PCN Appeal Manchester Metrolink

iamc12ab

Hello,

I am currently appealing a ticket for overnight parking on a Manchester Metrolink car park and am currently at POPLA appeal stage. I have drafted a POPLA answer and would greatly appreciate any feedback on where I can improve my chances:

I am writing as the keeper of the vehicle to which the PCN is issued against and am appealing on the following grounds:

1. Wording of signs too ambiguous to form a contract
2. Driver did not breach alleged terms
3. Unclear/inadequate signage
4. Operator not defined who the charge is issued against
5. No standing to issue and pursue charges from landowner
6. Amount requested not genuine pre-estimated loss

1) Ambiguous wording/phrasing used in signage so no contract formed:
A) The ticket has been issued by the operator on the grounds that the condition of ‘parking outside of tram service hours’ has been broken. I argue this wording is too unclear to form a contract as ‘parking’ can be interpreted as meaning the action of physically ‘parking’ the vehicle outside the tram service hours; and this is a more accurate interpretation than that used by the operator.
I also argue that the use of ‘tram service hours’ as a measurement of duration is too ambiguous to form a contract as it is not a clearly defined time range. There is no reference to tram service hours in the car park and the operator has made no effort to direct the driver to where tram service hours can be found.
C) I also argue that even if tram service hours were defined, they cannot be used to form a contract as tram service times can change at short notice due to delays/cancellations in service, so the driver could not know what definite duration they are permitted to leave the car on the car park.
D) The signs in the carpark also fluctuate between the use of ‘no parking outside of tram service hours’ and ‘no overnight parking’. I also argue the latter is too ambiguous to use to form a contract as ‘overnight’ is not a clearly defined and accepted period of time. Furthermore, the ticket was issued as the car was simply found in the carpark at ‘3:39’ [no reference to am/pm/24hr format]. As there is no reference to when the car was parked and left the carpark, this cannot be used to argue the car was left over a period of time (overnight).

2) Driver did not breach alleged terms
A) Assuming the terms as interpreted by the operator, there was a service running to Manchester Airport (which starts at 3:00am) at the time the ticket was issued. Therefore, I argue that the vehicle was actually found on the carpark during tram service hours as no mention is made to which Metrolink lines ‘tram service hours’ includes.

3) Inadequate and unclear signs
A) BPA guidelines on signage recommend that signs are placed at the carpark entrance which clearly define the terms of the carpark and any charges for breaches. I have included photographic evidence that no such signs are placed at the entrance of the carpark. There is one sign and it only states ‘Metrolink customers only’ (which the operator does not dispute) and does not make any reference to the driver accepting liability of a £100 fine upon breach of rules.
There are around 5 signs which do reference both terms, but these are written in considerably smaller text and are unlit. These signs are written in light purple text on a white background which makes them highly difficult to read. Furthermore, these signs would be especially difficult to read if the driver was colour-blind due to the letters not being a colour which contrasts with the background. Taking these points into account, this provides further evidence no contract was formed with the driver.

4) Unclear who the charge is issued against.
A) I responded to the ticket as keeper of the vehicle as I believed the tickeit was issued by the council and so I would be held liable. I believe the operator intended to cause this confusion as the ticket highly resembles that of one issued by the council (yellow ticket with black lettering and boarder, and the wording), and as it was issued on a tram carpark, it is believable that it could have been issued by the local council.
In response to (A), the operator has made no effort to identify whether I was the driver, keeper or owner; and has not made it clear who the charge is made against in the signage or any correspondence.
C) Some signs declare the operator will pursue keeper details from the DVLA, and in the absence of any further information, can only take this to assume they are pursuing charges against the keeper, which is not possible. Also note the signs do not make reference to POFA 2012.
D) The site is governed by Manchester Metrolink byelaws and so the land is considered ‘not relevant’ for the purpouses of POFA 2012. Furthermore, the site is governed by byelaws which state it is the responsibility of the landowner to pursue charges against the owner of the vehicle. This clearly defines it is the responsibility of the owner of the land (Manchester Metrolink) to enforce charges in court, and against the owner of the vehicle – who has not been identified.

5) No standing to issue and pursue charges from landowner.
A) The site is covered by Manchester Metrolink byelaws which state it is the responsibility of the landowner to pursue charges against the owner of the vehicle. Alongside the owner not being identified, I believe the operator has no standing to issue or pursue charges on the carpark.
Even if the operator is able to challenge (A), they would require permission from landowner in their car park management contract to pursue charges to court. I have contacted the operator via email to provide proof they have permission to both issue and pursue charges which they refuse to provide (see email chain attached). Therefore I believe this illustrates they have no such rights.

6) Amount requested not genuine pre-estimated losses
A) I have contacted the operator to provide clarity of how the £100 requested has been calculated and they have refused to provide this information (see email chain attached). As a result, I argue that the amount requested does not represent a genuine loss and primarily consists of a penalty charge. For the purpouses of this appeal, I would like to clarify the carpark is located in a primarily residential suburb of Manchester with limited points of interest nearby. Furthermore, there is consistently a large supply of free parking on the roads surrounding the carpark even at peak times.
This case is differentiated from the Parkingeye v Beavis case as the carpark was not active at time of issue and so resembles a case of trespass, and so the ruling that a reasonable deterrence is allowed does not apply to this case. Furthermore, I argue this case is different as this carpark does not serve retail space as in the case above and the operator did not face the same problems of having to deter drivers who were visiting nearby points of interest and taking advantage of the free carpark.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Redx

6) , no good due to beavis

you dont appear to have addressed the fact it is railway land and the keeper is not liable because POFA2012 does not apply (or your wording is very ambiguous)

BYLAWS apply , so none of the POFA2012 issues etc matter , popla cannot rule on BYELAW issues and so will throw it out if worded correctly

please find recent 2016 popla appeals for either INDIGO train stations or CARE PARKING METROLINK and crib from those , especially recent INDIGO ones

also check the advice in this old thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5349214 and the links but bear in mind that "not a gpeol" is no longer valid but "penalty" is

also, you have an existing thread here so no need for a new thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5505589

pleae pm crabman and ask him to merge the 2 threads