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
    • eugine
    • By eugine 8th Jul 17, 3:03 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 14Thanks
    eugine
    Care Parking Metrolink PCN
    • #1
    • 8th Jul 17, 3:03 PM
    Care Parking Metrolink PCN 8th Jul 17 at 3:03 PM
    Hi,

    Currently on day 26, about to send the appeal to Care Parking for a Metrolink PCN. On their appeal page under "Information Required" it states:

    Should you wish to pursue an appeal against the parking charge notice (PCN), please ensure your appeal contains the following information or we will be unable to process it:

    Your PCN Number
    Your name & full postal address including postcode
    Your vehicle registration number
    The date of contravention
    Any copies of evidence you have to support your appeal
    Your contact telephone number & email address if relevant
    The appeal copy from the newbies thread includes the PCN number and address (of the keeper) but not the vehicle registration or date. Is it okay to leave these out or should I include them?

    Many thanks,
    Eugine
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 8th Jul 17, 4:07 PM
    • 32,780 Posts
    • 16,805 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 8th Jul 17, 4:07 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Jul 17, 4:07 PM
    There's no detriment as they already have that information.

    It ensures your appeal gets put into the correct basket
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 8th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Jul 17, 4:21 PM
    There's no detriment as they already have that information.

    It ensures your appeal gets put into the correct basket
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Agreed, supply what they ask for, except where a rogue PPC tries to ask who was driving.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • eugine
    • By eugine 8th Jul 17, 4:24 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    eugine
    • #4
    • 8th Jul 17, 4:24 PM
    • #4
    • 8th Jul 17, 4:24 PM
    Thanks guys. Back when I get the POPLA code!
    • Redx
    • By Redx 8th Jul 17, 4:29 PM
    • 15,502 Posts
    • 19,590 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 8th Jul 17, 4:29 PM
    • #5
    • 8th Jul 17, 4:29 PM
    Thanks guys. Back when I get the POPLA code!
    Originally posted by eugine
    and when you do get that code, see post #3 of the newbies sticky thread

    and the best advice is to search the forum for CARE PARKING POPLA and read the other threads from 2017 and crib from their popla appeals

    also use INDIGO POPLA RAILWAY and read those too, which are similar

    and expect POPLA to place the appeal on hold due to them awaiting some decision by the DfT (reported on here recently by other members)
    Last edited by Redx; 15-08-2017 at 12:11 AM.
    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
    • eugine
    • By eugine 15th Aug 17, 12:10 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    eugine
    • #6
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:10 AM
    • #6
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:10 AM
    Hi,

    I received my POPLA code last week. The reason for the PCN was because the driver was "parked outside of tram hours". I never received a NTK and appealed as the keeper.

    I've started preparing the draft this evening.

    I found one Care Parking POPLA appeal thread, but the appellant had previously given away who the driver was and the appeal was unsuccessful (appeal PDF: https://puu.sh/v5IDF/1e0fad376a.pdf), I've used some points from this. I found another user (Shadax) who won an appeal at the start of August but they didn’t post a draft!

    I've also looked at this recent Indigo appeal - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5690116&highlight=indigo+popla

    Should I use the "Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’" and "No Breach of Byelaw" points from there?

    And a couple of other questions I have...

    Do I need to insert the images (imgur/blogspot) into the document or are the links ok?

    Should I keep both no keeper liability points?

    Should I use the landowner authority wording from the unsuccessful appeal or stick with the one in there (from the newbies thread)?

    Do I need to add the extra POPLA appeal point for no NTK? http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287643&postcount=2345

    Here is the appeal (very draft): https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0776ag6662cnls/POPLA%20Appeal%20-%20Care%20Parking.pdf?dl=0

    Please let me know if I have missed anything. Thanks very much for being such a helpful forum!
    Last edited by eugine; 15-08-2017 at 12:17 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Aug 17, 12:15 AM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:15 AM
    • #7
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:15 AM
    Should I use the "Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’" and "No Breach of Byelaw" points from there?
    Yes, you may as well - I like kitchen sink POPLA appeals because I know they win.

    And a couple of other questions I have...

    Do I need to insert the images (imgur/blogspot) into the document or are the links ok?
    Yes, images not links for POPLA (such as the Beavis case sign image itself). POPLA Assessors only have minutes allowed per case I expect, so they might not click on links, better to give them a pretty, illustrated appeal, not a wall of text and links.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th Aug 17, 12:16 AM
    • 15,502 Posts
    • 19,590 Thanks
    Redx
    • #8
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:16 AM
    • #8
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:16 AM
    edit the above

    it was THE DRIVER who parked the vehicle

    my mantra is , check for the words "ME , MYSELF and I" and then try to use a different word that does not identify any person

    so THE DRIVER, THE KEEPER, THE OWNER etc

    insert images and save as a pdf, never try to make an assessor do the work for you , because the parking company wont , they will enclose pictures etc in their evidence pack

    YES use the fact that railway land is not relevant land , that is the whole point , the crux of the matter

    always keep keeper no liability points , if appealing as keeper and not as driver

    same for POFA2012 points , not relevant as not relevant land, driver/owner not identified

    I would have thought that the postal pcn was an NTK, but if you have had no NTK at all then mention it
    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
    • eugine
    • By eugine 15th Aug 17, 12:40 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    eugine
    • #9
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:40 AM
    • #9
    • 15th Aug 17, 12:40 AM
    Sorry, it was a typo.

    It was a windscreen PCN. I never received an NTK (I'm mentioning that as the first point).

    I've added the not relevant land and no breach of byelaws and inserted the images.

    Here's the latest draft - https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzraji6s8h79esk/POPLA%20Appeal%20-%20Care%20Parking%20copy.pdf?dl=0

    Does that look ok?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Aug 17, 12:44 AM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Nice appeal - with no NTK at all since 12th June, they CANNOT win against a keeper!

    But being pedantic, this bit made no sense to me:

    There is no railway byelaw known as: 'Breach code 1: Failing to display a valid ticket or voucher'.
    ...because you said the PCN was because the driver was "parked outside of tram hours".

    So change that to make sense and you are there. Upload under 'OTHER' to POPLA.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • eugine
    • By eugine 15th Aug 17, 12:52 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    eugine
    I think that'll be specific to Indigo?

    Should it say "There is no railway byelaw known as: 'Parking Outside of Tram Service Hours"?
    Last edited by eugine; 15-08-2017 at 12:58 AM. Reason: Used Operator's wording
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Aug 17, 12:58 AM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes indeedy.

    Make sure there is nothing else specific to Indigo in there.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • eugine
    • By eugine 15th Aug 17, 1:00 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    eugine
    Thanks. Yep, gonna give it a read through top-to-bottom now, should send me to sleep...

    Thanks for all your help.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th Aug 17, 1:10 AM
    • 15,502 Posts
    • 19,590 Thanks
    Redx
    definitely proof read it and adapt it to suit a Care Parking situation on METROLINK (the manchester tram service) , instead of an INDIGO wording for proper train operating systems on TOC leased infrastructure

    CARE dont own anything on METROLINK , its the GMT or METROLINK or something similar that are leasing the network and stations etc (which is non relevant land)

    so bylaws apply , and I doubt that the BTP will be sending a summons to a magistrates court within the 6 months timescale allowed, because they never do

    a classic case of getting rid of the correct staff to enforce the bylaws and trying to get a thord party in to do a 10th rate job and try to make it look "legal" (like INDIGO and APCOA and VCS and UKPPO etc)
    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
    • eugine
    • By eugine 5th Sep 17, 7:03 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    eugine
    I've received the evidence pack from Care Parking. Could I PM it to someone to take a look (don't want to leak any wrong info)? It's a bit overwhelming.

    First thing I noticed, they wrote the vehicle's number plate incorrectly.

    Edit: Okay, have reviewed the document and made some notes of things that stuck out. They scanned most of it so I can't copy and paste. It has the appellants name, email, vehicle etc in - I might Photoshop these out later and upload. But for now the notes:

    8 - A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply
    They say:
    The car park is privately owned and therefore the Protection of Freedoms Act applies. It is with this Act Care Parking intend to recover the full amount of this parking charge. A redacted copy of our Contract with the Landowner of this site is enclosed in Section G.
    10 - A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply
    They’re saying the registered keeper is liable for the PCN using the Protection of Freedoms Act.

    14 - Signage - They say they have a contract with the landowner again.

    15 - Signage - They say there is a Contractual Warning Signage in close proximity to the appellant’s vehicle as shown in Section F, page 28, but it’s clearly ineligible from the photo and from where the vehicle is parked.

    18 - Signage - They say their

    Contractual Warning signs comply with Clause 19 of the BPA, AOS, CoP. The Supreme Court ruling points 94 to 101 covers the details of this and a copy of the ruling has been submitted as a separate document to this POPLA case.
    19 - The actual pre-estimate of loss is considered commercial in confidence and will only be supplied during court proceedings. As no breakdown of this charge has been provided by us to the appellant of their claim regarding the charge is baseless.
    Not sure on the last two?

    21 - The Operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge - Again, they assume the registered keeper was the driver of the vehicle. Based on Protection of Freedoms Act.

    23 - No evidence of lawn owner authority - They say see landowner contract (Section G).

    26 - No Keeper Liability (fails PoFa 2012 requirements) - They assume the registered keeper was the driver of the vehicle at the time.

    29 - Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’

    They say:

    Bylaws relating to the Metrolink service are specific to the areas in which trams operate referred to in law as ‘the system’. As trams do not operate within the car parks and the car parks are private land which support the systems operation, they are not part of this system. Each Metrolink car park is privately owned and therefore the Protection of Freedoms Act applies. It is with this Act Care Parking intend to blah blah blah
    31 - No Breach of Byelaw - Same as above

    Section D - Evidence

    1 - In this case the Registered Keeper details were not applied for from the DVLA as we were contacted on the 12 June 2017 with an appeal. We do not apply to the DVLA for keeper details until 28 days after the date of issue, in accordance with the BPA AOS, CoP. The case was placed on hold on receipt of the appeal and the clock was not restarted until the appeal had been rejected, we place cases on hold whilst they are dealt with through our appeals system and again when being examined by POPLA. Screen shots below to support this.
    Are they saying they received the appeal on 12 June 2017 (not sure)? Yet that was the date of the windscreen PCN, the appeal was the 8 July 2017 as shown in their own screenshot.

    Section F - Evidence

    Signage is unreadable from the photos of the car park that Care Parking have provided. They also provide images of the Entrance Signage and Contractual Warning Signage.

    Section G - Evidence

    Contract with Landowner - Scanned document “from” Transport for Greater Manchester. There are no printed names (have been redacted), just signatures? Dated 2014.
    Last edited by eugine; 05-09-2017 at 8:55 PM. Reason: Added notes
    • eugine
    • By eugine 6th Sep 17, 7:33 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    eugine
    Bumpity bump. Here is the evidence pack PDF from Care Parking, with my info redacted:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/3276qwzu79eew9p/POPLA%20Case%20-%20REDACTED.compressed.pdf?dl=0

    I'm going to be putting together a reply tomorrow. Any advice would be hugely appreciated, thanks!
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Sep 17, 7:59 PM
    • 15,502 Posts
    • 19,590 Thanks
    Redx
    looking at that pdf they dont appear to have followed certain practices etc

    they admit they have not obtained keeper details from the DVLA under their KADOE contract

    they admit they have not issued an NTK to the keeper

    they admit they have assunmed that the keeper and driver are one and the same person

    there are NO obvious signs in any of those pictures visible from the vehicle

    personally , I still think the land is railway land and not as they say "private land" , probably leased to TfGM from Network Rail and so bylaws apply

    I dont think they have proved that it is NOT railway land and not subject to bylaws

    they have to PROVE their case !! not just assume the driver and keeper are one and the same, the driver may have handed the keeper the NTD on or just before day 26

    so they have failed to transfer liability from driver to keeper by failing to get the KEEPER details and send the NTK after day 28 and before day 56

    the contract with TfGM does not appear to name the landholder and I dont see any proof of TfGM owning the land , so there is no clear path from CARE PARKING to the landholder themselves (who I think will be Network Rail) - there is no evidence stating who the actual landholder is

    Having a rolling contract with TfGM does not mean they have one with the actual landholder and if TfGM are an agent (3rd party) leasing the land then there must also be one with the landholder themselves

    if the landholder is Network Rail then bylaws apply and POFA2012 does not apply and they have not proven who the driver or owner is and they themselves say that they have assumed that the driver and keeper are one and the same person without proving it ; POFA2012 does not allow for assumptions

    ---------------------------------------------------

    So work those observatiopns , plus your own and any by other members ifnto a draft rebuttal

    look at other recent rebuttals and adapt their wordings after considering the above

    post your rebuttal statement on here before submission , for critique etc
    Last edited by Redx; 06-09-2017 at 8:04 PM.
    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
    • Castle
    • By Castle 6th Sep 17, 8:24 PM
    • 1,240 Posts
    • 1,612 Thanks
    Castle
    According to this FOI request the Metrolink car park at Stretford is owned by Transport For Greater Manchester, which would suggest that all of the car parks are owned by TFGM:-
    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/355942/response/862917/attach/html/3/160905%20Response%208000046289.pdf.html
    • eugine
    • By eugine 7th Sep 17, 12:46 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    eugine
    According to this FOI request the Metrolink car park at Stretford is owned by Transport For Greater Manchester, which would suggest that all of the car parks are owned by TFGM:-
    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/355942/response/862917/attach/html/3/160905%20Response%208000046289.pdf.html
    Originally posted by Castle
    Sorry to be a pain, but would this mean that it is not railway land and that bylaws do not apply?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 3:44 PM
    • 50,024 Posts
    • 63,417 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Not necessarily - you should use all arguments. It is for the other side to disprove!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

275Posts Today

1,424Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties) https://t.co/n99NAxGAAQ

  • Follow Martin