Please help, threatened with Magistrates Court - wrong location number entered, Threads merged |
Please help, threatened with Magistrates Court - wrong location number entered, Threads merged |
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 13:19
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 21 Jun 2019 From: COULSDON Member No.: 104,405 |
Recently received a Penalty Charge Notice from Saba (formerly Indigo) 17/5/19 for failure to obtain valid ticket or voucher (parked in a station so they are quoting byelaw 14(4). I have proof that I paid for parking but my husband entered the wrong location number. On receipt of the letter I lodged an appeal via email to appeal@paymypcn.net , received confirmation of this via automated response but heard nothing back until receiving a Debt Collection Notice for £170.00 received from ZZPS dated 14/6/19. Immediately contacted them by telephone to query why my appeal had not been answered only to discover that the email address I had used was incorrect and I had missed out that I should have used the appeals@ipaymypcn.net (I had inadvertently missed out the i in front of paymypcn.net.) Of course they now say I have not appealed in time and therefore must pay £170.00 or will be taken to magistrates court for private criminal prosecution. I have written a draft letter and enclosed it to ZZPS which I was hoping somebody would have a look at before I send it. Unfortunatley there seems to be no way I can string things out as I did not lodge an appeal in time. I am worried about costs of a magistrates court but feel so incensed that common sense does not seem to prevail when tickets have been in all good faith purchased.
Dear Sir / Madam I am writing to dispute the demand for £170.00 for a ‘Debt unpaid’ on several grounds. 1. Payment was made and we have proof via American Express statement that a charge for £5.05 was taken by your client Saba, we were informed that the wrong location address was used, however as payment was taken there was no loss incurred to your client. Furthermore, there is no way of checking if a mistake has been made as the location is not read back when paying for parking by telephone. 2. The PCN letter was received on the 20/05/19 stating that the amount payable was £60.00 which would increase to £100.00 if not paid within 14 days. The next correspondence received was dated 14/6/19 for a demand of £170.00, why has the charge increased from £100.00, nowhere on the PCN was it stated how long we had to pay the £100.00 fine before it was increased I would therefore question the legality of imposing a further £70.00. 3. A reasonable attempt was made to appeal but due to the faint lettering on the reverse of the PCN the (i) was missed out when emailing an appeal and was sent to appeals@paymypcn.net. As we received an immediate automated response it was naturally assumed that the appeal had been sent out correctly. 4. Part of the contract formed under terms and conditions of parking is to pay a certain amount for a specified amount of time which was done, there is no requirement for getting all of the information correct when paying remotely or a penalty for failing to do so. We have been threatened with a private criminal prosecution in a magistrates court for a parking charge which was paid in full. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 13:19
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 13:46
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
This is a private parking PCN and I've asked for move to correct section.
|
|
|
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 13:57
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 21 Jun 2019 From: COULSDON Member No.: 104,405 |
Oops sorry I will resend to the correct forum
Thanks |
|
|
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 14:16
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,325 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,515 |
|
|
|
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 14:42
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,265 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
1/ Loss is irrelevant where a byelaws offence is alleged, however the only Byelaws offence that is relevant is failing to pay, and arguably you did.
2/ The penalty is an offer to pay to avoid prosecution, unless you think a prosecution is likely then the number is irrelevant 3/ Irrelevant 4/ There is no contract, its an alleged criminal offence, they can't enter a contract that you pay them if you break the law! You need to brush up on the byelaw/penalty issue, the aim is to kick this down the road for six months, so you only ask ONE question per response and then challenge the reply, so the first one should probably be What Byelaw offence do they believe was committed (unless its clear in the original notice, if it says failure to obtain/display a ticket, that isn't a byelaw offence so you're entitled to query what the alleged offence is! -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 15:26
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 21 Jun 2019 From: COULSDON Member No.: 104,405 |
Unfortunately my legal knowledge is pretty much zero, but I have been trying to skim read and make some sense of it. The Penalty notice states that the offence was failing to obtain a valid ticket or voucher. They are stating that an offence has been committed by breaching Byelaw 14. I have ready this byelaw regarding parking as the "appropriate charge at
the appropriate time in accordance with instructions given by an Operator or an authorised person at that place". They will argue that payment was not made in accordance with their instructions. Should I still ask them to clarify or is there another issue I should raise, and who do I address my letter to SABA or ZZPS. |
|
|
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 18:05
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,265 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Byelaw 14 is all the parking regulations, you need the paragraph they think applies.
Failing to obtain a ticket or voucher isn’t a byelaw offence, hence why you ask them to state clearly which byelaw they think was broken ‘for the avoidance of doubt’. Read more on here on SABA or Indigo cases so you understand the tactics you need to employ. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 - 20:09
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 21 Jun 2019 From: COULSDON Member No.: 104,405 |
Thanks for all the information, have spent my whole precious day off researching byelaws and Saba / Indigo PCN threads. Hopefully I will be able to string things out via various letters. I will ignore the ZZPS Debt Collection notice for now and respond later by asking for futher clarification on which part of the Railways byelaw I am breaching. I am watching with interest the recent post regarding magistrates court summons.
|
|
|
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 11:27
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 21 Jun 2019 From: COULSDON Member No.: 104,405 |
I recently parked in a Southern Railway carpark and made a data entry error when paying for parking, I have a credit card statement which proves payment for the appropriate amount was taken by Saba but the location code was incorrect, resulting in several months of threats and grief. They are threatening criminal proceedings under magistrates. Unfortunately I missed the appeals window because on the back of the original PCN the appeals process relates to emailing via ipaymypcn, unfortunately i missed out the i, as I received an automated reply I assumed I had gone through the correct process. However I received a letter from ZZPS demanding £170.00. I tried contacting the company who stated they had no record of my email, after printing out the email I realised the mistake. Strangely the date that I received the 28 day timeout letter from ZZPS was the date that I received an email back from paymypcn who stated that they knew nothing about my penalty notice. This makes me suspicious that perhaps they are the same company as Saba seem to have bought up most of the other parking companies and they waited to replay until outside of the appeals time-frame to inform me I had emailed the wrong company.This means I am not eligible to appeal and will not be able to drag out the 6 months, also stupidly the driver was revealed at the time.
I am now not sure whether to respond to ZZPS or wait for the solicitors letter which would seem to be their next move. What should my next move be? Who if anyone can I appeal to. Also I have a couple of questions which I would appreciate if anyone can clarify. 1. The date of the alleged offence is 1/5 but their letter is dated the 17/5 and was not received until the 23/5 can I quote timeout on the 14 days recommended by BPA 2. The appropriate amount at the appropriate time was paid, if the toc were to successfully prosecute they would have to prove some kind of intent to evade payment with which we have evidence that this was not the case. 3. Should they not have mentioned appealing through POPLA or ITAL on their original PCN rather than just a website or email address regarding appeals To be honest paying them would be so much easier due to the amount of time I am spending trying to get my head around the Byelaws etc. Also in county court the amount payable is capped and I would be happy to go through this. It is the unknown costs associated in magistrates court which are causing the anxiety. Would really appreciate some assistance with my next step |
|
|
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 11:54
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 162 Joined: 14 Dec 2018 From: Sussex Member No.: 101,446 |
Is this the same case as your topic called. “Please help, threatened with Magistrates Court, wrong location number entered”?
-------------------- “Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
|
|
|
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 12:50
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 21 Jun 2019 From: COULSDON Member No.: 104,405 |
It is, sorry have I posted incorrectly
I didn't feel that I worded the first post very well and wanted to ask some more specific questions. |
|
|
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 13:03
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Its one cae one thread, so hit report and ask it to be moved.
|
|
|
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 13:27
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 21 Jun 2019 From: COULSDON Member No.: 104,405 |
OK I have done this. Thank you
|
|
|
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 17:52
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 488 Joined: 21 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,563 |
I am now not sure whether to respond to ZZPS or wait for the solicitors letter which would seem to be their next move.
>>> You can ignore all letters from ZZPS, QDR Solicitors etc unless they are actually taking you to court What should my next move be? Who if anyone can I appeal to. >>> Probably too late to appeal now. So, sit back, relax, drink beer, watch the telly, eat, sleep, breathe, live life to the full without worrying one iota about parking. Also I have a couple of questions which I would appreciate if anyone can clarify. 1. The date of the alleged offence is 1/5 but their letter is dated the 17/5 and was not received until the 23/5 can I quote timeout on the 14 days recommended by BPA >>> In a non-railway station car park where Byelaws do not apply, there is the possibility that the PPC can transfer liability from the driver to the keeper if certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is that the Notice to Keeper letter must have been received by the keeper at latest 14 days after the date of the alleged offence. In this case Byelaws do apply so there is no keeper liability, but the Byelaws state that the owner *may* liable, without specifying when they would actually become liable. Irrespective of this ambiguous wording, the POPLA website takes the view that Notice to Owner letters must be received by the owner within 14 days of the alleged incident, otherwise the NTO has been incorrectly issued. Curiously SABA have stopped using POPLA for the second stage appeal process and now use ITAL instead. Initially ITAL supported the POPLA 14 day rule for NTO letters, then in March they changes their minds withi no explanation, now claiming that PPC's have 7 months in which to get NTO letters delivered. 2. The appropriate amount at the appropriate time was paid, if the toc were to successfully prosecute they would have to prove some kind of intent to evade payment with which we have evidence that this was not the case. >>> Very very unlikely they will prosecute because the fines imposed by the Magistrate would go to the Government. Anyway you did pay so the judge would probably throw out the case for wasting the Court's time. 3. Should they not have mentioned appealing through POPLA or ITAL on their original PCN rather than just a website or email address regarding appeals >>> Second appeal is only mentioned in the rejection letter to the first appeal. Since you didn't first appeal to SABA, they would not tell you about ITAL. To be honest paying them would be so much easier due to the amount of time I am spending trying to get my head around the Byelaws etc. Also in county court the amount payable is capped and I would be happy to go through this. It is the unknown costs associated in magistrates court which are causing the anxiety. >>> You are NOT going to pay this. Indigo / SABA are a bunch of shysters who should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. They are devious b*gg*rs who would sell their own mothers if it meant getting £100. They never give straight answers to straight questions. They put false statements on their signage. They threaten to clamp vehicles when clamping has been illegal since 2012. They use up valuable parking space with "Premier Parking" so they can fill their own coffers and increase the chances of issuing tickets to regular commuters who now cannot find an available space. They try to scare people will bogus home-made "penalties" and they probably don't even have written authority from the landowner to manage any of the car parks. Oh, and when they get your personal data from the DVLA they misuse it and so breach the laws relating to data protection. Would really appreciate some assistance with my next step >>> Do nothing for the moment. Tell us if you get any letters actually taking you to court. >>> Reasons to be cheerful: 1. Parking was paid for 2. No-one has any legal obligation to accept their offer to avoid prosecution 3. Only the driver could ever be liable for a breach of byelaws and you have no obligation to name the driver + you will not be doing so. 4. POFA Schedule 4 does not apply so there is no keeper liability 5. Only a Magistrate can decide whether or not a byelaw was breached, not SABA nor ZZPS. 6. Byelaws say the owner may be liable but do not specify when the owner would actually be liable. 7. Byelaws only apply to persons while they are on railway assets. 8. Being the keeper does not prove you were the owner. 9. There is no law making it a crime to be the owner of a vehicle parked in proven breach of byelaws by someone else. 10. Since the penalty is actually an offer to avoid prosecution, declining this offer does not incur any debt. All references to debts in their letters are wholly unwarranted. 11. SABA Park Solutions UK Ltd have no written authority from GTR to manage the named car park nor to issue penalties. Challenge them to produce their contract for the station in question and on the date specified. 12. Your personal data will have been requested from DVLA under the terms of the standard KADOE contract. Using this data to offer you an opportunity to avoid a criminal prosecution is not a purpose that is allowed for in the KADOE contract. Therefore your personal data has been misused which is a breach of GDPR. This post has been edited by Gary Bloke: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 20:02 |
|
|
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 19:42
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 21 Jun 2019 From: COULSDON Member No.: 104,405 |
Cheers Gary Bloke for your answers. Unfortunately, driver was inadvertently disclosed (I know, idiot but this was before I even knew about these forums). I am up for a fight though and if I have you guys to assist with back-up should I need to attend court I will sleep better. Cheers all
|
|
|
Sat, 20 Jul 2019 - 09:09
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 543 Joined: 26 Sep 2012 Member No.: 57,365 |
You should also post on the railway forums here :
https://www.railforums.co.uk/forums/dispute...osecutions.152/ With the information provided by Gary Bloke added to your situation. There are a few industry people who post on the railway forums, and the more exposure that SABA/Indigos practices get the better make sure that you hammer home any bully tactics, threats and mis information, also state the train operating company/company running the railways station |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 16:37
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 488 Joined: 21 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,563 |
In particular, the standard Indigo / SABA sign states that failure to pay the £60 / £100 charge is a criminal offence. This is a bare faced lie. There is no legal framework which supports the imposition of pre-conviction penalties for alleged breaches of Byelaws. A penalty (fine) can only be imposed by a Magistrate after the defendant has been found guilty by the Court. The Indigo / SABA "penalty" is merely an offer to avoid prosecution, so nobody is legally obliged to accept it nor to pay the £60 / £100 charge.
It is disgraceful that the public are being deceived by such blatant and cynical misrepresentation of the law. Why doesn't the national media pick up on this? This post has been edited by Gary Bloke: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 18:37 |
|
|
Thu, 1 Aug 2019 - 11:48
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 21 Jun 2019 From: COULSDON Member No.: 104,405 |
update
I sent a letter to ZZPS basically stating that in a criminal prosecution at a magistrate’s court the burden of proof would lie with the train operating company successfully proving intent to evade payment in order to find the driver in breach of Byelaw 14. Have now received the expected QDR Solicitors letter. Have to say it has actually relieved some of the stress around the whole incident as what an absolute joke, they now seem to have completely switched tactic and instead of threatening us with magistrates court under byelaws they have now stated that what we have is a Parking Charge Notice and not a Penalty Charge and are threatening County Court instead. This just seems laughable now. Can a penalty notice suddenly be switched to a Parking Charge Notice, I think problably not but will ask all you experts out there. Respond to this letter or wait for the next. Ch |
|
|
Thu, 1 Aug 2019 - 13:05
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 488 Joined: 21 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,563 |
No they cannot switch to a parking charge notice. This is now happening to many people. I will send you some links as examples. Please write a letter of complaint to the SRA. Details to follow.
|
|
|
Thu, 1 Aug 2019 - 13:05
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Can a penalty notice suddenly be switched to a Parking Charge Notice ?
No; they have to decide from the start which track (excuse pun) they're going to use Not that it's discouraged Govia that has been threatening to ask the magistrates to enforce a penalty Notice as a civil debt In the only court case that we know of, it's gone very quiet since the issue of jurisdiction and the status of the PCN was challenged Could reply to QDR, but as late as possible Dear Sir Ref ***** I have received your letter dated **** that states that this is a Parking Notice enforced by the County Court and not a Penalty Notice as described in its title and all previous correspondence. If it is a Parking Notice, Saba has misrepresented its authority, in breach of the BPA Code of Practice Para 14.2 If it is a Penalty Notice, QDR has misrepresented the Notice, that is not a debt but an offer to avoid prosecution that I am free to accept or decline Please state clearly whether this is a Penalty Notice or a Parking Notice so that I can determine whether my complaint must be addressed to the British Parking Association or the Solicitors Regulatory Authority Thank You Yours Faithfully |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 19:23 |