Tweet
Indigo/ZZPS - Byelaw 14 Penalty Notice by Post - Notice to Owner
Hello people. I'm new to Legal Beagles, so really hope you guys can help.
Around 25th Jan 2018, I received a letter from PCN Admin Centre (ZZPS) on behalf of INDIGO (see attached).
While many appear to use the standard template of 'Registered Keeper', despite also being the owner/driver, in my case, this really was news to me, the photo's gave no idea as to the location and the location of 'Brighton Main' meant nothing to me.
In my case, I genuinely am just the registered keeper without insurance and only a named driver on my partners insurance who is recorded as the main driver. I rarely drive other than trips to Lidl and don't like driving around cities, let alone park in strange, private car parks.
Obviously, this is my partner but to be fair, they would only park if they intended to pay and on giving this to them (it's their problem). On the suggestion of my partner, given the time claimed, I checked my workout history with my local gym and sure enough, I'd attended as I usually did so I couldn't possibly have been responsible, even if this was a one-off occasion. If this was genuine, it really was my partner but they'd never park without paying and really could remember what they were doing a month ago. That said, they had the idea of checking their credit card for the day in question.
Sure enough, during the period in question, a few entries were showing for a pub in central Brighton, near Brighton station. Problem was, there were no entries indicating parking transactions. That's not too surprising as like me, they too avoid paid parking, even if it means walking but this occasion was an exception. With a little help from my son, he remembered exactly what they were doing that day and more importantly, remembered where they parked and how and when they paid, including, (crucially), getting a receipt.
My partner and son, on entry to the car park, weren't sure how and when you paid or even if you had to but on asking someone at a ticket machine, they explained you don't have to get a ticket (ANPR) but pay at the machine on leaving with the warning, do not forget to pay as Indigo as they will pursue you. On returning the car park a few hours later, reg was punched into the machine which told them how much they needed to pay. Can't remember if it was contactless or if card number was entered but my son clearly remembers getting a receipt before leaving the machine.
This would have been all well and good but who keeps low value receipts beyond a few weeks? Not a problem, since a receipt was given, the transaction must have been processed so it will be on the credit card at some point but on checking again, we could find no transaction for around £5 something or even just a few pounds which you'd expect given the period they'd parked.
My partner tried talking to Indigo to find out who is responsible for the machines, being careful not to give his name but they weren't interested, told him not to worry and explain it all in an appeal as that is the only way. It goes without saying, Indigo upheld the claim, ignored that fact that I wasn't responsible and was elsewhere for the period and continued to push how the driver hadn't paid and thus the claim was proper. It is of note that Indigo mentioned nothing about Bylaws and kept saying the word 'driver' but a separate email was sent by ZZPS (despite being told we deny the debt/claim and don't talk to debt collectors).
ZZPS were different and like the initial letter they sent, claimed the following:
Good morning,
Thank you for your recent online submission.
Please be advised, this matter relates to a Penalty Notice, not a Parking Charge Notice, issued under Railway Byelaws. The owner of the vehicle is held liable for all Penalty Notices issued on Railway assets in all circumstances, as such we have no course of action against the driver of the vehicle. In your appeal, you state you are the registered keeper, but not the owner or the main driver. Should this be the case, please provide the details of the owner of the vehicle, along with proof, so that we may update our records accordingly.
This Penalty Notice was issued at Brighton Station. It has been issued as the vehicle was parked without a valid ticket or voucher. This is a breach of the terms and conditions detailed on the signage situated within the car park.
Photographic evidence, provided by the client, is time and date stamped to show when the vehicle entered and exited the location. This is available to view on our website, www.ipaymypcn.net.
We are treating your online submission as a formal section 10 Notice (“the Notice”) under the Data Protection Act (“the Act”).
Please accept this email as our formal acknowledgement and response to the Notice.
You have provided no justification for the Notice. The processing of your data is warranted.
In any event, section 10(1) of the Act does not apply in circumstances where Schedule 2, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Act are met, accordingly we are permitted to continue to process your data at this stage.
If this is not clear, we suggest you seek legal advice.
Please note, due to a recent decision made by the British Parking Association (BPA), POPLA is no longer considering appeals for Penalty Notices. As a result of this, a POPLA code will not be issued. Our client has confirmed to us that this Penalty Notice has been issued correctly. Our instruction on this matter remains to pursue payment of the outstanding balance, please arrange this.
Regards,
With regards to the 'Owner Liability' claim, V5C/3, 5C.4c clearly states "The Registered Keeper is not necessarily the legal owner" which is why I guess we're all advised to appeal accordingly and with revealing the 'driver'
Though looking likely, giving the car park and who runs it, with so little to go on given the lack of detail on the PCN and the flimsy photographic evidence (no clue at all as to location), we are still assuming my partner is responsible and I'm not about to reveal his details, given that Idigo are completely unwilling to entertain a machine failure, despite one of the machines already being out-of-order.
Since this is on railway land, 'Keeper Liability' can't apply and a call to British Transport Police confirmed this would be a civil matter and a third party can't be held responsible for a misdemeanour on railway assets. They would need the 'person' who committed the (alleged) offence and can't hold another responsible.
In a nutshell, in this case, I genuinely wasn't the driver, I'm not the owner and crucially, I can prove I really wasn't there and so personally, couldn't have committed the claimed offence.
Despite the rejection from Indigo which only talks about the driver and refuses to address why I'm being held responsible and doesn't mention Byelaws at all, they haven't offered a POPLA code or mentioned it, despite clearly demanding one if the choose to reject. ZZPS on the other, made a big thing about how POPLA can't get involved as it's a Byelaw thing (surely that's for POPLA to decide?)
I'm sure this is the same as others in the same boat and everywhere seems to suggest this notices aren't valid, even fraudulent. Southern Rail isn't interested and claim Indigo have nothing to do with them and have simply been given permission to operate a private car park on railway land but say Sourthern have no responsibility for Indigo's conduct and we should take it up with Indigo.
Indigo in the meantime claim they are authorised by Southern but so far, have refused to provide any evidence.
What do I do? Hope someone can help
Around 25th Jan 2018, I received a letter from PCN Admin Centre (ZZPS) on behalf of INDIGO (see attached).
While many appear to use the standard template of 'Registered Keeper', despite also being the owner/driver, in my case, this really was news to me, the photo's gave no idea as to the location and the location of 'Brighton Main' meant nothing to me.
In my case, I genuinely am just the registered keeper without insurance and only a named driver on my partners insurance who is recorded as the main driver. I rarely drive other than trips to Lidl and don't like driving around cities, let alone park in strange, private car parks.
Obviously, this is my partner but to be fair, they would only park if they intended to pay and on giving this to them (it's their problem). On the suggestion of my partner, given the time claimed, I checked my workout history with my local gym and sure enough, I'd attended as I usually did so I couldn't possibly have been responsible, even if this was a one-off occasion. If this was genuine, it really was my partner but they'd never park without paying and really could remember what they were doing a month ago. That said, they had the idea of checking their credit card for the day in question.
Sure enough, during the period in question, a few entries were showing for a pub in central Brighton, near Brighton station. Problem was, there were no entries indicating parking transactions. That's not too surprising as like me, they too avoid paid parking, even if it means walking but this occasion was an exception. With a little help from my son, he remembered exactly what they were doing that day and more importantly, remembered where they parked and how and when they paid, including, (crucially), getting a receipt.
My partner and son, on entry to the car park, weren't sure how and when you paid or even if you had to but on asking someone at a ticket machine, they explained you don't have to get a ticket (ANPR) but pay at the machine on leaving with the warning, do not forget to pay as Indigo as they will pursue you. On returning the car park a few hours later, reg was punched into the machine which told them how much they needed to pay. Can't remember if it was contactless or if card number was entered but my son clearly remembers getting a receipt before leaving the machine.
This would have been all well and good but who keeps low value receipts beyond a few weeks? Not a problem, since a receipt was given, the transaction must have been processed so it will be on the credit card at some point but on checking again, we could find no transaction for around £5 something or even just a few pounds which you'd expect given the period they'd parked.
My partner tried talking to Indigo to find out who is responsible for the machines, being careful not to give his name but they weren't interested, told him not to worry and explain it all in an appeal as that is the only way. It goes without saying, Indigo upheld the claim, ignored that fact that I wasn't responsible and was elsewhere for the period and continued to push how the driver hadn't paid and thus the claim was proper. It is of note that Indigo mentioned nothing about Bylaws and kept saying the word 'driver' but a separate email was sent by ZZPS (despite being told we deny the debt/claim and don't talk to debt collectors).
ZZPS were different and like the initial letter they sent, claimed the following:
Good morning,
Thank you for your recent online submission.
Please be advised, this matter relates to a Penalty Notice, not a Parking Charge Notice, issued under Railway Byelaws. The owner of the vehicle is held liable for all Penalty Notices issued on Railway assets in all circumstances, as such we have no course of action against the driver of the vehicle. In your appeal, you state you are the registered keeper, but not the owner or the main driver. Should this be the case, please provide the details of the owner of the vehicle, along with proof, so that we may update our records accordingly.
This Penalty Notice was issued at Brighton Station. It has been issued as the vehicle was parked without a valid ticket or voucher. This is a breach of the terms and conditions detailed on the signage situated within the car park.
Photographic evidence, provided by the client, is time and date stamped to show when the vehicle entered and exited the location. This is available to view on our website, www.ipaymypcn.net.
We are treating your online submission as a formal section 10 Notice (“the Notice”) under the Data Protection Act (“the Act”).
Please accept this email as our formal acknowledgement and response to the Notice.
You have provided no justification for the Notice. The processing of your data is warranted.
In any event, section 10(1) of the Act does not apply in circumstances where Schedule 2, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Act are met, accordingly we are permitted to continue to process your data at this stage.
If this is not clear, we suggest you seek legal advice.
Please note, due to a recent decision made by the British Parking Association (BPA), POPLA is no longer considering appeals for Penalty Notices. As a result of this, a POPLA code will not be issued. Our client has confirmed to us that this Penalty Notice has been issued correctly. Our instruction on this matter remains to pursue payment of the outstanding balance, please arrange this.
Regards,
With regards to the 'Owner Liability' claim, V5C/3, 5C.4c clearly states "The Registered Keeper is not necessarily the legal owner" which is why I guess we're all advised to appeal accordingly and with revealing the 'driver'
Though looking likely, giving the car park and who runs it, with so little to go on given the lack of detail on the PCN and the flimsy photographic evidence (no clue at all as to location), we are still assuming my partner is responsible and I'm not about to reveal his details, given that Idigo are completely unwilling to entertain a machine failure, despite one of the machines already being out-of-order.
Since this is on railway land, 'Keeper Liability' can't apply and a call to British Transport Police confirmed this would be a civil matter and a third party can't be held responsible for a misdemeanour on railway assets. They would need the 'person' who committed the (alleged) offence and can't hold another responsible.
In a nutshell, in this case, I genuinely wasn't the driver, I'm not the owner and crucially, I can prove I really wasn't there and so personally, couldn't have committed the claimed offence.
Despite the rejection from Indigo which only talks about the driver and refuses to address why I'm being held responsible and doesn't mention Byelaws at all, they haven't offered a POPLA code or mentioned it, despite clearly demanding one if the choose to reject. ZZPS on the other, made a big thing about how POPLA can't get involved as it's a Byelaw thing (surely that's for POPLA to decide?)
I'm sure this is the same as others in the same boat and everywhere seems to suggest this notices aren't valid, even fraudulent. Southern Rail isn't interested and claim Indigo have nothing to do with them and have simply been given permission to operate a private car park on railway land but say Sourthern have no responsibility for Indigo's conduct and we should take it up with Indigo.
Indigo in the meantime claim they are authorised by Southern but so far, have refused to provide any evidence.
What do I do? Hope someone can help
