Whitefield Tram Station - Care Parking help

siross

Good morning,

I'm posting for a bit of help for my Uncle, his son recently parked at Whitefield Tram Station, which is a free car park for the majority of the day. However, he left it overnight after a night out in Manchester and apparently it is not free overnight, despite being completely empty.

Unfortunately, he originally ignored the parking ticket and the first my Uncle knew about it was when he received a letter through the post from Care Parking. The car is registered to my Uncle.

He has appealed to Care Parking unsuccessfully and has now asked and received a POPLA code. I wonder if you kind people could take a look at the draft letter below and tweak/amend where necessary?

The letter is based largely on my successful letter challenging Parking Eye (Dane Road, Newquay) a couple of years ago.

Thanks,

Simon

Letter: (emboldened blue text for ease)

POPLA REF XXXXX
CAR REG XXXXX
Parking Ticket Number here

As the registered keeper of the car mentioned above I would like to appeal and have cancelled the parking charge notice issued by Care Parking for a number of reasons outlined below:

1 Care Parking has no contractual authority
2. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
4. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
5. Unfair terms of contract
6. Without a contract
7. Non BPA compliant signage


1 Care Parking has no contractual authority

In the notices they have sent me Care Parking have not shown any evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. Also they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either driver or keeper. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can only assume instead they are agents for the owner/legal occupier instead. I submit therefore that they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park. I require Care Parking to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that Care Parking are entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.

2. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Judging by the wording of the parking charge notice this is clearly an attempt to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice in which it states that this must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that may have incurred. Care Parking claim that my car was in the car park after the Trams had ceased working, whilst there is no Tariff to park . They are asking for a charge of £100 for this penalty. This alone is far more than the cost to the landowner could have lost for the time my car was said to have parked there. The charge is clearly punitive and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract.

Furthermore as the operator is clearly seeking to impose a penalty, it is their sole responsibility to provide a full breakdown as proof of the pre-estimated loss of £100. As of this point they have made no effort to provide me with a breakdown of the costs they allegedly incurred. To justify the charge of £100, I require Care Parking to back up their decision by providing POPLA with a full and detailed financial breakdown of the pre-estimated costs they have suffered as a result of the charge in question. I would like to add that normal costs of running their business (their day to day costs like provision of parking, enforcement, signage, salaries, rent etc) must not be included in the breakdown as Care Parking would need to pay these irrespective of this alleged charge. Parking enforcement costs cannot possibly represent any loss resulting from an alleged breach of contract, as these costs would need to be paid whether the breach had happened or not.

In summary not only is the £100 charge completely disproportionate meaning that it is punitive and is breaking the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, but there can be no loss shown at all as no pre-estimate charge has been put together making the charge unenforceable against me or the driver.

3. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act

As keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question. As the parking company have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was I submit that I am not liable to any charge. In regards to the notices I have received Care Parking has made it clear that it is operating under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act but has not fully met all the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore in relation to this point only pursue the driver.

I would like to point out that Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates that some mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The Act clearly states that the parking charge notice to keeper should invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge (or if he/she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and pass a copy of the notice on to that driver). In their parking charge notice letter at no point did they actually invite me as the registered keeper to pay the parking charge. Instead they imply that my only choice is to give up the name of the driver of the vehicle (when in actual fact I am under no legal obligation to do so). The wording of the PCN actually makes it sound like I have little choice but to give up the driver and does not actually state the choice to pay it myself. I would also like to point out that the Act stipulates that the parking company must provide me with the period the car was parked.

4. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper

Although I was not the driver I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. Care Parking clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed.
It is surely the responsibility of Care Parking to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require Care Parking to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park.

Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

I request that Care Parking provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

5. Unfair terms of contract

Although there is no contract between Care Parking and the driver (or myself), if there were then I would ask POPLA to consider this charge to be unfair and non-binding based on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. There is a clear list of terms that apply. I have highlighted the following specifically as I believe they apply directly to this case:

2. (1) (e) Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

5. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was brought in to protect consumers from unfair contracts such as the one Care Parking are suggesting. A company such as Care Parking needs to actually prove that the driver saw, read and accepted the terms, which is impossible because this did not actually happen.

7. Without a contract

Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award Care Parking could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to car park there was no loss to them at all and therefore should be no charge.

7. Non BPA compliant signage

The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park at night impossible. As at the time the Parking Charge was incurred (13/11/14 02.57) it was dark and therefore would have been difficult to see which is not compliant with the BPA standards.

The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height and lighting of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding for free parking, rather than simply a nominal amount presumably due had a machine been in use on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.

Fight_the_good_fight

I am not knowledgable enough to give expert opinion on your appeal,however I can give you some additional pointers from my own recent win in the same circumstances :j where CP folded a couple a days prior to appeal.

Firstly Byelaws are in place and not only trump these fake invoices but means the land under POFA could not be classed as relevant land so can not be utilised

Secondly the land is to the best of my knowledge and I am awaiting a couple of FOI results from the relevant parties to confirm, not private land which POFA specifically states can only be utilised on private land.

On sight of the heavily redacted email trail setting up the contract between CP and TfGM the initial drafts mentions parking on private land but on the final signed copy this point is removed!!!

In my own humble opinion I additionally believe that TfGM being owned by the 10 principle councils within Manchester and being publicly funded would also mean the land in question is not private land

I am sure he experts will be along soon to cast an eye over your draft appeal

siross

Did you appeal regarding Radcliffe Tram station or was it another Care Parking run station car park?

Edit: just been told it was Whitefield Tram Station not Radcliffe, I have updated original post.

Redx

more info on whitefield and care parking here (plus info on TfGM and it being NOT RELEVANT LAND)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5144709

siross

Thanks for that, I've had a look through and my search has led me to a letter written by JJ42 .

I will ask my Uncle to look over it and amend anything that might be required, will post here for a final check if that's OK.

Thanks,

Simon