Indigo Park Solutions cashless payment hidden charges Battle rail station

[non_linear]

Hi All.

I'd like to share my experience to date with this:

 

On 13 Dec 2016 I parked at Battle rail station and paid using my mobile phone.

 

I successfully paid but my phone would not reply to the 68680 SMS I was sent and had to reply to with my vehicle reg. When I returned I found a Penalty Notice quoting Rail Byelaw 14 for £100.

 

My appeal with Indigo through their web based appeal system was rejected and I am now in the process of appealing through POPLA.

 

I have been investigating why my phone would not reply to the 68680 SMS.

I only had 7p credit on my phone and the 68680 SMS short code is classified as a premium rate number by O2, and is therefore excluded from my pre-paid phone bundle.

The cost was more than 7p (I believe it to be 10p) so it would not send.

 

The car park placard with payment instructions states that there is a 20p charge for using the service, which is added to the parking fee and is paid when you call the 0345 number.

No where does it mention an additional fee for replying to the SMS.

 

O2 have 68680 as operated by Mirada and listed as a premium rate gaming number.

I have also spoken to OFCOM and they say because the charge is no more than 10p it is not classified as a premium rate number, and is therefore unregulated.

 

This looks like an operator exploiting a loophole to me.

The number is listed as premium rate, so is excluded from pre-paid packages, and because the charge is 10p, OFCOM say it is unregulated, therefore there is no need to display charges.

If I had had more than 10p credit the SMS would have gone and I would most likely never have noticed the additional charge.

 

To rub salt in the wound Indigo make a big play on their web site that there are no hidden charges.

I have informed trading standards through the consumer advice phone line.

[BankFodder]

Very interesting. I think that this could be worth making an issue of. If your POPLA appeal fails then I think it could well be worth issuing a challenge in the County Court.

 

We would be very pleased to help you of course.

 

Please keep us informed as to the developments here.

[non_linear]

Thanks BankFodder. I will keep you updated. It would be interesting to know if this is an O2 issue or whether all phone operators are affected.

[dx100uk]

You should follow this with regard to the fake byelaw 14 penalty

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?467886-Indigo-Park-Solutions-UK-Ltd.-Railway-station-PCN

[ericsbrother]

As said, it is a private parking co not telling the truth regarding bylaw 14.

 

 

What they want is your money,

a prosecution under bylaw 14 gives the money to the treasury and then the parking co and railway operator dont profit from this subterfuge.

 

 

ALso, railway land isnt "relevant land" as far as the POFA goes

but there is a catch in that the keeper can be liable anyway

but the burden of proof is higher as it is a criminal matter.

 

 

As far as the law goes you have paid so no breach of railway law and the contract the parking co is irrelevant under these circumstances. They are just greedy and stupid

[non_linear]

Thanks dx and eb.

 

I totally get your point about byelaw 14 and maybe I should just have ignored the penalty notice, but I was curious to know why I could not reply to the 68680.

 

A further point is that before travelling I checked on the National Rail website to find out the cost of parking.

 

National Rail state the daily cost is £4.80, reduced to £4.20 off peak.

As I was travelling after 10am I reasonably assumed this was off-peak and took the right change with me.

 

At the car park the displayed rate is £4.90 daily and £4.30 off peak, with off-peak starting after 2.30pm!

That definition of off-peak does not coincide with the railway companies use of off-peak.

 

I'm not sure who is responsible for keeping this information up to date, but the mis-information forced me into having to use the cashless parking system.

The more I look at this the smellier it gets.

[ericsbrother]

have you written your POPLA appeal and submitted it yet?

If not, put up here what you intend to say and

 

we will advise possible edit to help with the main point of no breach of contract as prescribed fee paid

and no contract can be formed due to lack of ability of parking co to perform the contract

as they have no authority

as land covered by Railways law

 

( bit like someone offering Nelson's Column for sale,

they may offer a contract but as they dont own it they cannot complete their side of the bargain.)

[non_linear]

Thanks EB.

I have submitted the POPLA appeal.

 

I pointed out that I had paid,

and the reason for not sending my vehicle reg was ultimately due to Indigo not disclosing the cost of replying to the SMS.

 

I also pointed out Indigo had not replied to my appeal within the 35 days allowed by BPA, although I realise that is not a legal requirement.

 

I may have slipped up here, we will see.

[ericsbrother]

you will most likely lose because POPLA is constrained by the BPA as to what it may consider.

 

However,

that doesnt alter the law so Indigo arent getting any more money unless you decide you want to pay them.

 

In future if you want advice ask first and then consider your options having weighed up that advice before taking action.

 

Could have knocked this on the head at stage 1

[non_linear]

My main point in posting here was to let people know about the hidden charge when replying to 68680 SMS, as I have not seen this discussed before.

 

 

I am not paying Indigo anything.

 

 

I will keep you informed with developments as they happen.

[ericsbrother]

sorry but that is barking up the wrong tree as far as the law on contracts is concerned so although unfortunate in your circumstance it is totally irrelevant UNLESS they had no their method of paying.

[non_linear]

Arguably there WAS no other means of paying.

 

 

National Rail advertise the wrong amount on their website

so I turned up with insufficient cash,

leaving cashless payment as the only option.

 

 

They will probably counter claim that there is a help number to call if there is a problem,

but that doesn't help if you are on the platform at this point, after having paid.

 

I am where I am, and will happily make my case in court if necessary, even if I loose.

[ericsbrother]

you can win in court quite easily but using the correct arguments.

 

Moaning about a problem with YOUR phone credit isnt one that will endear anyone.

 

Read about parking on railway land and learn from that.

 

In the meanwhile expect to lose the POPLA appeal,

that is par for teh course so dont be disappointed with that result.

 

What thery say may be interesting though so let us know as and when you hear back from POPLA.

 

We can help you pen somehting suitable if they do decide to demand money with threat of court

[non_linear]

I'm not moaning about my phone credit, I am legitimately concerned about hidden charges which I would not have found out about otherwise. The only time I have mentioned my credit is when I explained how I found out about the hidden charge in my first post. I am sharing the information so we all have a fuller picture of how these people operate, which MAY open up another course of attack. It may not, we will see.

[ericsbrother]

then read up on the consumer contracts regs and decide if you want to make that an issue. I think that you have a point but it is only a small part of a big deceit by them. Fight the big lie first and foremost

[non_linear]

Message from Indigo:

 

Good Morning

I am writing in relation to the above Penalty Notice.

 

Indigo have withdrawn the case from POPLA. I can confirm that the notice has been cancelled and the case concerned has been closed on this occasion with no payment required.

 

I trust the above is satisfactory and I’m sorry for any inconvenience caused

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us further.

[ericsbrother]

there you go, they dont want to admit that railway law prevents them from asking for cash so they dont defend the appeal and go on to rook other people.

[non_linear]

Where did you get that interpretation from? I didn't mention byelaws once in my appeal. You have been consistently negative about my approach, and you were wrong and you don't have the good grace to admit it.

 

They backed down because they didn't want their hidden SMS charges [problem] aired in front of a judge.

[steveod]

Where did you get that interpretation from? I didn't mention byelaws once in my appeal. You have been consistently negative about my approach, and you were wrong and you don't have the good grace to admit it.

 

They backed down because they didn't want their hidden SMS charges **** aired in front of a judge.

 

It's nothing to do with the hidden charges.

 

 

Ericsbrother is correct in that they had no right to the charge due to not relevant land as covered by byelaw and they would have got a spanking in court and you could have counterclaimed for data protection act breach.

 

 

IF, as an example, it was relevant land and covered by POFA and if all other elements of contract law, penalties, etc were held to be lawful and valid, then the hidden SMS charges would not apply to the contract under the CRA but that in itself wouldn't make the entire contract void.

[ericsbrother]

as said,

the sms charge matter is a red herring,

they have an alternative payment method so not a penalty applied to the contract.

 

 

Their problem is they are not in a position to offer you a legally binding contract in the firstplace.

 

 

Read up on "preformance of contracts".

 

 

I am glad that the matter was dropped but please dont kid yourself that it was over this minor thing or you may well hand the parking co an easy visctory next time you get a demand and dont look at everything.