Hi.

I had a problem with a PCN from Indigo a few years ago and received excellent advice from here to "sit tight". Was successful. Thanks. However, we now have another similar case and someone told me that recent case law has changed things, so I wanted to check that sitting tight is still the right course of action.

My wife parked at a Southern Railway station car park recently and used the automated phone response service to pay for a day's parking. Unfortunately, the regstration number used on the automated system was incorrect - one letter was accidently missed off. There was no windscreen ticket, so I assume control was by CCTV. We have now received a PCN from the PCN Admin Centre (29 days after the event) acting on behalf of Indigo requesting payment of £100. It's a "penalty notice by post notice to owner" quoting byelaw 14. In the time between the incident and receiving the notice she has parked there twice more, so I assume we will receive more notices in respect of these dates.

So, should we just sit tight? Would it be better to write to Indigo explaining what the mistake was? They could check their records and see that they did receive payment each time. Also, I don't think the registration number used actually exists.

Thanks for your help.

Read any byelaw 14 thread here

Use the search CAG box of the top red toolbar

If you have proof of payment then they're going to be laughed out of court IMO.

Easy victory. You paid, they lost no money, end of.

Even if you had done something naughty (which you didn't) under the bye-laws you should be taken to the magistrates' court, not asked to pay money to some private company. I see the idiots even mention the bye-laws!!!

I would guess the experts will advise to ignore any drivel the send you, unless you get a letter before claim or court papers.

Thanks, FTMDave. Do you think i should wrte to let them know how the error occured? At the moment they don't know that we paid with the incorrect registration number, so it is reasonable for them to assume we did not pay.

dx100uk, Thanks for your rapid reply.

Does that mean that advice re Byelaw 14 has not changed since 2016?

As mentioned in my OP,

I was familiar with it a few years ago but had been told that case law had recently changed it.

Also,

is there any reason why we should not let Indigo know that we had actually paid the parking fee and identify the erroneous registration number so they can link it up themselves?

there never has been any change regarding speculative invoices and byelaw 14..FTMD sums it up perfectly..

the fact their ANPR system is so crap it cant realise xx cars went in and paid and xx cars came out , one hadn't paid but a car reg was paid by someone that didnt even park there in their eyes ….is their problem not yours.

await the letter of/before claim.

dx100uk, Thanks

However, we now have another similar case and someone told me that recent case law has changed things, so I wanted to check that sitting tight is still the right course of action.

 

As others have posted there hasn't been recent case law about Railway Byelaw 14. What your friend probably had in mind was the Parking Eye -v- Beavis decision in the Supreme Court in 2015. Very important when dealing with private parking companies generally but not directly relevant to Byelaw 14.

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/parkingeye-vs-beavis/

The beavis case has absolutely nothing to do with this case although it is a very interesting read.

The simple facts are that this is railway property and byelaw 14 controls what 'offences' are committed. There is a gulf of difference between what Indigo can think they are allowed to do and what they can actually do which is nothing. They cannot take court action. There is no leave for the motorist to appeal to an independent body so the only option is to ignore them.

They do not want you to be taken to court as they don't see the money; the Government does which is why they want you to pay them before any further action.

I wouldnt bother telling them they are wrong, they only earn money by sendng out these demands so they arent going to suddenly start being honest and reasonable because you have twigged that the demand isnt actually lawful. let them waste their money sending out letters.

Thanks, ericsbrother and silverfox1961