We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Metrolink Derker - FYI
Options

holybob
Posts: 11 Forumite
Hi, no advise needed - I'm just posting to provide a (hopefully succesful) trail which will give others the confidence to pursue the ridiculous situation whereby sensible vehicle owners are leaving their vehicle overnight whilst drinking in Manchester, and coming back to an unfair parking invoice.
Date & time of alleged charge: Sun 8th March 2015, 04:15
Reason: parking outside of tram service hours
The next morning when collecting the car, a ticket was on the windscreen - £100 reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days.
This was ignored.
NTK received Fri 17th April (dated 9th April - no Royal Mail postmark but some kind of printed timestamp, probably put on by UK Mail).
Appeal lodged to Care Parking, posted on 20th April (standard 1st Class, but with Proof of Sending) based (almost verbatim) on the template in the Newbies Sticky.
Will update when I hear anything back.
Bob
Date & time of alleged charge: Sun 8th March 2015, 04:15
Reason: parking outside of tram service hours
The next morning when collecting the car, a ticket was on the windscreen - £100 reducing to £60 if paid within 14 days.
This was ignored.
NTK received Fri 17th April (dated 9th April - no Royal Mail postmark but some kind of printed timestamp, probably put on by UK Mail).
Appeal lodged to Care Parking, posted on 20th April (standard 1st Class, but with Proof of Sending) based (almost verbatim) on the template in the Newbies Sticky.
Will update when I hear anything back.
Bob
0
Comments
-
Does their paperwork mention holding the Registered Keeper liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act by any chance?Je Suis Cecil.0
-
It says:
If within 28 days we have not reveid full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2013, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle'.
So yes, it does.
I sent off my appeal letter - surprisingly I got a response in the post this morning, acknowledging my appeal and saying the PCN is on hold until a decision has been made, which I'll find out about in writing.
Bob0 -
Well done bob on finding the necessary info and doing the appeal without asking for help first. It is so refreshing when posters do this.
Good luck with the appeal.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
It says:
If within 28 days we have not reveid full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2013, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle'.
So yes, it does.
I sent off my appeal letter - surprisingly I got a response in the post this morning, acknowledging my appeal and saying the PCN is on hold until a decision has been made, which I'll find out about in writing.
Bob
I'm sure I've read somewhere that all Metrolink sites are under byelaws. I'll try a search, but if any of the regulars can confirm this in the meantime then chip in.Je Suis Cecil.0 -
Would seem to indicate that all Metrolink stations fall under byelaws, although the byelaws themselves don't seem to cover parking (unless in obstruction of Metrolink vehicles - presumably parking across a set of tramlines):
http://www.metrolink.co.uk/Documents/Byelaws.pdf
Any thoughts, anyone? Is this relevant land?Je Suis Cecil.0 -
put the following 3 words in the search box and read the threads and replies and all becomes clear
manchester tram care0 -
Any thoughts, anyone? Is this relevant land?
Byelaw 14 specifically relates to parking of vehicles (with a small “v”). This prohibits vehicles being parked in a position or manner as is likely to cause or does cause obstruction to any Vehicle (with a capital “V” i.e. a Metrolink tram) or to the System or to the Persons using or intending to use the System; so this could mean obstruction to other people’s cars, not just the trams themselves.
Byelaw 5 states that no unauthorised Person shall leave or operate a vehicle in proximity to any Vehicle or any other part of the System. Could this include leaving a vehicle in a car park outside of tram operating hours?
I suppose that the “not relevant land” issue will depend upon whether Metrolink car parks are included within the Byelaws' definition of "The System" as including but not being limited to all Vehicles, Stations and other premises etc. However, there may be an argument against this because, if car parks were indeed part of the “System”, only electric vehicles would be allowed to use them; Byelaw 5 (3) (ii) prohibits any Person from bringing onto the System any inflammable, explosive (as defined in the Explosives Act 1875) or corrosive gas, petrol or other spirit etc.:)
Of course, given that the DVLA is one again content to allow ParkingEye to claim keeper liability under POFA 2012 at Southampton Town Quay (where parking is most definitely subject to statutory port byelaws), I don’t expect that it would support any claim that keeper liability did not apply at Metrolink station car parks.
0 -
That's pretty much what I was thinking (but you've said it better than I could). The intention seems to be to prevent obstruction of the trams (and by 'Persons using' I would have thought that meant platforms or boarding areas) but doesn't seem to cover parking in car parks, even though you could loosely read that into it if you wanted. I don't think it means to cover car parks.Je Suis Cecil.0
-
I share your view that the author of the Byelaws didn't intend that they should apply to Metrolink car parks. However, the author has made such a mess of defining "The System" that it's totally unclear exactly where and what the Byelaws cover.
I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone submitting a single-point POPLA appeal based only on the non-relevant land argument.0 -
OK, my appeal has (unsurprisingly) been rejected. And the letter is well worded enough (despite mis-typing their link to see your photo evidence!) to put me on the back foot an consider crumbling. Attached is my letter rejecting my appeal. Also attached is the text from my letter of appeal on 20th April.
I'm considering a POPLA appeal based on this thread: 5133951
Serious question - what's the worst that can happen? Should I just crumble? Annoyingly, the sign really WASN'T seen (although photo evidence shows it to be close-ish to the car), and it also wasn't even me who had the luxury of a night on the beer that night!!!!
EDIT - I can't actually send you my files because I'm too much of a newbie to post links . Anyone know a workaround?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards