Advice please regarding parking charge notice issued by Care parking at Stretford tram station

KeithP

Lounesbo wrote: »

...as POPLA emailed Monday 30th think it is better to send later tonight?

Yes, you must do that.

Redx

seems ok to go so put it into the popla appeal page for your comments and hope they look at it tomorrow or this week

Lounesbo

It has been posted into the comments section and shall update in due course.
Thanks to everyone again. Your help has been invaluable despite the cockups on my part.
Greatly appreciated

Lounesbo

Good morning all
I thought I would share my good news that my appeal was successful. I heard today which I thought was unusual. I want to thank each and every one of you for your selfless time and advice. I found the whole thing extremely challenging and stressful and could not have managed without your help.
I feel very strongly that these rogues need dealing with (I get anxious parking anywhere these days!) but wonder if I could do anything in particular about this particular parking location? Every day cars are parked where the ticket was issued and I feel that’s very unfair.
Please signpost me to where I can make a difference to this dreadful racket either regarding Stretford tram car park or more generally
Thanks again all!!

Redx

well done

glad you stuck with us and took the advice onboard

the only way to change these matters is when the Sir Greg Knight bill becomes law next year, hopefully that will address a lot of the issues, if not all of them

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

I suggest a complaint to your MP and get them to support Sir Greg Knight is best


also tell us what won the appeal so we know for anyone else who gets one, put the result (the decision) in the POPLA DECISIONS thread and add a link to this thread too

Ralph-y

perhaps your MP might like to hear your story ....


"I feel very strongly that these rogues need dealing with (I get anxious parking anywhere these days!) but wonder if I could do anything in particular about this particular parking location? Every day cars are parked where I got a ticket and feel that’s very unfair.
Please signpost me to where I can make a difference to this dreadful racket either regarding Stretford tram car park or more generally"


so ....


please read/ watch the below and let him/her know ....




https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

and slightly longer, the committee stage

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5550515-cce9-4185-83ec-754dadb7524a

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

and some quotes from the committe stage

"The other area is hospital parking, and I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye"
" is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. "
"They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies."
"Essentially, it is a money-making enterprise that takes advantage of motorists up and down the country. They operate in a very business-like fashion, which is why I call them roboclaims companies."
"The companies are jamming up parts of our legal system."
“I now pretty much know exactly how the parking companies and in particular the IPC have been running this scam for the past 5 years. Basically both of the appeals processes are a complete and utter sham, (and part of that sham is Gladstones Solicitors itself)”
"The appeals process at Excel/VCS is run by a team of minimum wage office workers with no legal knowledge or experience whatsoever,"
" It is claimed by the head of the appeals service (retired Judge Bryn Holloway) that this is a completely independent fair process, it is not”
"The letter mentions two individuals—Will Hurley and Bryn Holloway—and concludes this is a typical example of the clear collusion between the IPC, their members and the IAS"
"what we can do about roboclaims companies and solicitors firms that profit, often in shady ways"
" the very large amounts of money that can be involved in such scams—a company called Smart Parking was involved in one such scam on my patch"
"tightening up the rules regarding the unfair use of automatic number plate recognition" "BW Legal, regularly issues 10,000 county court judgments a month, and is known to have issued 28,000 in one month"
"They are jamming up our court system, and are often totally unjustified."
" because the lifeblood of trying to extort money from people is having access to their details."

All from Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting) Hansard







Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

Well done!

Please post in POPLA DECISIONS, a link to this thread and explain it was a win against Care Parking at Stretford tram car park...and copy & paste (and PLEASE add paragraph breaks, no wall of text copying!), so we can read the whole decision in the sticky thread for POPLA Decisions.

You could also write a formal complaint to the highest Manager you can find listed for Stretford tram car park, and ask why they are allowing a notorious parking firm to harass people and cause distress to users.

DW190

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You could also write a formal complaint to the highest Manager you can find listed for Stretford tram car park, and ask why they are allowing a notorious parking firm to harass people and cause distress to users.

Dr. Jon Lamonte
Chief Executive
Email: jon.lamonte@tfgm.com
Contact: Sarah Wardle, Executive Assistant to Chief Executive

http://www.transportforgreatermanchestercommittee.gov.uk/info/1/who_we_are/34/tfgm_contacts

Lounesbo

Evening all,
Happy to do all of the above!
Will get on to it in the next couple of days.
I think you’re all wonderful!

Lounesbo

The case below was a win against Care Parking/ Anchor security services at Stretford tram station, Stretford, Greater Manchester after submitting to POPLA. . The case was that the Appellant was pursued for allegedly parking on the edge of a marked bay and was fined £100 for ‘ Obstructive parking’.

Popla’s summary below :

The appellant’s case is that a compliant notice to keeper was never served and therefore, keeper liability does not apply. He [this should be SHE] states that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver, who is liable for the charge.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority, and has put the operator to strict proof.

The appellant states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. He [SHE] states that there was no contract formed, and the case is dissimilar to ParkingEye v Beavis.

The appellant has provided photographs of the signage at the site and has put the operator to strict proof that they can be seen from where the vehicle was parked.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

From the evidence the operator has provided, I can see that the operator is pursuing the appellant as the keeper of the vehicle. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) will need to be followed in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle. Within their appeal, the appellant has indicated they are the keeper of the vehicle. In response to this, the operator has begun to pursue the appellant for the unpaid parking charge. The operator has not made reference to PoFA 2012 and as the notice to keeper has not been provided, I am unable to determine whether the parking operator has followed the correct process to allow it to pursue the keeper of the vehicle for the unpaid parking charge. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is liable for the parking charge. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.