INDIGO windscreen Penalty Notice - ramsgate kent railway station

[247orbital]

I can't actually remember seeing a pay and display machine?

Unless its inside the station?

 

Just so everyones aware,

this was a genuine mistake,

I always pay for parking,

the industry I work in requires that I use online payments for everything with apps like Ringo etc,

I have accounts for the Dartford Crossing auto tolls and the London congestion charge.

 

Im not sure when the new road layout was built in and around the station.

If I get time I will have another look up there for a machine, but I'm 100% certain I've not missed any signs.

[ericsbrother]

all immaterial now you know they have no right whatsoever to ask you for money for anything. In short you dotn ahve to pay to park here so you certainly dont have to jump to their tune when they ask for more cash

[247orbital]

[dx100uk]

more pix

[DragonFly1967]

Well, that sign shoots Indigo right between the eyes. Talk about hoist by their own petard!

 

Sit tight, do nothing. Let Indigo do all the running on this. Every day they waste takes you closer to the 6 month automatic time out to take you to Magistrates court, and they've not got a chance of a valid claim in county court

[ericsbrother]

interestingly they mention clamping.

 

Now it is leagl to clamp under railway byelaw 14 but not in a designated parking space

 

so it makes you wonder whether they would actually do this and risk having to buy someone a new car ( famous case some time back)

[247orbital]

Just a little update from this issue, had no contact at all from Indigo to date 24.02.18

 

However received a letter today from the lease company to inform me they have paid the fine!!!

 

I'm fuming, I actually called them a few weeks ago to inform them that this was in dispute and under no circumstances to pay the fine if contacted by Indigo.

 

I've spoken to the lease company today, and they have confirmed the conversation a few weeks back to not pay the fine. However they are now investigating the issue and I'm sure we can all imagine the outcome. The fines department is a separate department apparently. I'll have to wait the three to five working days they take to deal with this, but i'm not hopeful.

 

I will cancel the direct debit with them and start a standing order to stop the extra £100 they have paid.

 

Not a happy outcome, or what I was expecting.

[DragonFly1967]

Hmph! That's not good.

 

The lease company will now want their £100 plus an admin fee (usually about £30+VAT) from you. Personally, I'd tell them where they can shove both it and, if necessary, their car!

[ericsbrother]

it still isnt a fine. The threat of bylaw 14 doesnt make it suddenly change into a criminal matter.

[247orbital]

I've today cancelled my direct Debit with the lease company and set up a standing order for payment.

 

Even after the conversation with the lease company informing them the fine was in dispute and not to pay it, apparently its an automated system.

 

I'll email a copy of the letter that was sent to the lease company, for future reference for other people.

 

I've been told by the lease company that not paying the fine will result in bad credit against my business.

letter to my car finance company!!.pdf

[brassnecked]

So would they try to put a default on your CR for a speculative invoice? Naughty if they did.

[dx100uk]

letter in post 60 now

[247orbital]

Any feedback on the letter?

 

 

I've today cancelled my direct Debit with the lease company and set up a standing order for payment.

 

Even after the conversation with the lease company informing them the fine was in dispute and not to pay it, apparently its an automated system.

 

I'll email a copy of the letter that was sent to the lease company, for future reference for other people.

 

I've been told by the lease company that not paying the fine will result in bad credit against my business.

[DragonFly1967]

I have several letters that I'd send to your leasing company, none of which are repeatable here

 

The actual letter that the lease company would receive depends on a couple of factors.

 

Is anyone else authorised to drive your vehicle under the terms of the lease (they usually are)? And is anyone else insured to drive your vehicle?

[ericsbrother]

It still isnt a FINE. stopusing that word or you will drop yourself in the mire because the lease co will think that it is. You MUST get this right or you wont be able to persuade anyone else that you are when you use the wrong terminology.

IT IS NOT A FINE- HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?

 

 

I've today cancelled my direct Debit with the lease company and set up a standing order for payment.

 

Even after the conversation with the lease company informing them the fine was in dispute and not to pay it, apparently its an automated system.

 

I'll email a copy of the letter that was sent to the lease company, for future reference for other people.

 

I've been told by the lease company that not paying the fine will result in bad credit against my business.

[honeybee13]

Steady on, EB, you're starting to sound like dx.

 

HB

[247orbital]

No only i'm insured to drive the vehicle.

 

Mercedes are after me renewing lease on a new vehicle and I've even had a demo for the weekend. The salesman was very upset yesterday when I told him Mercedes wouldn't be getting any more of my business!

 

Had an email today saying they are investigating the issue, but I still think it will not effect the outcome as Mercedes have already paid the bill!

[247orbital]

So what do I refer to it as for future contacts with Mercedes?

[honeybee13]

We call them speculative invoices. I think there's a forum stikkie about it, I'll go and have a look.

 

HB

[honeybee13]

Apologies, the stikkies don't cover exactly what you're asking, I don't. They're worth a read though in case it helps you.

 

HB

[DragonFly1967]

So what do I refer to it as for future contacts with Mercedes?

 

Just call it an invoice. As Indigo are trying to fudge the issue, that's pretty much all it is. An invoice in a party frock.

 

Whilst this incarnation of Indigo may or may not have rights to issue a penalty charge, the fact remains that only the driver can be liable as they're trying to use POFA (we know that because their ticket refers to POPLA) and as this isn't "relevant land" then POFA can never apply. Further, Indigo have probably breached their KADOE contract with the DVLA by obtaining the keeper details under POFA "reasonable cause" when POFA doesn't, cannot and never will apply.

 

This is basically attempted fraud by false representation. An offence under the Fraud Act 2006 Section 2.

 

Under railway byelaw 14, it isn't (and never has been) an offence to "not display" a valid ticket or voucher. The offence is not paying. So their reason for issue is also flawed. Even if you didn't pay, that's not why your vehicle was given the PCN.

 

Their threats of taking you or anyone else to Magistrates court are empty as previously discussed. There's nothing in it for them or the TOC as the money from any penalty imposed by the Magistrates (which could be up to £2,500 but is more usually £50) would go directly to the Crown.

 

Whilst byelaw 14(4)ii does indeed allow for vehicles to be clamped, the railway bylaws were written (or at least, last updated) in 2005. Clamping on private land (which is still what a railway station car park is) was outlawed in 2012. And even if they did still have the right to clamp a vehicle, byelaw 14(4)ii specifically states...

 

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.

 

14.1 says "No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall use it on any part of the railway in contravention of any traffic sign". You didn't, so that's a non starter.

14.2 says "No person in charge of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall leave or place it on any part of the railway:

- (i) in any manner or place where it may cause an obstruction or hindrance to an Operator or any person using the railway; or

- (ii) otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by or on behalf of an Operator or an authorised person

 

Neither of those apply and

 

14.3 says "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."

 

Nothing there about displaying a ticket, which is the reason that they give for issuing the PCN.

 

So, they'd be on a damn sticky wicket if they put a boot on your vehicle.

 

Nothing in their signage, the byelaws or the law itself allows Indigo to stick on an extra £27 (or any money at all) as an "administration charge", so that alone makes the whole demand invalid.

[dx100uk]

i'd be sending that to Mercedes great post!

[247orbital]

if its OK, once I've received the inevitable response, I'll copy and pate that over to their "parking dept" by email and post.

 

Ultimately they will lose out on two lease contracts for the next two years. Due to not even having the courtesy to contact me before paying the 'invoice' after being told clearly it was in dispute and not to pay it.

[DragonFly1967]

So, then we turn to what Indigo have actually written on their notice.

 

Apart from the fact that this notice comes not from Indigo but from ZZPS, a trading style of Debt Recovery Plus (an unlicensed debt collector).

 

However, that aside, it says that Indigo obtained the keeper details by making use of the provisions of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002.

 

27(1)(e). Which says... ( The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use -) "by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him."

 

But, they've failed to mention RV (L&R) R. 27(3). Which reads...

 

(3) In this regulation—

 

(a)“a decriminalised parking contravention” means any act or omission which would have been an offence but for any of the following provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991, that is to say—

- (i)section 65 (contravention of certain orders relating to parking places in London not to be a criminal offence);

- (ii)section 76(3) (provisions creating certain stationary vehicle offences to cease to apply in special parking areas in London);

- (iii)paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 3 (contravention of certain orders relating to parking places outside London not to be a criminal offence); and

- (iv)paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 3 (provisions creating certain stationary vehicle offences to cease to apply in special parking areas outside London); and

(b)“an officer of Customs and Excise” means an officer as defined in section 1(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979(1) and includes any person engaged as mentioned in section 8(2) of that Act.

 

27(3)(b) can be immediately discounted, as we're not dealing with Customs & Excise.

 

So, we also need to look at the Road Traffic Act 1991.

 

Section 65. Ignored because this is not in London.

Section 76. As above.

Para 1(4) of Schedule 3.

 

(4)While an order under sub-paragraph (1) above is in force, the following provisions shall cease to apply in relation to the permitted parking area designated by the order—

 

(a)section 35A(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (offences), so far as it relates to the contravention of, or non-compliance with, any provision of an order made under section 35 of that Act (use of parking places) in relation to parking places provided under section 32(1)(b) of that Act (power of local authorities to provide free parking places on roads); F6. . .

 

[(ab)section 35A(1) of the Act of 1984 (offences), so far as it relates to the contravention of, or non-compliance with any other provision of any order made under section 35 of that Act (use of parking places) applying in relation to a stationary vehicle.]

 

(b)section 47(1) of the Act of 1984 (offences) in so far as it applies in relation to any designated parking place. and

©subsections (5) and (6) of section 53 of the Act of 1984 so far as those subsections apply in relation to stationary vehicles.

 

However, this doesn't apply as the points raised under Section 1 of Schedule 3 do not include Railway land.

 

Para 2(4) of Schedule 3.

 

(4)While an order under sub-paragraph (1) above is in force, the following provisions shall cease to apply in relation to the special parking area designated by the order—

 

(a)section 5 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (contravention of a traffic regulation order under section 1 of that Act to be an offence), so far as it relates to the contravention of any provision of such an order prohibiting or restricting the waiting, or the loading and unloading, of vehicles;

 

(b)section 11 of the Act of 1984 (contravention of, or failure to comply with, experimental traffic order under section 9 of that Act), so far as it relates to the contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision of such an order prohibiting or restricting the waiting, or the loading and unloading, of vehicles;

 

(baa)section 16C of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (contravention of order under section 16A of that Act to be an offence) so far as it applies in relation to stationary vehicles;]

 

(ba)section 16(1) of the Act of 1984 (contravention of temporary orders under section 14 of that Act to be an offence) so far as it relates to the contravention of any provision of an order or notice under section 14 of that Act prohibiting or restricting the waiting, or the loading and unloading, of vehicles;

 

(bb)section 61(5) of the Act of 1984 (prohibition of vehicles in loading areas) so far as it applies in relation to stationary vehicles;.]

 

(bc)section 62(5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (contravention of order under subsection (1) of that section to be an offence) so far as it applies in relation to stationary vehicles;]

 

©section 129(6) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (parking of a motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track to be an offence);

 

(d)section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (parking of heavy vehicles on verges, central reservations and footpaths etc. to be an offence);

 

(e)section 21 of the Act of 1988 (prohibition of driving or parking on cycle tracks), so far as it makes it an offence to park a motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track;

 

(f)section 36(1) of the Act of 1988 (failure to comply with traffic signs), so far as it makes it an offence to fail to comply with an indication given by a traffic sign of a prohibition on causing a vehicle to stop on part of a road in England (but not in London) demarcated by that sign as a stopping area for a bus.

 

(f)section 36(1) of the Act of 1988 (drivers to comply with traffic signs), so far as it makes it an offence to fail to comply with an indication given by a traffic sign of a prohibition on causing a vehicle to stop on part of a road demarcated by that sign as a stopping area for a bus.]

 

But this also doesn't apply as Section 1 of Schedule 3 does not mention railway land.

 

Which can only lead me to conclude that whether Indigo have obtained the keeper details using POFA or the RV (L&R) Regs. They must have mislead the DVLA to obtain them as they have absolutely no grounds.

[DragonFly1967]

if its OK, once I've received the inevitable response, I'll copy and pate that over to their "parking dept" by email and post.

 

Ultimately they will lose out on two lease contracts for the next two years. Due to not even having the courtesy to contact me before paying the 'invoice' after being told clearly it was in dispute and not to pay it.

 

Well, quite.

 

Mercedes haven't really got a leg to stand on here and it would be much cheaper for them to just write off the £127 that they've foolishly paid to Indigo, plus any "admin" fee that they've deemed to charge you on top of that.

 

Whilst the invoice may be dressed up to look like a penalty, which may be covered in their lease agreement with you, in reality it is anything but. If Mercedes have fallen for it, really, that's their problem not yours.

 

It's not my money, but if the lease car was mine and Mercedes were trying to charge me £127+ for something that I didn't owe, if they insisted, or else! Which is what you hinted at, I would pay it under duress and the threat of having my credit file trashed, but I would also drag Mercedes in to the small claims court to recover it.