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
    • andrew-ajc
    • By andrew-ajc 5th Jul 18, 9:21 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 4Thanks
    andrew-ajc
    Indigo railway PCN (not parked within marked bay)
    • #1
    • 5th Jul 18, 9:21 PM
    Indigo railway PCN (not parked within marked bay) 5th Jul 18 at 9:21 PM
    Ok, so I am hoping somebody might be able to help me with some advice on this one.

    PCN was issued on my vehicle by indigo, in a Southern Rail area car park for not parking within a marked bay (valid ticket purchased). The bay I was parked in was rather confusing, as there remained continuous painted lines (all be it faded) of what to me still looked like a parking bay, but could have just been a very poor attempt by the car park operator to remove an old space.

    Either way, I possibly jumped the gun and I issued an appeal straight away (and yes I should have read forums first), but I entered my contact details as the driver of the vehicle, and I now understand I should have avoided this.

    Regardless, I was at the time confident my appeal would be successful as I had taken photo's of my car parked within a bay with faded continuous lines, and I at least very much interpreted this as a parking space. I didn't think they would reject the appeal as it is pretty clear from my images how you could come to the conclusion that it was indeed a parking space, and at worst it was misleading.

    Low and behold, the appeal has been rejected, and with their usual template response (this now comes to no surprise to me after doing some research).

    After viewing a few forums on here, I decided to email them with the below message (which I have yet to have a response to after 14 days):


    Dear Indigo,

    Whilst I disagree with the decision not to overturn the pcn for the reasons stated in my appeal, having sought legal counsel on this matter I understand you have no legal basis to issue such notice.

    You have stated in this instance the vehicle was in breach of railway byelaw 14 (breach code 7 - not parked correctly within a marked bay).

    Railway byelaw 14 does not state that the vehicle has to be parked correctly within a marked bay, nor does it state that if it isn't, it is in breach of the byelaws. There is no breach code 7.

    As a private parking company, operating on railway byelaws in this instance, you have no legal basis for this pcn.

    I have been advised to begin a detailed log of my time assigned to this matter, but in the meantime you are required to cancel this charge forthwith.


    I realise there is no longer a POPLA option for this as railway byelaws, but I would appreciate some advice here on what my options are and whether my best bet is just to continue making my points and be prepared they might take me to magistrates court if I continue to refuse to pay (although I'm not sure I would see the point of this as the money goes to the government, and regardless of my points raised above on their authority to issue this PCN under railway byelaws, I still have images of my vehicle parked in what many people could conclude was a parking space)

    I guess I am just after some re-assurance as it's starting to bother me a little! - but at the same time I don't think I should pay the fine. Any help would be VERY GRATEFULLY received.

    Thank you
    Last edited by andrew-ajc; 05-07-2018 at 9:27 PM.
Page 2
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 10th Jul 18, 12:36 AM
    • 132 Posts
    • 275 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    The instruction you are accused of disobeying must be "issued by or on behalf of an operator or an authorised person" - Byelaw 14(2) (ii).

    If you look at the bottom of the signs in the car park, you'll see that the instructions are issued by Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd,, company no.02518720. They claim to be authorised by GTR for the purposes of the Railway Byelaws.

    This doesn't appear to be the case, as it's Indigo Park Services UK Ltd who have the authorisation. This is a different company with a different company number - 02362957. There is no evidence that Indigo Park Solutions has any more authority to issue instructions than Donald Duck.

    So even if you had parked outside a marked bay, you still can't be in breach of Byelaw 14 (2) (ii) because the instruction was not issued by an authorised person.
    • andrew-ajc
    • By andrew-ajc 10th Jul 18, 9:07 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    andrew-ajc
    The instruction you are accused of disobeying must be "issued by or on behalf of an operator or an authorised person" - Byelaw 14(2) (ii).

    If you look at the bottom of the signs in the car park, you'll see that the instructions are issued by Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd,, company no.02518720. They claim to be authorised by GTR for the purposes of the Railway Byelaws.

    This doesn't appear to be the case, as it's Indigo Park Services UK Ltd who have the authorisation. This is a different company with a different company number - 02362957. There is no evidence that Indigo Park Solutions has any more authority to issue instructions than Donald Duck.

    So even if you had parked outside a marked bay, you still can't be in breach of Byelaw 14 (2) (ii) because the instruction was not issued by an authorised person.
    Originally posted by Handbags-at-dawn
    Yes this is correct... all of the pictures I have of the car park signage is for Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd, not Indigo Park Services which is with whom all of the correspondence I have had so far (including the letter of authority as you can see)
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Jul 18, 9:16 AM
    • 9,728 Posts
    • 9,555 Thanks
    The Deep
    Short and curlies.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • pould
    • By pould 10th Jul 18, 9:22 AM
    • 103 Posts
    • 90 Thanks
    pould
    It would be really interesting to see if they're using the same letter of authority for other car parks with other train operators.
    • andrew-ajc
    • By andrew-ajc 11th Jul 18, 11:19 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    andrew-ajc
    For anyone who may be interested, I have a link to the latest "letter of authority" from Indigo below. This was supposedly sent to me to prove that the Indigo Parking Solutions UK Ltd car park I used did have the necessary authority from GTR to issue PCN's, but considering all it does is refer to the original land owner agreement which was dated on 18th October 2015 which is supposedly between Indigo Park Services UK Ltd and GTR it appears to be a very poor attempt to cover their backsides.

    drive.google.com/open?id=1kmVpZE3lKTsX58oQS0rNPqxVMPwO1U3b

    Once again as a new user I'm not able to post the full link, but the above should work copy and pasted.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 11th Jul 18, 11:25 AM
    • 2,850 Posts
    • 1,742 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Here is your link made live: -
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kmVpZE3lKTsX58oQS0rNPqxVMPwO1U3b/view
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 11th Jul 18, 12:26 PM
    • 1,583 Posts
    • 2,076 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    For anyone who may be interested, I have a link to the latest "letter of authority" from Indigo below. This was supposedly sent to me to prove that the Indigo Parking Solutions UK Ltd car park I used did have the necessary authority from GTR to issue PCN's, but considering all it does is refer to the original land owner agreement which was dated on 18th October 2015 which is supposedly between Indigo Park Services UK Ltd and GTR it appears to be a very poor attempt to cover their backsides.

    drive.google.com/open?id=1kmVpZE3lKTsX58oQS0rNPqxVMPwO1U3b

    Once again as a new user I'm not able to post the full link, but the above should work copy and pasted.
    Originally posted by andrew-ajc
    interesting , indigo park services did not exist untill nov 5th that yr , AFTER the contract was signed https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02362957
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 11th Jul 18, 12:31 PM
    • 1,583 Posts
    • 2,076 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    INDIGO PARK SOLUTIONS UK LIMITED (not parking solutions was so called on 19 Jan 2016 having previously been known a METEOR PARKING LIMITED https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02518720
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 11th Jul 18, 12:55 PM
    • 3,113 Posts
    • 4,757 Thanks
    fisherjim
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kmVpZE3lKTsX58oQS0rNPqxVMPwO1U3b/view



    Possibly smoke and mirrors, it would be interesting to see how that panned out in the small claims court if on bye-law land!


    Don't forget Train operating companies can't even make a timetable work let alone anything else.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 11th Jul 18, 1:10 PM
    • 2,851 Posts
    • 3,546 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I would ask them that quesiton - that they have a letter of atuthority but not to the company making the signs.
    Ask how they are therefore an "authorised person", and not, for example, a dodgy company making fraudulent claims?
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

1,205Posts Today

8,293Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: Worried about your finances? Or maybe you just want to know some tips and tricks for getting the best money-saving deals??

  • About to start @thismorning talking about why everyone should check their mortgage rates and then may be able to sa? https://t.co/ulkdPb031h

  • Today's Twitter poll: Do you / would you wear fur? Reports coming out today that even some fur labeled fake actual? https://t.co/QUh6P9TVgh

  • Follow Martin