Care Parking Metrolink PCN

Coupon-mad

Yes indeedy.

Make sure there is nothing else specific to Indigo in there.

eugine

Thanks. Yep, gonna give it a read through top-to-bottom now, should send me to sleep...

Thanks for all your help.

Redx

definitely proof read it and adapt it to suit a Care Parking situation on METROLINK (the manchester tram service) , instead of an INDIGO wording for proper train operating systems on TOC leased infrastructure

CARE dont own anything on METROLINK , its the GMT or METROLINK or something similar that are leasing the network and stations etc (which is non relevant land)

so bylaws apply , and I doubt that the BTP will be sending a summons to a magistrates court within the 6 months timescale allowed, because they never do

a classic case of getting rid of the correct staff to enforce the bylaws and trying to get a thord party in to do a 10th rate job and try to make it look "legal" (like INDIGO and APCOA and VCS and UKPPO etc)

eugine

I've received the evidence pack from Care Parking. Could I PM it to someone to take a look (don't want to leak any wrong info)? It's a bit overwhelming.

First thing I noticed, they wrote the vehicle's number plate incorrectly.

Edit: Okay, have reviewed the document and made some notes of things that stuck out. They scanned most of it so I can't copy and paste. It has the appellants name, email, vehicle etc in - I might Photoshop these out later and upload. But for now the notes:

8 - A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply

They say:

The car park is privately owned and therefore the Protection of Freedoms Act applies. It is with this Act Care Parking intend to recover the full amount of this parking charge. A redacted copy of our Contract with the Landowner of this site is enclosed in Section G.

10 - A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply

They’re saying the registered keeper is liable for the PCN using the Protection of Freedoms Act.

14 - Signage - They say they have a contract with the landowner again.

15 - Signage - They say there is a Contractual Warning Signage in close proximity to the appellant’s vehicle as shown in Section F, page 28, but it’s clearly ineligible from the photo and from where the vehicle is parked.

18 - Signage - They say their

Contractual Warning signs comply with Clause 19 of the BPA, AOS, CoP. The Supreme Court ruling points 94 to 101 covers the details of this and a copy of the ruling has been submitted as a separate document to this POPLA case.

19 - The actual pre-estimate of loss is considered commercial in confidence and will only be supplied during court proceedings. As no breakdown of this charge has been provided by us to the appellant of their claim regarding the charge is baseless.

Not sure on the last two?

21 - The Operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge - Again, they assume the registered keeper was the driver of the vehicle. Based on Protection of Freedoms Act.

23 - No evidence of lawn owner authority - They say see landowner contract (Section G).

26 - No Keeper Liability (fails PoFa 2012 requirements) - They assume the registered keeper was the driver of the vehicle at the time.

29 - Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’

They say:

Bylaws relating to the Metrolink service are specific to the areas in which trams operate referred to in law as ‘the system’. As trams do not operate within the car parks and the car parks are private land which support the systems operation, they are not part of this system. Each Metrolink car park is privately owned and therefore the Protection of Freedoms Act applies. It is with this Act Care Parking intend to blah blah blah

31 - No Breach of Byelaw - Same as above

Section D - Evidence

1 - In this case the Registered Keeper details were not applied for from the DVLA as we were contacted on the 12 June 2017 with an appeal. We do not apply to the DVLA for keeper details until 28 days after the date of issue, in accordance with the BPA AOS, CoP. The case was placed on hold on receipt of the appeal and the clock was not restarted until the appeal had been rejected, we place cases on hold whilst they are dealt with through our appeals system and again when being examined by POPLA. Screen shots below to support this.

Are they saying they received the appeal on 12 June 2017 (not sure)? Yet that was the date of the windscreen PCN, the appeal was the 8 July 2017 as shown in their own screenshot.

Section F - Evidence

Signage is unreadable from the photos of the car park that Care Parking have provided. They also provide images of the Entrance Signage and Contractual Warning Signage.

Section G - Evidence

Contract with Landowner - Scanned document “from” Transport for Greater Manchester. There are no printed names (have been redacted), just signatures? Dated 2014.

eugine

Bumpity bump. Here is the evidence pack PDF from Care Parking, with my info redacted:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3276qwzu79eew9p/POPLA%20Case%20-%20REDACTED.compressed.pdf?dl=0

I'm going to be putting together a reply tomorrow. Any advice would be hugely appreciated, thanks!

Redx

looking at that pdf they dont appear to have followed certain practices etc

they admit they have not obtained keeper details from the DVLA under their KADOE contract

they admit they have not issued an NTK to the keeper

they admit they have assunmed that the keeper and driver are one and the same person

there are NO obvious signs in any of those pictures visible from the vehicle

personally , I still think the land is railway land and not as they say "private land" , probably leased to TfGM from Network Rail and so bylaws apply

I dont think they have proved that it is NOT railway land and not subject to bylaws

they have to PROVE their case !! not just assume the driver and keeper are one and the same, the driver may have handed the keeper the NTD on or just before day 26

so they have failed to transfer liability from driver to keeper by failing to get the KEEPER details and send the NTK after day 28 and before day 56

the contract with TfGM does not appear to name the landholder and I dont see any proof of TfGM owning the land , so there is no clear path from CARE PARKING to the landholder themselves (who I think will be Network Rail) - there is no evidence stating who the actual landholder is

Having a rolling contract with TfGM does not mean they have one with the actual landholder and if TfGM are an agent (3rd party) leasing the land then there must also be one with the landholder themselves

if the landholder is Network Rail then bylaws apply and POFA2012 does not apply and they have not proven who the driver or owner is and they themselves say that they have assumed that the driver and keeper are one and the same person without proving it ; POFA2012 does not allow for assumptions

---

So work those observatiopns , plus your own and any by other members ifnto a draft rebuttal

look at other recent rebuttals and adapt their wordings after considering the above

post your rebuttal statement on here before submission , for critique etc

Castle

According to this FOI request the Metrolink car park at Stretford is owned by Transport For Greater Manchester, which would suggest that all of the car parks are owned by TFGM:-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/355942/response/862917/attach/html/3/160905%20Response%208000046289.pdf.html

eugine

Castle wrote: »

According to this FOI request the Metrolink car park at Stretford is owned by Transport For Greater Manchester, which would suggest that all of the car parks are owned by TFGM:-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/355942/response/862917/attach/html/3/160905%20Response%208000046289.pdf.html

Sorry to be a pain, but would this mean that it is not railway land and that bylaws do not apply?

Coupon-mad

Not necessarily - you should use all arguments. It is for the other side to disprove!

Redx

I agree, make them prove it

but bear in mind you have the other rebuttal points to make too , like the missing NTK, not followed POFA2012 etc

make them prove each and every point , you dont have to be correct on all of them , but they do because you win if they fail on any single point