Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • jac265
    • By jac265 21st Jan 18, 7:51 PM
    • 29Posts
    • 17Thanks
    jac265
    Indigo - appeal to pcn or wait for NtK?
    • #1
    • 21st Jan 18, 7:51 PM
    Indigo - appeal to pcn or wait for NtK? 21st Jan 18 at 7:51 PM
    The driver received a pcn for parking in a station car park having paid using the app but entered the incorrect registration by one letter. In the light of the fact that indigo is denying an appeal to POPLA is it worth making an appeal to indigo’s pcn or just wait for the NtK?
    Thank you.
Page 3
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Apr 18, 9:31 PM
    • 20,237 Posts
    • 31,923 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Link to the DVLA response, should anyone wish to read:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/l9ud1imygavk4hw/AAD_50qV9K5G0iOoZP_dMCyHa?dl=0&preview=Photo+07-04-2018%2C+17+14+06+(1).jpg

    Utter BS. How on earth can an 'individual put his or her case to the courts' when it is clear that no one can take the case to 'the courts'? The RK can't do that of his/her own volition in the context of the PCN - maybe so in terms of harassment, but not able to do anything regarding the PCN per se.

    Why are the DVLA constantly 'hiding' on anything to do with private parking? Amazing what £2.50 (modern-day 30 pieces of silver) will do!
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 09-04-2018 at 9:39 PM.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • jac265
    • By jac265 10th Apr 18, 7:46 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    jac265
    Thank you. Apologies for technical failure!
    Im going to reply to DVLA and say that they shouldn’t have released the keeper info as conditions of KADOE weren’t met - no keeper liability as not relevant land and there’s no proof as to driver and they have misrepresented the reason for the request using breach of t&c and not railway Byelaws.
    I have been reading similar threads on pepipoo and there’s reference to the contract between GTR and Indigo but a different company - indigo services. Indigo Park Solutions issued ticket and applied to dvla but they presumably don’t have legal authority to do so?
    • financerulez
    • By financerulez 10th Apr 18, 11:34 AM
    • 103 Posts
    • 187 Thanks
    financerulez
    The DVLA don't care, they won't take any responsibility and just palm you off. Their operating instructions are to release the info in this situation, ludicrous as it sounds. They are more likely to do something if you say Indigo are blending together criminal and civil law in an attempt to confuse you as to what you have allegedly done.
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 10th Apr 18, 11:51 AM
    • 145 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    I have been reading similar threads on pepipoo and there’s reference to the contract between GTR and Indigo but a different company - indigo services. Indigo Park Solutions issued ticket and applied to dvla but they presumably don’t have legal authority to do so?
    Originally posted by jac265
    The DVLA only has power to release data to a requester who can show he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him (Reg 27, Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002). If IP Solutions were not appointed by the TOC to pursue car park infringements, they would have no more "reasonable cause" to request keeper data than you or me. The DVLA would not have the power to release the data to them, and would be in serious breach of the DPA by doing so.

    You might also add that your data was used for an illegal purpose, namely sending you a fraudulent and/or misleading NtK which in particular falsely asserts the recipient may be liable for the offence even if not the driver at the time. (On the contrary: only the driver can be guilty of an offence under Byelaw 14.) By no stretch of the imagination can such an illegal purpose fall within the ambit of "reasonable cause".
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Apr 18, 12:08 PM
    • 10,561 Posts
    • 10,399 Thanks
    The Deep
    When this has timed out, consider sending the PPC a Letter Before Claim. It will cost them money to deal with it.

    https://www.rocketlawyer.co.uk/documents-and-forms/letter-before-action.rlm?msclkid=29a39228cf13169f9d19c8e4541f6f4 e&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=BSN% 20-%20Letter%20before%20action&utm_term=letter%20befo re%20claim&utm_content=Exact%20-%20Letter%20before%20action

    and you then have up to six years to consider whether you wish to proceed or not.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • jac265
    • By jac265 14th May 18, 1:44 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    jac265
    So next instalment!
    DVLA replied saying that they had nothing further to add from their previous reply - no surprises there i suppose.
    BPA is still considering its response to my complaint.
    The latest communication from ZZPS is set out below:


    The British Parking Association removed the need for operators to issue POPLA codes as POPLA will not review cases where parking is being enforced under primary legislation. You have received a parking notice that has been issued by an operator that is a member of the British Parking Association's ('BPA') Approved Operator Scheme, by law we are required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, the BPA have chosen not to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.

    Byelaws
    The current national Railway Byelaws were introduced by the Strategic Rail Authority and confirmed by the Secretary of State for Transport in 2005. They regulate the use and working of, and travel on or by means of, railway assets, the maintenance of order on railway assets and the conduct of all persons while on railway assets. Railway assets include railway stations, approach roads, car parks and other associated land.

    Car parking on railway land is covered by Byelaw 14: Traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking. Paragraph 4 states:

    "(4) In England and Wales
    The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.

    Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an Operator or authorised person.

    The owner of the motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that the costs incurred by an Operator or an authorised person for this may be recovered from the vehicle!!!8217;s owner

    The power of clamping and removal provided in Byelaw 14(4)(ii) above shall not be exercisable in any area where passenger parking is permitted unless there is on display in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped and/or removed by an Operator or an authorised person.!!!8221;


    Byelaw 24: Enforcement also allows for the possible sanction for breach of any Byelaw of prosecution through the Magistrates Court and a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (presently up to £1000). [insert footnote - except Byelaw 17]

    !!!8220;Owner!!!8221;, 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.

    !!!8220;Operator!!!8221; means a Train Operating Company (TOC), Network Rail, or a person appointed by them to provide and operate and control vehicle parking on the railway.

    In practice, most train operators choose to engage a third party company to administer parking on their behalf. Train operators and their subcontractors are referred to in this communication as "Parking Operators". Where the Parking Operators are a sub-contractor they are generally members of the British Parking Association (BPA) or the International Parking Community (IPC) and are required to sign up to that body!!!8217;s code of practice. These codes reflect provisions POFA such as a ban on clamping and towing; provision of an appeals process against parking charge notices although railway land is specifically excluded from the provisions of POFA.

    The Railway Byelaws provide the legal framework for parking on railway land and enforcement action. What happens in practice is largely as follows:
    Any person in charge of a vehicle must pay the appropriate charge, where notices indicate there are charges for parking (Byelaw 14(3)). Where a vehicle is parked in contravention of the Byelaws then a penalty as displayed in that area (commonly known as a penalty charge notice) may be issued by the parking operator under Byelaw 14(4)(i).

    Byelaw 14(4)(i) states that the owner of a motor vehicle may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area (the car park). This permits Parking Operators to issue penalty charge notices to the owners of vehicles they determine have breached Byelaws 14(1) to 14(3). The penalty will usually, in line with industry practice, carry a charge not exceeding £100 although the final sum is set by the Parking Operators.

    The owner of the vehicle will be required to pay the amount as set out on the penalty charge notice.

    The Railway Byelaws provide Parking Operators with a large amount of discretion as to how they decide to implement the enforcement regime on Railway Land. However, they are required to display the details of any scheme. In practice, Parking Operators will generally provide the option to pay a smaller amount in settlement of a penalty charge notice if this is done within a set period, say within 14 days. If the penalty charge notice is settled no further action will be taken by either the Parking Operator.

    In practice, if the owner of the vehicle is not content with a penalty charge notice issued by the Parking Operator then they have the opportunity to make representations to them. Details of how to appeal will be displayed in the car park and are also provided by the operator normally on the penalty charge notice.

    We can confirm that our client has been provided with authorisation to make enquiries in respect of enforcing land under Byelaws by the DVLA; the processing of your data is warranted.

    Regards,

    Jaime

    The definition of !!!8220;Owner!!!8221; is interesting - can!!!8217;t see that in the Byelaws.
    They have also ignored my point that a breach is not the same as an alleged breach.

    So I guess I shall just repeat the same old questions.
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 14th May 18, 1:56 PM
    • 2,143 Posts
    • 2,591 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    that seems t5o be quite funny

    the land comes under bylaws ,

    Operator -means a Train Operating Company (TOC), Network Rail, or a person appointed by them to provide and operate and control vehicle parking on the railway.

    umm does it?

    only the train co can start action in a magistrates court , not a trumped up french mob


    so ask zzps to pass this back to indigo and ask THEM to start a claim in the magistrates court , I think they will struggle (loose lots of money) also remind them that if indigo pass this back to the TOC , then they will be breaking KODOe rules with DPA , and you will yourself bring charges under data protection
    Last edited by twhitehousescat; 14-05-2018 at 2:29 PM.
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 18, 4:24 PM
    • 63,872 Posts
    • 76,517 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK same as advised already:
    Get past the 6 month prosecution deadline and do not reveal the driver/owner.
    Let them bleat about bylaws, and reply slowly each time. Once GDPR comes in later this month, send Indigo a SAR - we will be encouraging ALL recipients of PCNs to request a SAR, every time.

    PPCs will be regretting ticketing.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • jac265
    • By jac265 17th May 18, 8:22 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    jac265
    Thanks again everyone for all of your help. Yes good point re GDPR and subject access requests - that!!!8217;s now on my list.
    • jac265
    • By jac265 12th Jul 18, 5:11 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    jac265
    I have played email / letter ping pong and passed the 6 month deadline ( ticket issued 5th Jan) but i thought that you may like to see the last letter i had from QDr as it's quite amusing. Link posted below hopefully
    Also i would like to write to Indigo/ ZZPs and QDr requesting that they erase my data under Article 17 of GDPR on the grounds that the data is no longer necessary for the purpose for whoch it was originally collected. Has anyone done this and been successful. Thank you.
    i wrote to Steve Clark at BPA asking him to explain how Indigo were able to issue tickets and threaten wheel clamping etc under railway byelaws and i will upload both my letter and his reply in case anyone is interested. I intend to use his reply when i write to my MP and to whoever is now in charge of the Private Parking Bill.
    Thanks to everyone for your help.
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 12th Jul 18, 5:19 PM
    • 145 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    Can you have another go at posting the link for the QDR letter - I don't think ti copied itself.
    It'd also be very interesting to see Steve Clark's reply.
    • jac265
    • By jac265 12th Jul 18, 5:21 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    jac265
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/qlncw3teggzg4vp/qdr.jpeg?dl=0
    • jac265
    • By jac265 12th Jul 18, 5:31 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    jac265
    And here's the reply from Steve Clark
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2sb66j4lschhb1i/AABtDSteNWuhkDvpJWAGjDHea?dl=0
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 12th Jul 18, 9:51 PM
    • 145 Posts
    • 302 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    Unbelievable. Seriously unbelievable. Here are some comments on the QDR letter for starters:-

    "Whilst Railway Byelaw Section 14 states that the owner may be liable, the car park operator, who in this case is Indigo Park Services ".....er, no, its Indigo Park Solutions actually.... "...has decided that you the owner are liable to pay the penalty" . That's very interesting but the parameters within which the owner might become liable are not defined in the Byelaws and it's not open to Indigo to fill in the gaps. Even so, one thing is certain: no-one - not even the owner - can possibly be liable until the allegation has been proved. .

    "A penalty is an offer to the registered keeper/owner... . well which? .... to allow them to avoid further actions" Hang on a minute, didn't they just say the owner was liable - ie legally obliged to pay? And now they are saying it was an offer, which like all offers can be accepted or rejected,

    "For Penalty Notices issued under Byelaws, the owner is liable. We have no cause of action against a driver. A driver can make an offer of payment however we cannot contact or chase the driver as the owner is liable as they are deemed "in charge" of the motor vehicle at the time of the contravention" . Huh?? They are saying the owner, and not the driver, is deemed to be in charge? They've just completely made that up. And it's obviously utter rubbish. It would mean a car owner can't walk to the pub and get merry because he would be still be guilty of being drunk in charge! (There's lots of guidance on the meaning of "in charge" in the drunk-in-charge cases, and basically you've got to be driving or intending to drive at the relevant time. )

    "Your account has been placed on hold, which will stop any collection activity until 12 July 2018 " Collection activity? This a very nasty threat, scarcely veiled. Makes people think of bailiffs, CCJs etc.. But there is nothing to collect.. Their offer has been turned down. No money is owing. This is an unwarranted demand with menaces. See s21 'theft Act 1968.

    QDR is an offshoot of Wright Hassall, a supposedly well respected important firm of solicitors. This letter is nothing short of a catalogue of aggressive and misleading assertions. They are sticking up two fingers to the rule of law and are bringing the legal profession into serious disrepute.

    Where to turn?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 18, 11:35 PM
    • 63,872 Posts
    • 76,517 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Email Steve Clark this time, thank him for his reply and say you now have a pressing issue that is a breach of the BPA CoP. Attach a copy of QDR's letter.

    State that QDR have sent a threatogram dated July 2018, on behalf of Indigo, which is well past the limited six months pre-action phase by which Govia have to lay a case before Magistrates.

    Remind Steve C that the PCN was dated January and thus, it is timed out.

    There is also no flimsy excuse that Indigo can continue to harass people and process data beyond the six month period, to chase a contractual charge instead because:

    - the PCN that was issued was not a contractual charge

    - data cannot be used for any other purpose than it was provided by the DVLA

    - the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 makes the 6 month limitation clear in law

    - the contract with Govia that Steve admits to having seen - and has been shown on MSE forum - only allows Indigo (one of them...) to process personal data when performing 'pre-Action Services' on behalf of Govia (no more and no less):

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74509463#post74509463

    That 'pre-action' phase, for a byelaws penalty, is now well and truly over in this case. So the continued processing and sharing of your data in the trough shared by Indigo, QDR and ZZPS, is illegal.

    Show Steve Clark a link to this thread as well as the one shown...

    steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

    Sorry Steve, if you read this thread, the two decisions off the top of my head that made me personally lose almost all faith with the BPA were:

    - allowing Wright Hassall to pretend they were POPLA and proceed to sneakily (BUT IT DID HAPPEN) tip off PPCs to provide missing evidence, and no-one did a damn thing to stop the farce.

    - allowing Indigo and CP plus to pull the POPLA rug from consumers' feet ''just because you're losing''. Shocking. No excuse to force the Government to 'clarify' something your members want. Tough. Wait for legislation like the public have to wait, don't force an issue.

    Oh, and all the watering down of the BPA CoP and the woeful lack of customer service now coming out of your team, every time someone complains, such that we have to tell people to write to you personally if they want a well considered and fairer response.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-07-2018 at 11:42 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • jac265
    • By jac265 13th Jul 18, 6:46 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 17 Thanks
    jac265
    Yes i agree that the QDR letter is absolute rubbish and full of misleading assertions. It is dated June 28th so came just before the 6 month date had passed but i will email Steve Clark and point out to him the glaring inconsistencies and rubbish in the letter. And i will look into reporting QDR to the Law Society for making threats and basically making up the law!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Jul 18, 8:51 PM
    • 20,237 Posts
    • 31,923 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Good - and great attitude. Nice to see.

    We have so many snowflakes here who want to do everything, short of doing anything!
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,500Posts Today

7,408Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Today's FRI Twitter poll: As everyone knows, you're a creative genius with an huge range of highly honed skills.? https://t.co/KV5FHAqK6v

  • Watching Theresa May... seriously would anyone in their right mind truly want her job right now!

  • RT @thecheekypostie: @MartinSLewis Thanks to this, I have just skim read it. To those in Scotland - on page 548, Dounreay is mentioned by n?

  • Follow Martin