11 Indigo PCNs

twhitehousescat

cm , I have email from ital , I think you need to read it and then advise

Coupon-mad

OK, I've added you to my contacts for a pm!

Handbags-at-dawn

Whatever ITAL tries to say, these “penalties” are unenforceable. They are completely different from penalty fares which are recoverable as a civil debt in the County Court ( see Penalty Fares Rules).

As C-M says, Indigo has no cause of action in the County Court. They can’t claim the penalties are damages for breach of contract because all their notices are worded as penalties for a Byelaws offence. The only thing that can possibly happen is prosecution of the driver, the object being pour encourager les autres. I don’t think they’d risk it in a case like this where there is good evidence the App didn’t work, but ITAL haven’t shown much joined-up thinking so far, so who knows?

In reality, these penalties are no more than a way of saying “give us £100 and we’ll forget all about it.” There’s a bit of a discussion about them on Pepipoo which might be helpful:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125303

twhitehousescat

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

Whatever ITAL tries to say, these “penalties” are unenforceable. They are completely different from penalty fares which are recoverable as a civil debt in the County Court ( see Penalty Fares Rules).

As C-M says, Indigo has no cause of action in the County Court. They can’t claim the penalties are damages for breach of contract because all their notices are worded as penalties for a Byelaws offence. The only thing that can possibly happen is prosecution of the driver, the object being pour encourager les autres. I don’t think they’d risk it in a case like this where there is good evidence the App didn’t work, but ITAL haven’t shown much joined-up thinking so far, so who knows?

In reality, these penalties are no more than a way of saying “give us £100 and we’ll forget all about it.” There’s a bit of a discussion about them on Pepipoo which might be helpful:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125303

They are completely different from penalty fares which are recoverable as a civil debt in the County Court


those are done in magistrates court

my local paper this evening :

Ian Sutton, 37, of Haig Avenue, Leyland, was found guilty of travelling without a valid rail ticket and must pay a £220 fine, £30 surcharge, £12.10 compensation and £150 costs.

Julie Rourke, 20, of Haig Avenue, Leyland, was found guilty of travelling without a valid rail ticket and must pay a £220 fine, £30 surcharge, £12.10 compensation and £150 costs.

Beatrice Berardini, 31, of Northgate Drive, Chorley, was found guilty of travelling without a valid rail ticket and must pay a £220 fine, a £30 victim surcharge, £10.20 compensation and £150 costs.

Paul Corcoran, 46, of Hampson Avenue, Leyland, was found guilty of travelling without a valid rail ticket and must pay a £220 fine, £30 victim surcharge, and £150 costs.

all at leyland magistrates court

jkdd77

I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for an alleged byelaw 14 offence following refusal to pay a invoice issued by a PPC (as distinct from one issued by a TOC such as Northern), whether or not the invoice fraudulently masquerades as being a statutory byelaw 14 penalty issued under byelaws.

I very much doubt that ITAL will actually prosecute the OP.

For the avoidance of doubt, it would be for the TOC/ ITAL/ Indigo, to bring a private prosecution against the OP if the ransom demand is not paid. It is unlikely that they will do so because:
1) they don't know the driver, unless the OP tells them (and it would be for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt);
2) in this case, it is arguable that no offence was committed;
3) bringing a prosecution costs money, and risks more money if they lose;
4) any fine would go to the State, not to them.

Insofar as ITAL claim otherwise, they are almost certainly lying in an attempt to extort money from the OP.

The most likely outcome is that the OP will receive a string of threatening letters, at which point they'll give up and move on to easier targets.

Whatapain

Ok ok.. I was confused and now I am super confused. There are a number of Newbie FAQ pages on what to do, how to word it, how to appeal, which day etc etc..

Now it turns out Indigo can not take one to court. Their ZZZ cowboys can not do anything without court order. If nonody can do anything by bother at all?? Why would one appeal first to Indigo and then to ITA or POPLA or whoever else if nobody can do anything? Just ignore everything and get on with many more interesting subjects in life rather than sending letters to some scammers to explain why you have not done anything wrong other than pay for car park to take the train to go to work...?!

twhitehousescat

zzps cannot get a court order , they are debt collectors , popla backed out because every time someone shouted "bylaws" in an appeal , indigo did not fight and popla got nothing

now WHO is running ital ? who set them up , hang on they are using indigo terms and conditions , , that question is soooooo hard to answer

waamo

Whatapain wrote: »

Ok ok.. I was confused and now I am super confused. There are a number of Newbie FAQ pages on what to do, how to word it, how to appeal, which day etc etc..

Now it turns out Indigo can not take one to court. Their ZZZ cowboys can not do anything without court order. If nonody can do anything by bother at all?? Why would one appeal first to Indigo and then to ITA or POPLA or whoever else if nobody can do anything? Just ignore everything and get on with many more interesting subjects in life rather than sending letters to some scammers to explain why you have not done anything wrong other than pay for car park to take the train to go to work...?!

90% of Newbies that turn up refuse to do "nothing" thinking they must do "something".

When we tell them to do nothing you get 3 pages of "do I need to pay" followed by "I've paid it".

There comes a point where you tell people to do something just to keep them busy.

Not only that we are in uncharted territory with ITAL appeals. If we can learn how to kill it off at appeal it will gives Newbies a reassurance they didn't previously have.

KeithP

But jkdd77, as well as your list of reasons why they may not be interested in court, perhaps we should note in those Maj cases that twhitehousescat cited, the term compensation was used.

In those court cases it looks like the 'compensation' might be the 'avoided' train fare.

In a parking context, could the court be persuaded that £100 (or whatever figure) was a suitable 'compensation' amount? I don't know.

twhitehousescat

well magistrates are easily fooled , a quick quote of "bevis - PE " , stage 1 , 2 , 3 etc and the final would seem to set a president on the general term "parking"