Hi.

Parked at a Southern railway rail station today and used the phone number to pay the daily charge

. I had used it before but with a different car and the system recognised my phone number did a fast track to payment confirmation

. I didn't spot that the registration number quoted by their system was not that of the car I was using today (lot of background noise in the car park).

There was a penalty notice issued by Indigo when I returned.

What are the chances of success if I appeal?

I can prove that I own both cars and that the one for whom they issued the ticket was not there today (it's in a garage for repair).

Any tips on how to phrase the appeal in such a case?

Thanks

Was it a railway station covered under specific bylaws? There are a few stations that arent.

byelaw 14 so they dont have a claim.

However, wait for them to send out a NTK and see if they get that wrong as well as it will save a lot of letter tennis.

they have to send it out between 29-56 days after the event and the wording has to use the correct terminology to create a keeper liability.

Also, as you paid the prescribed fee they or the railway havent been caused a loss so it will be a "de minimis" case

undoubtedly the condition they claim your breached will not be a core term as advertised on the main sign at the entrance but on some piddly sign next to the ticket machine and that is a take it or leave it offer rather than proper consideration and acceptance.

They will argue otherwise but are very unlikely to want to try it on as they can only resort to the Railways byelaws for enforcement and they dont get the money then and this is all about the money..

byelaw 14 so they dont have a claim.

Hi ericsbrother, thanks for the prompt reply. A few things:

• I've been trying to find something definitive about byelaw 14. Can you point me in the right direction and say why you don't think they have a case?
  
• Just to be clear - it was my mistake about the registration number, not theirs. The person who issued the ticket would have reasonably assumed that no-one had paid for parking as I had paid by the automated system over the phone using the wrong car registration
  
• Also, i forgot to mention that I received a confirmation text which when I looked at it later in the day I realised the registration was wrong. So I texted back to give the correct registration but by that time the ticket had been issued
  

Was it a railway station covered under specific bylaws? There are a few stations that arent.

How do I find that out please?

 

I can prove that I own both cars and that the one for whom they issued the ticket was not there today (it's in a garage for repair).

Excellent advice from ericsbrother as usual. Just to add, only identify yourself as the registered keeper of both vehicles, not the driver, as you may want to use the "no keeper liability" route if their NtK is non-compliant.

Hi ericsbrother, thanks for the prompt reply. A few things:

've been trying to find something definitive about byelaw 14.

Can you point me in the right direction and say why you don't think they have a case?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

14(3)

"(3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place."

Your reply "The driver paid the appropriate charge", and even if they say it wasn't done in accordance with instructions, it would need a Byelaw prosecution (unless the site wasn't covered by the Byelaws), not paying anything to a private parking company......

Can we just confirm if the ticket uses the word penalty please

Or is this a word you have used

And the ticket does not say penalty

the ticket is headed "Penalty Notice" and then goes on to refer to Rail Byelaw 14

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf

 

14(3)

 

"(3) No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall park it on any part of the railway where charges are made for parking by an Operator or an authorised person without paying the appropriate charge at the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place."

 

Your reply "The driver paid the appropriate charge", and even if they say it wasn't done in accordance with instructions, it would need a Byelaw prosecution (unless the site wasn't covered by the Byelaws), not paying anything to a private parking company......

Thanks for that. I'm afraid my earlier post hadn't been clear - I'd seen what Byelaw 14 says but it's just that from reading a number of threads on here I'd gained the impression that Byelaw 14 wasn't anything to be worried about. I just wanted to understand the rationale for that.

byelaw 14 allows the railway company to prosecute you for trespassing on the railway, it doesnt allow a parking co to demand money.

So, you werent trespassing as you paid the prescribed fee and that means the railway ahve no interest in the matter.

the parking co cannot use byelaw 14 as their claim is a civil matter of contract and their problem is that they cannot use the POFA to create a keeper liability as it is not "relevant land".

they can bitch to the railway in the hope that the matter is take to a magistrate but they will lose and even if they won, the fine would go to the government and not to the railway co or the parking co.

This means they have no incentive to prosecute anyone other than the mose resolute of repeat offenders and that doesnt often go well for them as they found out trying to inforce a massive charge for the use of a taxi rank somewhere and the court decided that they were wrong for a couple of reasons.

All stations are covered by the Railways Act, it is their car parks and station approaches that can cause the problems.

Southern tried to introduce parking charges for the road outside my local railway station at my previous abode.

Their problem was that the road was a public highway and had never ever been railway land but that didnt stop Southern from claiming otherwise

. The council had to get involved but fortunately it was then resolved quickly so no-one got clobbered.

My advice is to wait for the NTK through the post, as already said and then see what that says

. The act of sending one out means that they arent using byelaw 14 but are just hoping that the smoke and mirrors are enough to bamboozle you.

Thanks ericsbrother. That's really helpful.

I have now received a "Notice to Owner" from the PCN admin centre acting on behalf of Indigo.

I attach a scan of the text of the notice

I assume I will need to reply to this and would appreciate guidance.

Thanks

XPS200.pdf

that's a very misleading letter and I think it needs to be complained about

but then again it says OUR CLIENT MAY.

no WILL

so there we go

you've blanked out who the client is

you don't need to respond

its a threat-o-gram

Thanks for the reply. The client was Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd.

I had thought that it was important to reply to NTK letters.

Go re read post 11

Hi. Thanks again for getting back to me.

I had read post 11 before my last posting, but it said...

 

My advice is to wait for the NTK through the post, as already said and then see what that says

 

. The act of sending one out means that they arent using byelaw 14 but are just hoping that the smoke and mirrors are enough to bamboozle you.

So, I was assuming the NTK was important and needed to be responded to.

EB concluded right

trying to bamboozle you.

dx

last week a railway co took a person to court on behalf of their pet parking cowboys and lost.

it was decided that the signage is inadequate to enforce byelaw 14 if the company try and create a contract with the parking co instead so lose lose for Meteor and Southern..

This makes any threatogram even sillier than it sounds as they cannot resort to criminal law fi you dont play their games

Thanks.

Will sit tight.

Now received this from ZZPS. Have to admire their sense of humour with the name of the law firm! Do I continue to sit tight and not reply. Is there a point at which I do need to reply?

XPS213.pdf

Ignore

See they are still claiming its a criminal penalty under byelaw 14

Thanks dx100uk. I will continue to ignore them.

Is there a point when I can write to ask them to stop harrassing me?

No not long mind pos 3 letters