Care Parking, Whitefield Metrolink, TfGM Manchester

daddydodo

Hello all,

Ok so this is the 2nd of two NTK I am dealing with at the moment!
I've read the Newbies guide, thank you all for making it seem very easy!

The situation to date is - received the windscreen 'PCN' for using the car park outside of tram operating hours (had a few beers in town so left the car overnight :beer: ). Found this site and followed the flow chart. Waited for the NTK which arrived today. So this will be the 1st appeal to Care Parking, I have used the copy and paste template provided on the sticky thread word for word so I won't repeat it here.

I just wanted to make sure I am on the right track so have a question.

I read there are byelaws relating to the metrolink car parks. Do I need to make reference to this... is it another grounds for challenging the 'PCN'? Or is it covered by point (c) in the template? Or do I leave it till the POPLA appeal?

Thanks!

The_Slithy_Tove

If there are Byelaws (make absolutely sure of your facts first), then any claim of keeper liability with reference to PoFA is false, as PoFA does not apply. Are they claiming PoFA applies?

daddydodo

Hi, thanks for the reply. There are byelaws in force for the metrolink carpark, and yes they are claiming PoFA. I tjhink the template covers this in section (c) so I'll submit to Care parking, I'm fully expecting them to reject the appeal anyway

Fight_the_good_fight

All metrolink sites are governed by Metrolink bye laws as per

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, pursuant to the powers conferred upon it by the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Act 1988 and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No2) Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Acts’) does hereby, as owner of the System (as hereinafter defined), make the following Byelaws in respect of the System, and the conduct and carriage of Persons on Vehicles and otherwise in relation to safety and conduct upon and in respect of the System. and can be found at .metrolink.co.uk/Documents/Byelaws.pdf ·

The main narrative is the following

Byelaw 14 of the Greater Manchester Metrolink Byelaws relates to the driving or parking of vehicles on or near the System in such a position or manner as to be likely to cause obstruction.

Without prejudice to the other provisions of these byelaws, no person shall park or drive or cause to be parked or driven any vehicle on any part of the system or otherwise in such a position or manner as is likely to cause or does cause obstruction to any vehicle or to the system or to persons using or intending to use the system.

I do not profess to have a legal mind when deciphering leagel terms but found this information when researching my own windscreen flyer and with all the other points raised such as GPEOL etc etc felt this was worth throwing into my appeal.

Now if i am correct ,and i am prepared to be told otherwise, this would make all the car parks run by this company at Metrolink sites throughout Manchester "Non Relevant" land and as such Schedule 4 of PoFA and pursuing the registered keeper for payment (:rotfl:) utilising this legislation as non compliant .

Any Thoughts? :beer:

daddydodo

This is what I found, couldn't post the link so here is copy & paste..... from Prestwich & Whitefield guide 25 August 2014

A NATIONAL motoring campaign group has slammed the £100 fines given to Radcliffe Metrolink park and ride users as “unlawful”.

The British Motorist Protection Association (BMPA) claims money is being wrongly demanded from people who left their cars overnight in the facility in Spring Lane.

It says Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) is acting unlawfully by allowing private contractor Care Parking to issue invoices to people leaving their cars at the tram while trams are not running.

The association says this because all Metrolink parking is governed by byelaws under Point 14 of the Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transit System Act 1988.

Therefore, Metrolink should issue statutory parking fees using the byelaws, and not claim through the civil law by Care Parking’s fines.

Angus Gill, head of communications at the BMPA, said the £100 invoices drivers are receiving are also invalid due to the car park’s lack of signage meaning contracts with drivers were not formed.

He said: “Radcliffe Metrolink is a perfect example of poor practices being used in the UK parking industry by private companies.

“The lack of signs means it is unlikely any contract was formed so the ‘fines’ are complete invalid.

“This area is covered by Metrolink byelaws and so is not an appropriate area for this type of operation – a second major poor practice.

“One in every two tickets is cancelled at appeal for being without merit, so you can see how wide this abuse of the driver is.”

If drivers do not pay a civil fine invoice, firms are able to escalate the fine and pursue the registered keeper in order to make more money.

Campaigners from the BMPA are challenging the industry’s legal basis of these fines at the Court of Appeal.

RELATED LINKS

Furious drivers slapped with £100 fines for…
Driver fined for overnight stay in 'free'…
PROMOTED STORIES
Recommended by
Mr Gill added: “Statutory claims are superior to civil claims and should be applied for first — Metrolink is using the wrong law and is misusing it for financial gain.

“The issue where private parking companies “forget”

certain areas are governed by byelaws also applies to certain airports, railway stations and ports.”

The BMPA hopes to improve standards in the parking industry, pressing for fair and lawful means of redress should authorities and companies fail to abide by lawful process.

A spokesperson for TfGM said: “The arrangements with Care Parking, who are a British Parking Association approved contractor, are in line with industry practice and subject to the parking on private land appeals procedure.

“TfGM is satisfied there is nothing in the Metrolink byelaws which precludes us from utilising the services of companies such as Care Parking to enforce parking restrictions at our Metrolink car parks.”

■ For more information on the BMPA: go to bmpa.eu

Fight_the_good_fight

Apoligies for bumping this thread but could the more sane posters at the moment cast an eye over the last two posts and see if myself and and DD are on the right tracks

Coupon-mad

This has already been covered in other Metrolink threads recently, just before Christmas. So search this forum (using the 'search this forum' heading above the top threads, next to 'forum tools') for 'Metrolink'. Then the OP can ask any questions not already covered in those other threads. Yep I recall there are byelaws, yep it's easy to win at POPLA.

The_Deep

TfGM is satisfied there is nothing in the Metrolink byelaws which precludes us from utilising the services of companies such as Care Parking to enforce parking restrictions at our Metrolink car parks.”

Did not Maidenhead BC say something similar? Where are they now?

Coupon-mad

It was High Wycombe Council who said that to bargepole who took great pleasure in adding 'don't say I didn't warn you' to his final 'I told you so' reply.

Fight_the_good_fight

After searching the forum i believe i found the thread CM was referring to " Government warns local authorities over civil enforcement" started by Bazster on the 17/10/14.

Amongst the many points raised in the letter written by the Under Secretary at the DfT, the most interesting being the following

provisions in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedom Act which provides for an enforcement regime and appeals system for privately owned car parks. This clearly demonstrates the will of Government to separate local authority off-street parking enforcement arrangements from the parking
operations on private land.

A quich search of TfGM shows it to be owned by the 10 Local Authorities of Greater Manchester

No doubt you will have guessed Care Parking are acting on behalf of their agents TfGM :rotfl:

With this in mind are the Local Authority as complicit as the PPC by knowingly allowing a private company to operate on non private land and "manage" their car park and obtain RK details via PoFA and where byelaws are in place?

ManxRed

Also, the DVLA have supplied data which is not being used for the purposes under which it (should have been) was collected. If they are alleging RK liability and stating that they could pursue the RK, where the land is not subject to PoFA, then that's a breach of the DPA.