Care Parking - Metrolink

perseat

Redx wrote: »

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

Ahhhh I see now. Thanks for clearing it up, it makes a lot more sense regarding the actual context of the other threads. I'll finish up the draft for tomorrow.

perseat

I've done a reshuffle of the points and added owner liability and no proof of owner in.
https://puu.sh/v5IDF/1e0fad376a.pdf

I was going to include no breach of byelaw, however I might have broken #14:

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 the Persons using or intending to use the System.

Having parked a space out of the roundabout/parking area as seen in the pictures in the PDF

Coupon-mad

Your appeal looks fine (a winner, IMHO) and I would include no breach of byelaw anyway.

perseat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Your appeal looks fine (a winner, IMHO) and I would include no breach of byelaw anyway.

How does this sound?
3) No Breach of Byelaws
In this instance, no Byelaws have been broken, Byelaw 14 refers to the parking of vehicles:

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 the Persons using or intending to use the System.

This byelaw explicitly refers to parking on the system (tracks or platforms) not a car park. Even if this did apply to car parks the offending would have to be in a position to cause obstruction. In this parking event the car was parked outside of the central parking area by 1 row on the end. As you can see in the pictures below, a vehicle parked in this position would cause no obstruction to the system or any form of vehicle in the car park, there is more than plenty of room for even larger vehicles such as emergency vehicles to drive though with ease.

Coupon-mad

Try to avoid suggesting that the byelaws might not apply to car parks; that's the opposite of what you want to say the the POPLA Assessor. Maybe:

This byelaw explicitly refers to parking of vehicles. The wordy signs and the use of the word 'penalty' suggests that the parking firm believe that these Railway byelaws apply by way of statutory control in this car park. But the vehicle would have to be in a position to cause obstruction to be in breach of that byelaw and this would be a matter purely for a Magistrates' Court to decide, since penalties cannot be enforced by private firms. In this parking event, the car was parked in line, on the end of a parking row. As you can see in the pictures below, a vehicle parked in this position would cause no obstruction to the system or any form of vehicle in the car park, there is more than plenty of room for even larger vehicles such as emergency vehicles to drive though with ease.

perseat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Try to avoid suggesting that the byelaws might not apply to car parks; that's the opposite of what you want to say the the POPLA Assessor. Maybe:

This byelaw explicitly refers to parking of vehicles. The wordy signs and the use of the word 'penalty' suggests that Indigo believe that these Railway byelaws apply by way of statutory control in this car park. But the vehicle would have to be in a position to cause obstruction to be in breach of that byelaw and this would be a matter purely for a Magistrates' Court to decide, since penalties cannot be enforced by private firms. In this parking event, the car was parked in line, on the end of a parking row. As you can see in the pictures below, a vehicle parked in this position would cause no obstruction to the system or any form of vehicle in the car park, there is more than plenty of room for even larger vehicles such as emergency vehicles to drive though with ease.

Unfortunately I left it a little too late, as I flew out of the country and wouldn't be able to do it so I submitted it with what I posted before. Hopefully it won't do any major damage. A further of digging shows Care Parking aren't bothering with evidence packs at this current point in time. So I'm quite optimistic.

perseat

Care parking have responded, not what I was looking for, here is their response:
https://puu.sh/vs0sV/fb4f12c1fb.pdf

I now have 6 days and 2000 words to add comments on top of their response.
Where should I start and what specifically in this case shall I target?

Coupon-mad

You shot most of your toes off with that weak first appeal, not only handing them on a plate who the driver was but also admitting and asking them to 'forgive' your parking. You may well lose the POPLA appeal because of that appeal - you'd have won easily if you had simply come here first and appealed as keeper.

Best you can make of a bad job is to point out to POPLA:

(a) none of the wording on ANY sign shown in ANY site photo can be read. The photos in darkness shows that the signs are not lit and the car was parked in the dark (early morning). They have provided stock version of signs but as all photos show unreadable distant signs there is no evidence that these terms can be read.

(b) as the car was parked in the dark car park the bay line to the right made it appear the car was in a bay and it is only in daylight the lack of line to the left can be seen. The car park signs and lines must be visible at all times, if a firm is to enforce terms in hours of darkness (failure is a BPA Code of Practice breach and means no contract was known/agreed).

(c) The contract is dated 2014 for 12 months and the signatories are redacted. There is no evidence that this is the current 2017 agreement and so it fails to comply with para 7 of the BPA CoP.



(if this is still lost, you do know NOT to pay it?).

perseat

Yeah I know but how's this?:

In response to the operators document they have uploaded. I find a number of issues with what they are claiming regarding the signage.

A. None of the wording on ANY sign shown in ANY site photo can be read. The photos in darkness shows that the signs are not lit and the car was parked in the dark (early morning). They have provided stock version of signs but as all photos show unreadable distant signs there is no evidence that these terms can be read.
B. As the car was parked in the dark car park the bay line to the right and the car parked in front at the time made it appear the car was in a bay and it is only in daylight the lack of line to the left can be seen. The car park signs and lines must be visible at all times, if a firm is to enforce terms in hours of darkness (failure is a BPA Code of Practice breach and means no contract was known/agreed).
C. The contract is dated 2014 for 12 months and the signatories are redacted. There is no evidence that this is the current 2017 agreement and so it fails to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP.
D. The images they have provided are from the perspective of someone walking around and through the car park, not if they were driving through. These pictures don’t provide any evidence that they can be seen from the driver without having to stop and get out of the vehicle. They have even deliberately taken pictures of signage where you would have to drive down the road and around the roundabout the wrong way in order to see them.
E. These images have also been taken with a flash turned on in order to make it seem the signs are more apparent than they are, yet are still unreadable. Even in the case of parking when dark these signs would not be illuminated by a driver’s headlights; due to the lights dipped nature in order to prevent blinding oncoming drivers on the other side of the road.

Coupon-mad

Yes I would submit that and see if POPLA agree, either about the signs or the contract.