Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Pmogger
    • By Pmogger 17th Mar 17, 8:08 AM
    • 6Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Pmogger
    Care Parking Metrolink
    • #1
    • 17th Mar 17, 8:08 AM
    Care Parking Metrolink 17th Mar 17 at 8:08 AM
    I received a PCN from Care Parking 3 weeks ago after parking on a Metrolink car park overnight after a couple too many on a night out.
    As a newbie I have read the relevant posts and am about to send an email as keeper to Care Parking on day 26 after receiving a windscreen ticket. I am using the template provided to complain about the poor signage, etc.. My question is..as the ticket was issued on Metrolink land should I include in this first contact the issues of Relevant Land and bye laws or do I keep that for the Popla appeal, when they reject this one. Obviously I am hoping that sending on day 26 will throw them and they mess up with the NTK.
    Any advice from the seasoned folk on here greatly appreciated.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Mar 17, 8:22 AM
    • 13,626 Posts
    • 21,373 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 17th Mar 17, 8:22 AM
    • #2
    • 17th Mar 17, 8:22 AM
    You've done your reading well. Keep any powder you have dry for POPLA. No matter what you put in your initial appeal, it is 95%+ likely to fail. Get your POPLA code.

    As you say, delaying to day 26 will hopefully mean they screw up on the Keeper Liability front, giving you a slam dunk at POPLA.

    Remember, no information as to who was driving - just stick exactly to the template.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Pmogger
    • By Pmogger 18th Apr 17, 1:49 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Pmogger
    • #3
    • 18th Apr 17, 1:49 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Apr 17, 1:49 PM
    Update.
    I have just received an email from Care Parking rejecting my appeal as expected and i have been given my popla code. In the email they state that as i responded as the Keeper they do not have to use DVLA to get my details. They do quite Pofa 2012. Should i still receive NTK by post?
    My main appeal point will be about relevant land and bylaws but no NTK will surely strengthen my case. Should I wait to see if the NTK arrives before submitting vto Popla?
    Pmogger
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Apr 17, 3:06 PM
    • 13,626 Posts
    • 21,373 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 18th Apr 17, 3:06 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Apr 17, 3:06 PM
    Should i still receive NTK by post?
    If they want to invoke keeper liability. You need to just ease this past day 56 (providing your deadline date for your POPLA appeal extends beyond day 56) then no NtK > no keeper liability > POPLA slam dunk.

    AFAIAA they also need to have formally obtained the keeper's details from the DVLA to invoke keeper liability, otherwise they have no independent proof as to who exactly the registered keeper is.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 18th Apr 17, 4:57 PM
    • 14,790 Posts
    • 18,604 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 18th Apr 17, 4:57 PM
    • #5
    • 18th Apr 17, 4:57 PM
    dont forget that bylaws apply on railway land and so only the OWNER can be deemed as liable , but they cannot find out who the owner actually is , only the RK

    so yes they should send an NTK but its not relevant on railway land as the keeper has no responsibility in any event (plus POFA2012 does not apply)

    do not miss the POPLA deadline as you do not want it to "timeout" on you

    read the INDIGO threads here on page 1 to understand the issues about railway land , 2 recent INDIGO threads have plenty of info in them and METROLINK is no different
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Pmogger
    • By Pmogger 19th Apr 17, 8:49 AM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Pmogger
    • #6
    • 19th Apr 17, 8:49 AM
    • #6
    • 19th Apr 17, 8:49 AM
    Thanks for the replies
    I've checked my dates and I received the rejection email on day 54 after the windscreen PCN . Nothing in the post yet and it's now day 56. So if the postman doesn't deliver a NTK today they have messed up big style..right ?
    Pmogger
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Apr 17, 9:20 AM
    • 13,626 Posts
    • 21,373 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 19th Apr 17, 9:20 AM
    • #7
    • 19th Apr 17, 9:20 AM
    Thanks for the replies
    I've checked my dates and I received the rejection email on day 54 after the windscreen PCN . Nothing in the post yet and it's now day 56. So if the postman doesn't deliver a NTK today they have messed up big style..right ?
    Originally posted by Pmogger
    That would apppear 'right'. Count the days (including weekends) with the parking event date as day 0, so the day following is day 1 ........

    But there will be many other points you will raise in your POPLA appeal, but 'no keeper liability' should be the slam-dunker, provided you have not identified the driver.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Pmogger
    • By Pmogger 12th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Pmogger
    • #8
    • 12th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    Popla success.
    • #8
    • 12th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    Due to unforeseen circumstances I was unable to post my appeal prior to submitting it but I followed the advice from you guys and used the available templates.
    As you said it was the" No NTK " within 56 days that proved to be Care Parking's (Anchor Security) downfall, especially when in their evidence pack they said that the dates I gave for receiving the NTK were irrelevant. when POFA is so dependant on strict deadlines being met.
    So big thanks to all you guys for the help and advice and anyone else out there don't give up at the first hurdle.
    Pmogger
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 12th Jun 17, 4:47 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 50 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    • #9
    • 12th Jun 17, 4:47 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Jun 17, 4:47 PM
    It would be really interesting to see POPLA's full reasoning.

    The 56 day limit for an NtK is actually completely irrelevant if this is non-relevant (ie Byelaws-applicable) land. There is no keeper liability, period - never mind when, if ever, an NtK was issued.
    • Pmogger
    • By Pmogger 12th Jun 17, 10:24 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Pmogger
    decision
    12/06/2017


    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Mark Yates
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is the appellant parked outside of tram service hours

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on railway ‘not relevant’ land, it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, no keeper liability, the operator does not have the authority to issue PCN’s, and the signage on site is poor.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    When parking at Metrolink Navigation Road car park, you are only permitted to park your vehicle within tram service hours. On this occasion, the operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the driver of the vehicle for parking on site outside of tram service hours. The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal. However, I will concentrate my report on if the driver has been identified. As section, 21.9 of the British Parking Association code of practice states “it’s the driver’s responsibility to pay the PCN”. On this occasion, the operator has issued a Notice to Driver, therefore I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver of the vehicle is, based on the evidence that I have received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver of the vehicle. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge.
    Pmogger
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 13th Jun 17, 6:32 AM
    • 1,364 Posts
    • 2,551 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Fudge.

    If they were pursuing under byelaws, it is the driver or the owner. The owner is taken to be the Registered Keeper unless proven otherwise.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 13th Jun 17, 7:10 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 50 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    I disagree. It's a good decision:-

    a) Owner liability for an out-of-court penalty under Byelaw 14(4)(i) is a nonsense anyway. As the oft-quoted letter from the Department for Transport confirms, no person or body other than the Court is able to impose a penalty for breach of Byelaws 14 (-3). So no-one, whether owner, RK or driver, is obliged to pay a home-made TOC or PPC penalty.

    b) Even if the owner were liable, it is not the law that the owner is presumed to be the RK unless proved otherwise. This only applies to council penalties, where the statute specifically says so. For station car parks, there is nothing in the Byelaws that reverses the burden of proof in this way, so the burden remains with the PPC to prove the accused is the owner, not with the accused to disprove it.

    c) It appears this PCN was a Parking Charge Notice anyway - not a penalty but a demand for damages for breach of contract. There is no way anyone but the driver can be liable for breach of contract on non-relevant land.
    • Pmogger
    • By Pmogger 13th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Pmogger
    Cares own evidence states the Metrolink byelaws only apply to the "system" which is basically the track and platforms not the car parks so there's no breach anyway.
    Pmogger
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 13th Jun 17, 7:06 PM
    • 1,364 Posts
    • 2,551 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Cares own evidence states the Metrolink byelaws only apply to the "system" which is basically the track and platforms not the car parks
    They would say that wouldn't they. What Care say isn't "evidence". It's opinion
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 13th Jun 17, 7:53 PM
    • 14,790 Posts
    • 18,604 Thanks
    Redx
    agreed, I have never seen CARE show a landholder statement or contract that shows it isnt railway land subject to bylaws

    in fact there have been recent cuttings in the local press about selling off railway assets once some of the bylaws have been amended in order to remove them from the railway and railway bylaws

    the fact that CARE PARKING say that bylaws do not apply doesnt make it true, we have heard VCS and LJLA say this for years about that particular airport , yet nobody believes a word of it

    its supposition on the part of CARE parking, which they never prove to popla
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

180Posts Today

1,295Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin