitive, automatic checks and warning to user should be in place before confirming and adding vehicle.

3. Paying for parking is not a breach of byelaw 14 as per PCN.

On the basis of the 3 points above, I appeal to this PCN.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Fruitcake

Point 3 needs tidying up I think.

Something along the lines of,
"Failing to pay for parking is not a Railway Byelaw 14 offence. In any case, payment was made for the vehicle in question but was not recognised due to a fault with the parking app. Consequently no Railway Byelaw has been breached.
This fault has allowed the correct data entered to be transposed and recorded on your system in an incorrect manner.
This fault could easily be avoided by a simple change to the app coding/software to prevent the data from being entered incorrectly.
Failure to foresee or correct this obvious fault on your part has resulted in a frustration of contract.

I am therefore not liable for the spurious charge."

Appeal each one separately and send first class from a PO counter.

twhitehousescat

itals knowledge of bylaws is worrying

,https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75313943&postcount=44

Whatapain

Last questions:

1.why 1st class as opposed to 2nd or recorded delivery?
2. If this ended in court, would they deal with all 11 PCNs at once, or would that be 11 court sessions? Do costs if you have to do it x amount of times, no > than actual made up fees from the scammers (not that I am planning to pay them, I have done nothing wrong, used their own payment method and I will not give up. Ever.)

Thanks!

Many thanks to you, to everyone here. Great community and forums.

twhitehousescat

with 1st class you can get proof of posting fro PO , nit with second , letters posted are seemed to be received (think its) 2 working days

special or recorded or what its called this week , how can a post office box sign for a letter , and if they dont want it , they will not collect it , they then have proof that it was NOT delivered

Fruitcake

The interpretation act deems post to have been delivered on the second working day after posting.
You can get proof of posting for first class mail, but not second.

So, if you can prove you posted something, the law assumes it was delivered.

If it went to court, you can ask for all the PCNs to be dealt with in one case.

twhitehousescat

appeal is binding on both parking co and customer , if you disagree with outcome you can argue in magistrates court

as a sample question

is the non display of a ticket a bylaw offence

reply YES IT IS , see byelaw 14 (2)(ii) and (3). , and for those wanting to check see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

with adjudication staff having this knowledge , the end user has no chance

by entering an appeal with ital , they *** are circumventing KODOE , ie passing of info to non bpa members


and you will get court papers in the post

*** as appeals = ital prosecution service

Fruitcake

I agree that 14 (2) (ii) may apply as it refers to the "offence" of not following instructions displayed on signage that could include displaying a ticket or making payment by an app.

In this case I don't believe 14 (3) applies as this is for the alleged offence of non payment. The OP did pay.

However, 14 (4) says The Owner may be liable for a penalty. In this instance the OP is not the vehicle owner.

Since the ITAL decision may be binding on the motorist, there is a risk that if they use the ITAL appeals process they could be in a worse position than if they don't appeal.

twhitehousescat

Fruitcake wrote: »

I agree that 14 (2) (ii) may apply as it refers to the "offence" of not following instructions displayed on signage.

In this case I don't believe 14 (3) applies as this is for the alleged offence of non payment. The OP did pay.

However, 14 (4) says The Owner may be liable for a penalty. In this instance the OP is not the vehicle owner.

Since the ITAL decision may be binding on the motorist, there is a risk that if they use the ITAL appeals process they could be in a worse position than if they don't appeal.

yes in my opinion , the info would be forwarded to ITAL prosecution and court papers will follow