Care Parking PCN @ Metrolink

darkwarrior

Any one know if Care Parking are a cowboy to be ignored or not? Assuming a car was parked on a Metrolink car park and a metrolink was used.

Reason given is "abused patron parking", don't even know how they would be evidencing this.

Wants £60 to pay early as well which doesn't seem reasonable. Researching the company with them being so close to "car parking" doesn't really help.

Thanks for reading.

Redx

you can forget about the charge being "unreasonable" , its typical or less than typical of bylaws penalties and also the BEAVIS case ruled on a figure of £85 2 years ago

the METROLINK standard rail fare is £100 as mentioned on RIPOFF BRITAIN this morning (its what you are charged if you have no ticket)

put METROLINK into the drop down forum search box and read all the others of a similar nature (even if the contravention was different)

use the blue text template appeal to CARE (anchor) as KEEPER of the vehicle

do not reveal who was driving and edit post #1 accordingly (walls have ears)

then start drafting your popla appeal based on any previous appeal you find from this year only (2017) using METROLINK CARE POPLA APPEAL

Coupon-mad

Why not just search this forum for 'Metrolink POPLA' and also read the NEWBIES FAQS sticky thread on how to appeal.

darkwarrior

Thanks both.

darkwarrior

Sorry to repost, just quick question:

1) Wait at least 26 calendar days
2) Send appeal with blue text
3) Wait for NTK / Probable rejection
4) Go to Popla
5) Await outcome?

Redx

correct , if it was a windscreen ticket

dont wait if it was a postal ticket

darkwarrior

Hi again, I'm at day 27 so I'm sending my appeal. I've added a line to the standard appeal saying that the driver was a metrolink patron so the alleged abuse of patron parking can not have taken place. Is this ok? Still not identifying the driver?

Umkomaas

darkwarrior wrote: »

Hi again, I'm at day 27 so I'm sending my appeal. I've added a line to the standard appeal saying that the driver was a metrolink patron so the alleged abuse of patron parking can not have taken place. Is this ok? Still not identifying the driver?

Add nothing, then there is no chance of inadvertently identifying the driver, or give the PPC any excuse to think that you have.

Nothing you add will change the result of the initial appeal, so why bother wasting any breath/effort on it. Leave it as it is - straight copy and paste from the sticky will do the job of securing a POPLA code.

darkwarrior

No longer applicable

Redx

your popla appeal should be submitted as OTHER and attach the popla appeal as a pdf

darkwarrior

Is there an appeal option for it just being invalid? They're saying the car was parked outside of tram operating hours, which are 6am til nearly 1am, and this was not the case. I've added a lot of comments about the loopholes but ultimately it's just a made up charge altogether.

I wrote this:

Per the response of CareParking, operators have filed a witness statement claiming that the vehicle in question was parked outside of operating hours of the tram, and it is for this which the PCN has been applied. Per Transport for Greater Manchester's own website (viewable here https://tfgm.com/public-transport/tram/stops/oldham-mumps-tram/tram-times/oldham-central-tram) the tram operates between the hours of 5:59am and 00:47am. The PCN was applied at 9:18 am. According to CareParking, their operatives were on site from before 5:59am and can testify that the vehicle was in place on the car park at this time, but chose not to apply a ticket until over 3 hours later. This is because the car was not present on the car park between 00:47am and 5:59 am, a fact to which I as keeper appellant can testify as it was on my drive way. For this reason alone, no contravention can have taken place, certainly not for the reasons which CareParking alleges.

Or should I just stick to the major appeal options?