Indigo / ZZPS threats - clarification requested please.

Handbags-at-dawn

fastrunner wrote: »

The exact wording is:


"Failure to make payment in full or contact us to discuss repayment of this debt may restul in us reccomending to the Car Park Operator that the matter be enforced trhough the criminal court proceedings. Such proceedings wopuld require your attendance before the Magistrates Court".

As you say, QDR are as much a bunch of bullies as ZZPS. That paragraph is extremely misleading:-

1. "Repayment of this debt..." There is no debt. As you rightly say, the "penalty" is no more than an offer to accept a bribe. No-one - whether owner, keeper or driver - is obliged to accept an offer.
2. ".......may result in us recommending to the car park operator..." The car park operator is not their client. They shouldn't be discussing your case with, and advising, a third party.
3. ".....that the matter be enforced through criminal court proceedings." The implication being the RK is legally obliged to pay the "penalty" and the Magistrates can enforce it. Absolute rubbish. There is no way the Magistrates can enforce a home-made penalty.
4. "Such proceedings would require your attendance before the Magistrates Court." There is nothing the RK or owner can be prosecuted for. The only person they can prosecute is the driver, and they don't know who that is.

Not much about that paragraph that isn't misleading. When the 6 months is up, report them to the SRA.

fastrunner

Handbags-at-dawn wrote: »

As you say, QDR are as much a bunch of bullies as ZZPS. That paragraph is extremely misleading:-

1. "Repayment of this debt..." There is no debt. As you rightly say, the "penalty" is no more than an offer to accept a bribe. No-one - whether owner, keeper or driver - is obliged to accept an offer.
2. ".......may result in us recommending to the car park operator..." The car park operator is not their client. They shouldn't be discussing your case with, and advising, a third party.
3. ".....that the matter be enforced through criminal court proceedings." The implication being the RK is legally obliged to pay the "penalty" and the Magistrates can enforce it. Absolute rubbish. There is no way the Magistrates can enforce a home-made penalty.
4. "Such proceedings would require your attendance before the Magistrates Court." There is nothing the RK or owner can be prosecuted for. The only person they can prosecute is the driver, and they don't know who that is.

Not much about that paragraph that isn't misleading. When the 6 months is up, report them to the SRA.

Brilliant simple explanation thank you - I apprecaite this stuff (espeically Indigo / Railway byelaws) gets covered time over but when you are not used the (Lack of) rules of bullying debt collectors it can fall between bemusement / worry / confusion when the various letters from different companies drop through the post.

Woppyman72

I'm in a similar position for a heinous offence a driver of the car I'm keeper of allegedly committed on the 4/12.

I've been having fun asking for authority to operate, challenging the independence of ITAL etc. Indigo/ZZPS are now thoroughly peed off with me and told me they will not answer any more of my questions

Unfortunately the BPA has not been helpful as they recently did a 'desktop audit' on Indigo and found no cause for concern with signage or contracts. The BPA also told me I am not within my rights to request the Authority to Operate or at least the BPA CoP does not require PPC's to supply on demand.

Hang on in there bud!

Woppyman72

...and yes, I've recieved all the same letters as you, word for word.

The other interesting part is ZZPS quoted a passage to me that they claim allows them to assume the keeper is the owner of the vehicle, but I found this was quoted from a Vehicle Excise Duty Act. Hardly relevant in these cases.
I suspect they know they are on a hiding to nothing with Byelaw cases but give it a go anyway.

Handbags-at-dawn

Woppyman72 wrote: »

... ZZPS quoted a passage to me that they claim allows them to assume the keeper is the owner of the vehicle, but I found this was quoted from a Vehicle Excise Duty Act. Hardly relevant in these cases.

Any chance you could tell us exactly how they worded this? As far as I'm aware, only the keeper or driver can be done for no car tax - ownership doesn't come into it.

Woppyman72

Good morning

Thank you for your emails.

Please be advised, POPLA no longer adjudicate on Penalty Notices, therefore, a POPLA code will not be issued on this occasion.

The Penalty Notice was affixed to the vehicle, this outlined the appeals process, photographic evidence is available to view at https://www.ipaymypcn.net

All signage is approved by the British Parking Association.

We act solely on our client's instruction and they have confirmed this Penalty Notice has been issued correctly. We do not provide copies of contracts as this is business sensitive information.

With regards to your comments about being the registered keeper and not the owner of the vehicle, please see the below:

The “owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.

The Penalty Notice has been issued correctly and the full balance is due.

Your comments have been noted and in the absence of payment, the account will run due course.

Regards

(ZZPS Rep)

waamo

Woppyman72 wrote: »

Good morning

Thank you for your emails.

Please be advised, POPLA no longer adjudicate on Penalty Notices, therefore, a POPLA code will not be issued on this occasion.

The Penalty Notice was affixed to the vehicle, this outlined the appeals process, photographic evidence is available to view at https://www.ipaymypcn.net

All signage is approved by the British Parking Association.

We act solely on our client's instruction and they have confirmed this Penalty Notice has been issued correctly. We do not provide copies of contracts as this is business sensitive information.

With regards to your comments about being the registered keeper and not the owner of the vehicle, please see the below:

The “owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.

The Penalty Notice has been issued correctly and the full balance is due.

Your comments have been noted and in the absence of payment, the account will run due course.

Regards

(ZZPS Rep)

That is their standard template. We've seen it before.

Is there a reason for posting it here?

Woppyman72

Just at request of handbags at dawn who asked for exact wording. Thought I’d include context as well.

Handbags-at-dawn

Woppyman72 wrote: »

Good morning

................
With regards to your comments about being the registered keeper and not the owner of the vehicle, please see the below:

The “owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.

..............................
Regards

(ZZPS Rep)

Thanks Woppyman.

I hadn't seen this bit before. Yet another bit of misinformation from ZZPS. "Owner" does not mean the person by whom the vehicle is kept. There is no presumption the registered keeper is the owner - as explained here https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q743.htm

fastrunner

Today marks the 4 month point of the PCN and the start of the letters of harassment from Indigo / ZZPS attempting to intimidate.


As the keeper of the vehicle I may have succumbed for the quiet life had it not been for this forum. It has been silent for a couple of weeks but no doubt I will receive more over the next 8 weeks until I can pull the shutter once and for all.