Care Parking - Metrolink

Coupon-mad

...search the forum for 'Indigo owner POPLA byelaws' to find a suitable POPLA appeal to adapt...OBVIOUSLY FROM RECENT MONTHS.

NEVER read old ones!

Fruitcake

Use the template appeal points from post 3 of the NEWBIES thread as already advised. There you will find an inadequate signage template point that is as long as your whole appeal above put together.

I wouldn't bother with not a GPEOL. It will not win.

perseat

Here is an updated version of the pdf with images:
puu . sh/uQg8d/c354e7e59f.pdf

Coupon-mad

You need to add the template appeal point from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread about the appellant not being shown to be the individual liable (owner).

And this needs changing in your first point, as shown:

To conclude this point, the Metrolink parking area is governed by byelaws under Point 14 of the Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transit System Act 1988 which can only impose the 'AUTHORITY AND PENALTIES' listed under 2(2) of the Metrolink Byelaws linked above:

2) ''Any Person contravening any of these Byelaws shall be liable upon
summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard
scale (as defined in Section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982).''

A 'parking charge notice' issued by a private contractor - Care Parking - is no such 'fine', so this is an unauthorised charge for the location. Effectively this is an attempt at a bribe to pay a sum to a private contractor, to avoid Magistrates court. It is noted that there has been no contravention of any byelaw anyway, so neither the driver nor the owner would be liable for any 'fine'.

Parking at this location clearly falls under statutory control so there can be no keeper liability under the POFA 2012 and neither can the driver be held liable to pay a third party parking firm a sum 'in lieu of' a penalty. This is simply not an option under the byelaws and the Secretary of State has granted no lawful authority to any corporate body to enforce penalties/fines (or 'charges' mimicking a fine) on byelaws land.

Further, it is unclear and ambiguous whether the driver is bound by 'terms and conditions' or byelaws. The sign is very wordy but talks about 'enforcement' occurring at any time. This is confusing, especially given the fact this is byelaws land, and breaches the BPA Code of Practice by suggesting that Care Parking have a a level of 'enforcement authority' that does not lawfully exist.

So this 'parking charge notice' cannot be held to have been properly given.

perseat

In this case they are aware I am the driver, thank you for the extended version of the conclusion on my first point. How's this?
puu . sh/uQkpl/fb34ffca9f.pdf

And should I also send this off when complete ASAP or wait till the NTK window has closed?

Coupon-mad

In this case they are aware I am the driver,

I know. That's not what I said.

perseat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I know. That's not what I said.

But in this case should I be appealing as the registered keeper noting no NTK was sent, but the window isn't over.

Coupon-mad

No, there will be no need for any NTK. As you have said who was driving this isn't about 'no keeper liability' under the POFA.

What I said was:

You need to add the template appeal point from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread about the appellant not being shown to be the individual liable (owner).

You will have seen that in Indigo railway POPLA appeals, it features a lot. I realise yours is not Indigo but it is Metrolink/byelaws so you should be reading Indigo railway POPLA examples and cribbing from that wording, as already advised.

perseat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, there will be no need for any NTK. As you have said who was driving this isn't about 'no keeper liability' under the POFA.

What I said was:



You will have seen that in Indigo railway POPLA appeals, it features a lot. I realise yours is not Indigo but it is Metrolink/byelaws so you should be reading Indigo railway POPLA examples and cribbing from that wording, as already advised.

Sorry I've been out of the country and not had time to check in.
Isn't the compliant notice to keeper covering this?

puu . sh/uQkpl/fb34ffca9f.pdf

Redx

INDIGO cannot enforce bylaws, only METROLINK

so as the NTK (or NTD , you never said which it was) came from CARE PARKING about a parking event , and not a penalty charge notice from METROLINK about a bylaws event, then you address it by using legal arguments showing that bylaws can only hold the "owner" responsible, and neither METROLINK nor CARE PARKING know who the owner actually is SO NEITHER HAVE ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE OWNER and a keeper or driver is not liable

nb:- notice myself and CM said "owner" , this word has a special meaning and may not even be the driver , or the keeper , or the registered keeper , it may be a subtle difference that you dont understand , but it has a legal context and is why the word "owner" was deliberately chosen by C-M

YOU WILL SEE THIS MORE COMMONLY IN INDIGO THREADS ABOUT THE RAILWAYS, BUT THE SAME CONCEPT APPLIES TO METROLINK

so Care issued a parking charge notice on land where bylaws apply (so their pcn cannot apply)

and METROLINK have not issued a notice to owner about a penalty charge under the bylaws , which they have 6 months to do so , which you are hoping will "time out"

you need to do as C-M said and search out the INDIGO appeals she is telling you to look for and plagiarise your own popla appeal using them as the basis for appeal, but in this case altering to CARE PARKING