Parking or Railway byelaws?, Next action - how to respond Options

[shabs5000]

Hi

Hi - friend of mine received the attached letter. What should the response be? this is after the driver received a ticket apparently as the shtty app wasnt working.

Any help apprecited.

Is this the usual "please advise what capacity you are asking me this in and explain re byelaws etc" (But more articulately)

thanks





This post has been edited by shabs5000: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:18

[Advertisement]

[Redivi]

Very good

There's another potential issue to keep in reserve

If the contract for Milton Keynes station is similar to the Great Western contract I've seen

1 Indigo Park Solutions (formerly Meteor Parking Ltd) won't have a contract. The contracted company will be Indigo Park Services (formerly Vinci Park Ltd)
2 The contract will exclude the authority to take legal action

[shabs5000]

Thanks for all the help gang....i'll send a response and wait for the tumble weed to roll in....hopefully.

[shabs5000]

So........I sent the questioning version of the letter.....and for the first time received a reply!!!! It normally dies a death at that point but not this time.....Reply is as follows:

Sent from ZZPS not the Indigo park solutions (on behalf of Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd)



I am writing in regards to your recent correspondence, received dd mm yy, the content of which has been noted accordingly.

Please be advised that Railway Byelaw 14 was breached as per the following:

"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"

If payment was made correctly over the phone on the date in question, please provide your VAT receipt from www......co.uk

Railway Byelaw 14 also states the following:

The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area"

If you were not the owner of the vehicle on the date in question, please provide evidence supporting this.

The 2012 Protection of Freedoms Act bares no relevance in this matter.

We are a third party party company working on behalf of Indigo.


Odd reply in many ways....

I never asked about Protection of Freedoms?
Didnt dispute whether i was owner or not
Didnt claim to have a telephone payment or receipt?

Thoughts on next step/response? Thanks!

[Redivi]

Wait for about three weeks then :

Dear Sir

Ref ***

Thank You for your letter dated ****

Unfortunately it has not only failed to address the questions I asked but has left me even more confused

The Penalty Notice and your original letter state that it was for failure to display a permit.
You have now claimed that it was failure to make a payment.

Please provide a copy of the correspondence from Indigo that instructed you to change the basis of the charge

Please also provide clear unqualified answers to the questions below :

You previously stated that the Penalty Notice is an offer to avoid prosecution
Is it correct that, unless the offer is accepted, no payment is owed to Indigo Park Solutions ?
If so please explain your reference to administration and debt recovery charges

Is it correct that Byelaw 24 only permits the person who committed an offence to be prosecuted and not any third party viz the owner or registered keeper ?

You previously stated that the vehicle could be clamped or removed until any outstanding parking notices against the VRM are removed
Please explain why you believe the action would not be an offence under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Section 54
Please also state whether Indigo Parking Solutions has authorised you to threaten this action or if it is your own invention

Do not contact me again unless you have fully complied with my request
If the answers are missing or evasive, I will draw the obvious conclusions

Yours Faithfully

[AscotGuy]

Is it correct that Byelaw 24 only permits the person who committed an offence to be prosecuted and not any third party viz the owner or registered keeper ?

Should that be 14?

[nosferatu1001]

Yes it shoudl be.

[dramaqueen]

Is it correct that Byelaw 24 only permits the person who committed an offence to be prosecuted and not any third party viz the owner or registered keeper ?

Should that be 14?

Actually I think Redivi did mean what he said. Byelaw 14 simply sets out what a motorist may or may not do. It's Byelaw 24 that says breaching the Byelaws is an offence and the alleged offender can be prosecuted. Notably, it doesnt say a third party can be prosecuted.

BTW, sometimes it's suggested that the Owner commits an offence by not paying a penalty, in breach of Byelaw 14/4/1. The Indigo signs suggest this. It's nonsense. B14/4/1 merely describes a possible state of affairs. You cannot breach a state of affairs. For confirmation, see this recent reply to an FOIR from J Ramsden: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/4641...e_passthrough=1

The same FOIR also produced an interesting table of Byelaw prosecutions: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/4641...e_passthrough=1.
Pity it doesn't identify the prosecutors. On past form it has never been the Govia lot.

This post has been edited by dramaqueen: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 - 08:34

[shabs5000]

Wait for about three weeks then :

Dear Sir

Ref ***

Thank You for your letter dated ****

Unfortunately it has not only failed to address the questions I asked but has left me even more confused

The Penalty Notice and your original letter state that it was for failure to display a permit.
You have now claimed that it was failure to make a payment.

Please provide a copy of the correspondence from Indigo that instructed you to change the basis of the charge

Please also provide clear unqualified answers to the questions below :

You previously stated that the Penalty Notice is an offer to avoid prosecution
Is it correct that, unless the offer is accepted, no payment is owed to Indigo Park Solutions ?
If so please explain your reference to administration and debt recovery charges

Is it correct that Byelaw 24 only permits the person who committed an offence to be prosecuted and not any third party viz the owner or registered keeper ?

You previously stated that the vehicle could be clamped or removed until any outstanding parking notices against the VRM are removed
Please explain why you believe the action would not be an offence under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Section 54
Please also state whether Indigo Parking Solutions has authorised you to threaten this action or if it is your own invention

Do not contact me again unless you have fully complied with my request
If the answers are missing or evasive, I will draw the obvious conclusions

Yours Faithfully

Went back with the above.......now i get this......

We wrote to you previously about ths Charge, and according to us, the charge remains unpaid.

The Charge is an offer for you to make a payment of an alternative charge under Railway Byelaws. IF the Charge is not paid, then our client is entitled to commence a private criminal prosecution against you for your breach of Railway Byelaw 14. THis coudl result in you being fined up to £1000 (Level 3 on the standard scale, set out in section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982).

By breaching Railway Byelaw 14, you have committed an offence. Teh charge has been issued under section 219 of the transport act 2000 as amended under the Railways Act 2005.

Our next course of action is to pass this to the law firm XYZ. WE woudl prefer to get to the bottom of this with you, without the need to use lawyers. However, we are duty bound to advise you that if this does get passed to solicitors, the balance owing may well increase.

The criminal prosecution process is not simple; if you need legal or debt advice, places where this can be sought are detailed ont he reverse of this letter.

It is in YOUR interest to either get in touch or pay this charge and we again invite you to do so.

YS

Customer Services
ZZPS Limited.


WTF? Now sounds serious ....but no reference to my last letter ....or answer of the questions?

Keep going?

[bobthesod]

I like the spelling in the first reply that the POFA 2012 BARES no......

[Redivi]

I wouldn't bother to reply to ZZPS but wait until the letter arrives from Wright Hassall solicitor or QDR (the same company)
Better still, the second letter for the purpose of dragging out the process

See what's alleged - a failure to pay or a failure to display

Then reply that you're puzzled by the letters because ZZPS has confirmed that there is no debt owed to Indigo

This post has been edited by Redivi: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 16:41

[ostell]

The original reason was given as failure to display. Have they explained yet where the byelaws state this is an offence?

[Redivi]

They haven't

ZZPS has instead changed it to Failure to Pay but failed to answer the question whether it was at Indigo's instruction or its own initiative

[shabs5000]

Exactly. And not acknowledged my last reply either???

Is it worth another recorded letter with "if you do indeed want to help then reply to my letter of DD/mm with answers to the questions raised".....and enclose another copy of that letter?

Don't understand how they feel they can chase the owner/keeper?

[The Rookie]

Don't understand how they feel they can chase the owner/keeper?

They just want someone, anyone, to pay, they have no care for the rights or wrongs of it, they have the registered keeper's details and will chase them until such time as they get paid or give up or are given a drivers details.

[shabs5000]

The original reason was given as failure to display. Have they explained yet where the byelaws state this is an offence?

I odnt believe they have at all - no.

[ostell]

That's another delaying question for them to get to the 6 months. Ask them which byelaw makes not displaying an offence

[shabs5000]

HELLLP.......so the latest from these sumbags!

Thank you for your letter.

our client has confirmed the reason for he issue of this penalty notice is "failing to display a valid ticket or voucher". After reviewing the letters that have been sent to you , the details of the offence have been correctly communicated. As previous correspondence has correctly conveyed the information we are unable to concur with your assertion this has changed. I have enclosed a copy of the first notice sent to you for information and reference.

For the avoidance of doubt and by way of general explanation, this firm is ZZPS limited and works under contract for the above named client, indigo park Solutions UK ltd. There is no instruction from our client relating to a change in the reason for issue since this has not changed.

To address the questions raised within your letter. The Notice TO Owner letter sent to you on dd mm yy details the notice and associated information. The letters are sent to advise you of the Penalty Charge and provid eall the relevant information to allow you to make an informed decision.

The original Notice to Owner letter sent, as enclosed, advises that adminstration and debt recovery charges had been added as the Penalty Notice affixed to the vehicle at the time of the parking offence was not paid.

Please refer to the railway Byelaws, in particular Byelaw 14, which states the owner of the vehicle will be held liable for a breach accordingly.

Your reference to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) is not relevant to this penalty Notice. POFA2012 only applies to Parcking Charge Notices issued on private land. Clamping is permitted uder Railway Byelawsand therefore the inclusion of this information contained within the Notice to owner was to ensure you have been provided with all the pertinent information to the Penalty Notice.

As previously advised, the instruction from our client is to collect the outstanding balance. As a gesture of goodwill, I have placed the account on old until ddmmyy to allow you the opportunity to make the payment. Please note, if the outstanding balance is not recieved this matter will progress without further reference to you where further charges may be incurred.

Please contact our offices on 12345567 to arrange payment or alternatively refer to the reverese of the Notice to owner for alternative payment options.

YS

blah blah



Pay or hold? They seem v confident to pursue ....previously cases have been dropped long before this stage?

[ManxRed]

Good Lord, hold. They're on the ropes here.

They DID specifically state that it was for non-payment, as per:

"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"

. There's no mention of failure to display. So they're now lying to you about what they previously said.

'Failure to display' is not a byelaw offence anyway.

Others will chime in soon.

[Gary Bloke]

Reasons to be cheerful...

1. POFA does indeed apply to railway land. The only part of POFA which does not apply is Schedule 4, which means there is no keeper liability.
2. Byelaw 14.4 states that the owner of a vehicle parked in breach of 14.1, 14.2 or 14.3 may be liable. So before they can try to hold the owner liable, a Magistrate's court first has to find someone guilty of breaching one of these three Byelaws, and these three Byelaws only refer to the "person in charge", namely the driver. So they first have to find the driver guilty. That being the case, there is no way an owner who was not the same person as the driver would also then also be found guilty - of what?
3. They think that the Byelaws allow clamping, they don't realise that Section 54 of the POFA requires explicit lawful authority for clamping, which the Transport Act 2000 does not provide. So, since 1 October 2012, nobody has lawful authority to clamp vehicles in station car parks.
4. Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd has no written authority from the landowner to manage these car parks

[Redivi]

I would wait a couple of weeks before :

Dear Sir

Ref ****

Thank You for your letter dated *** confirming that the Penalty Notice was issued for Failure to Display, not Failure to Pay
This is not, however, an offence under the Railway Byelaws and I fail to understand why the Penalty Notice was issued for this reason
If your client believes differently, please direct me to the specific paragraph in the Byelaws

Please also direct me to the specific paragraph that states that the owner WILL be liable for the breach
I can find no such definite statement, only Para 14(4)(i) that an owner MAY be liable - an important distinction

I note your references to an "outstanding balance" and "debt recovery charges" that imply that a payment is already owed to your client
This is at variance with the content of your letter dated **** that stated that the Penalty Charge was an offer to avoid prosecution, not an actual debt

Please state clearly which explanation for the charge your client believes to be correct

If neither you nor your client knows the legal basis for the demand, it is unreasonable to expect me to pay it

Your Faithfully

This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 - 11:08