Metrolink Careparking Fine

Tentatively

Hi all, I've been looking for relevant POPLA Appeals on the forum for the last week or so in my spare time, ended up with this. Any suggestions and comments are welcome. Please do comment if you can think of any other appeal points. Thanks.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer to a PCN issued by the Operator Care Parking on 05 July 2018:

POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx
Care Parking PCN Ref: xxxxxxxxx

I believe the PCN was issued wrongly and unlawfully for the following reasons:

1. A compliant Notice To Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver
3. Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
4. No evidence of Landowner Authority



1. A compliant Notice To Keeper (NTK) was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply
This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. Today, 18th September 2018, is 74 days after the PCN was issued to the driver and no NTK has been served to the keeper. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly, I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

3. Railway Land Is Not ‘Relevant Land’
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, section 1, it states that:

“(1) This schedule applies where –
(a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.

Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Railway land, being governed by Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under PoFA does not apply, and therefore Care Parking are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this Operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this Operator to strict proof of full compliance:

“7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement”

Taking all the above into account, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Yours sincerely,
<NAME>

18th September 2018

KeithP

Surprised to see nothing about signs.

Coupon-mad

Yep, add the usual long wording about dodgy signs and you are home & dry.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Tentatively

Hi all,


So I received the NTK dated 17th September 2018. The alleged violation occurred on the 5th July, a period of 74 days. They're claiming that period is halted if an appeal is made.



CareParking have responded with a fairly lengthy PDF response which was scanned, no doubt to stop me copying their response.

Unfortunately for them I’m not a technical idiot and stuck their PDF through OCR software.



You can read their response below, any counter argument suggestions would be appreciated. I can supply the evidence they've submitted in the appendices as well, if needed.

****** Page 5 ******
The appellant has submitted their POPLA Appeal on the grounds 'Other' as they wish
to express their own views in regards to the issuing of the parking charge notice,
'The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct', 'The vehicle was
not improperly parked' as 'The terms and conditions of the car park were not
properly signed' and 'The vehicle was not improperly parked' as 'You were parked in
an area in which you were free to park'. The appellant has also attached two PDF
Files and two JPG Files to support their appeal. Care Parking will answer the
appellant's points respectively.

The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued at Metrolink Navigation Road for the
contravention 'Unauthorised Parking in Reserved Bay' and additional contravention
'Unauthorised Parking' on the 5th July 2018 at 14:22 hours.

Metrolink Navigation Road is clearly signed with Entrance Signage and Contractual
Warning Signs throughout, copies of which are enclosed in Section G, which state 'A
Parking Charge Notice will be issued when: Obstructive Parking, including parking
outside of a marked parking bay or any unauthorised use of a parking space'. A
copy of the Contractual Warning Signage in place is enclosed in Section G.

The car park is free for Metrolink passengers, however being a Metrolink passenger
does not negate motorists from the parking restrictions stated on the Contractual
Warning Signage. We have seen no evidence the appellant was a Metrolink
passenger on the day of the contravention, however this has no relevance to the
issuing of the PCN.

The Contractual Warning Signage states, 'A parking charge will be issued when:
Obstructive Parking, including parking outside of a marked parking bay or any
unauthorised use of a parking space', it also states 'If you park on this land
contravening the above parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge
to the sum of EIOO.OO'. A copy of the signage in place is enclosed in Section G,
additional images showing where the signage is placed are also included in Section F.

There is Contractual Warning Signage throughout the site stating the Terms and
Conditions of the car park, therefore when the appellant parked on-site they
accepted those Terms and Conditions, if they did not agree with the Terms and
Conditions they did not have to park there and could have left the site. Care Parking
have a contract with the Landowner to enforce the Parking Terms and Conditions in
place, a copy is enclosed in Section G, and the appellant parked in Contravention of
those Terms. Our Signage clearly states the parking requirements and the costs of
none compliance.

****** Page 6 ******

The appellant has submitted their appeal on the grounds 'Other' however the
reasons stated do not negate the appellant from the parking restrictions in place.
The PCN was issued due to the appellant's vehicle being parked in a 'Drop Off Only'
area on site in front of a Contractual Warning Sign, as can be seen in the Operatives
image below and additional images enclosed within Section F. The appellant has
failed to make any attempt to mitigate the issuing of the PCN, throughout the
appeals process.

However, after reading the case which has been submitted to POPLA, it is obvious
that this has been copied and pasted from an internet forum. The appellant appeals
to POPLA on a number of grounds, none of which can be supported within the
appeal, nor do they mitigate the fact the contravention occurred.
10. Although the POPLA case is based on information widely available on parking
forums, the contents of which are often outdated and inaccurate, Care Parking will
answer the appellant's points raised respectively, after their further grounds for
appeal below.

The appellants second grounds for appeal 'The amount requested on the parking
charge notice is not correct', the criteria for this category is straight forward and
should be assessed on the simple basis, as the signage and the PCN both state the
details of the charge and the discounts offered with the applicable timeframes, the
amount been asked for is correct, the charge has not been paid, therefore we are
not asking for payment of an amount which is not due. A screenshot of the
payments screen is shown below to support this. A copy of the Parking Charge
Notice issued and the Contractual Warning Signage are enclosed in Sections C and G
respectively both showing the charge to be EIOO reducing to E60 if paid within 14
days of issue, so Care Parking would dispute this statement.

****** Page 7 ******

12. The appellant's third grounds for appeal 'The vehicle was not improperly parked' as
'The terms and condition of the car park were not properly signed' as can be seen in
the operative's image above, the appellant is parked right in front of a Contractual
Warning Sign.

13. Therefore, if the appellant has failed to read or chosen to ignore the Contractual
Warning Signage in place, Care Parking cannot be held responsible for this. Our
Signage clearly states the parking requirements and the costs of none compliance.

14. Contractual Warning Signage is visible in the Operative's time and date stamped
images, enclosed within Section F, additional images showing where the signage is
placed throughout site are also enclosed within Section F.

15. The appellants fourth grounds for appeal 'The vehicle was not improperly parked' as
'You were parked in an area in which you were free to park', the car park is free for
Metrolink passengers, we have seen no evidence the appellant was a Metrolink
passenger on the day of the contravention, however this would not negate them
from the parking restrictions stated on the Contractual Warning Signage in place.

16. The Contractual Warning Signage states, 'A parking charge will be issued when:
Obstructive Parking, including parking outside of a marked parking bay or any
unauthorised use of a parking space', it also states 'If you park on this land
contravening the above parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge
to the sum of EIOO.OO'. A copy of the signage in place is enclosed within Section G,

****** Page 8 ******

17. Care Parking will now answer the appellants points raised within the PDF File they
have attached to support their appeal.

18. A compliant Notice to Keeper (NTK) was never served — no Keeper Liability can
apply - 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, the Contract gives us authority to issue and pursue
outstanding charges in relation to parking activity.

19. The PCN was issued to the windscreen of the vehicle, the appellant has then
submitted an Appeal to Care Parking twenty-five days later, which is enclosed in
Section E, claiming they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and "deny any
liability".

20. A copy of the PCN which was issued to the vehicle, is enclosed in section C, we know
the appellant received this, as previously stated they submitted an Appeal to Care
Parking twenty-five days after the PCN was issued.

21. The Registered Keeper's details where obtained from the DVLA on the 17th
September 2018 and a Notice to Keeper was respectively sent to the appellant. Two
days after this, Care Parking received notification the appellant had submitted an
appeal to POPLA.

22. The appellant's dates regarding the Notice to Keeper are irrelevant, as the appellant
had already appealed to Care Parking, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and
whilst a PCN is going through the Appeals Process, in line with the BPA AOS Code of
Practice, all correspondence is placed on hold.

23. A copy of the PCN which was issued to the vehicle, is enclosed in section C,
screenshots to support the above are enclosed within Section D and E respectively.

24. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the
driver— Care Parking have answered the appellant's points for this ground
previously. However, the PCN has been appealed from it being issued to the
windscreen of the vehicle, by the appellant, we would therefore assume the
appellant was either the motorist at the time of the contravention or is choosing not
to name the driver, in which case the Registered Keeper is liable for the PCN using
the Protection of Freedoms Act.

****** Page 9 ******

25. The appellant is correct they do not need to name the driver, if it was not
themselves. However, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012) covers the
requirements of the liability of the charge with regard to the registered keeper. If the
name of the driver is not supplied, the POFA 2012 allows Care Parking to pursue the
registered keeper for payment of the PCN.

26. It states in appendix 20.16 of the BPA Code of Practice, 'If the keeper does not reply
within 28 days, or refuses to give enough details about the driver, under schedule 4
of POFA 2012 you are able to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge.'

27. The Notice to Keeper issued to the appellant on the 17th September 2018 has started
the process in which the keeper becomes liable for the parking charge issued to their
vehicle.

28. Care Parkirws Notice to Keepers are fully compliant with the requirements of the
Protection of Freedoms Act and the British Parking Association. As can be seen on
the copy of the Notice to keeper sent to the appellant on 17th September 2018,
enclosed in Section D.

29. Railway Land is Not 'Relevant Land' - This 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 from the liable party. A redacted copy
of our Contract with the Landowner of this site is enclosed in Section G, the Contract
gives us authority to issue and pursue outstanding charges in relation to parking
activity.

30. 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 Metrotink 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 from the liable party.

31. The appellant is quoting mis-information they have copy and pasted off an Internet
Forum, however as previously advised, Metrolink car parks are privately owned and
therefore the Protection of Freedoms Act applies. Metrolink have their own legal
department, they would not act unlawfully, they have confirmed the Byelaws in
place only apply to 'the system', they would not allow the parking enforcement to be
in place if this was not the case.

32. No evidence of Landowner Authority - This claim is baseless as no copy of a Contract
has been provided to the appellant by us for them to justify their claim, for the
avoidance of doubt a redacted copy of the Contract to operate is Enclosed in Section G, the Contract gives us authority to issue and pursue outstanding charges in relation
to the parking activity.

****** Page 10 ******


33. Care Parking are a BPA Approved Operator, we have a contract with the Landowner,
enclosed in Section G, and the site is clearly signed with Contractual Warning Signage
throughout and Entrance Signage, which all complies with the BPA AOS Code of
Practice, copies also enclosed in Section G.

34. In regards to the appellant's further points, Care Parking are under no obligation to
provide this information, as it is commercial in confidence, therefore will only be
provided in Court. However, Care Parking are an Approved Operator with the British
Parking Association and as such have to provide them and the DVLA with such
checks at audit. This has been done each year as required by both parties for all
active sites, thus the appellants claim is inaccurate and baseless.

35. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible — As can be seen in the
Operative's image above and enclosed within Section F, there is a Contractual
Warning Sign clearly visible in front of the appellant's vehicle.

36. The appellant is claiming they were not the driver, we are therefore unsure how they
can comment on what was or wasn't seen by the driver at the time of the
contravention. However, the Operative's time and date stamped images show
signage was present and visible, therefore if the driver has failed to read or chosen
to ignore the signage, Care Parking cannot be held responsible for this.

37. There is Contractual Warning Signage throughout the site stating the Terms and
Conditions of the car park, therefore when the appellant parked on-site they
accepted those Terms and Conditions, if they did not agree with the Terms and
Conditions they did not have to park there and could have left the site. Care Parking
have a contract with the Landowner to enforce the Parking Terms and Conditions in
place, a copy is enclosed in Section G, and the appellant parked in Contravention of
those Terms. Our Signage clearly states the parking requirements and the costs of
none compliance.

38. Care Parkin$ charges are a contractually agreed sum as shown on the Contractual
Warning Signs in place and comply with the recommendations made in Clause 19 of
the British Parking Association AOS Code of Practice.

39. 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 their claim regarding the charge is baseless. Our
signage clearly states the parking requirements and the costs of none compliance.

****** Page 11 ******
40. Contractual Warning Signage is visible in the Operative's time and date stamped
images, enclosed within Section F, additional images showing where the signage is
placed throughout site are also enclosed within Section F.

41. With regard to the appellant's comments in relation to the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contract Regulations, some terms do not fall under the assessment of
'fairness' as long as they are in plain, intelligible language. These terms include the
definition of the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price in
relation to it. Our signage clearly states the parking requirements and the costs of
none compliance.

42. Care Parking's Contractual Warning Signage is dark purple writing on a white
background. Copies of our signage is enclosed in Section G. All Care Parking's Signage
is in line with the BPA AOS Code of practice, if the appellant has failed to read or
chosen to ignore the Contractual Warning Signage in place, Care Parking cannot be
held responsible for this. Our Signage clearly states the parking requirements and
the costs of none compliance.

43. The Contractual Warning Signage in place at Metrolink Navigation Road states, 'A
Parking Charge Notice will be issued when: Obstructive Parking, including parking
outside of a marked parking bay or any unauthorised use of a parking space', as
can be seen in the Operatives images enclosed within Section F, the appellants
vehicle was clearly parked in a 'Drop Off Only' area.

44. There is signage in place throughout the site stating the Parking Terms and
Conditions, copies of which are enclosed in Section G, signage is also visible in the
additional images in Section F.

45. The appellant has made no attempt to mitigate the issuing of the Parking Charge
Notice, nor provided any evidence to support their appeal.

46. Care Parking would therefore conclude that the driver of vehicle failed to
comply with the Contractual Warning Signage in place and that PCN reference was correctly issued.

Redx

so go through it and find every point they make where they have failed , including the land , POFA2012, contracts , no NTK , driver not identified etc


read recent popla rebuttals to see what the replies are, plus read the recent reply by their "CEO" which talks about the land and penalties etc in another case where they failed and a complaint was made to TfGM (by Lounesbo, who also published their own popla rebuttal which was similar to this case)

and remember, you only have 2000 characters for the rebuttal and 7 days to put it forward

Tentatively

Character count is 1097.



I think I've covered everything you mentioned.

I shall respond to the evidence pack provided by Care Parking.

The contract they have provided in Section G does not name the landholder. So there is no clear path from Care Parking to the landholder themselves. There is no evidence stating who the actual landholder is.

I would also like to bring to attention the fact that any details of the landowner have been redacted intentionally.

If the landholder is Network Rail then bylaws apply and POFA 2012 does not apply. They have not proven who the driver is and they themselves say that they have assumed that the driver and keeper are one and the same person without proving it; POFA 2012 does not allow for assumptions.

If the landholder is TfGM, then the land is under statutory control of TfGM and so there can be no keeper liability. This is not relevant land.

They also state that the Notice To Keeper was sent correctly, which is false. I received the NtK on the 19th September, 76 days after the alleged contravention.

As such the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been met (the notice should be received no later than 56 days after the date of the parking event), therefore there is no keeper liability.

Redx

these are the rebuttal points by Lounesbo recently

The amount requested on the PCN is not relevant/ correct as the appellant is the registered keeper (RK) and the PCN was issued to the driver. Care Parking (CP) has no evidence that they transferred liability from the driver to the RK and that PoFA was followed correctly.

No notice to keeper was ever served and this is necessary if RK is being pursued. The only way CP can transfer liability from driver to RK is by using the provisions of the PoFA 2012.

Additionally the land is under statutory control of TFGM and as such there can be no keeper liability. This is not relevant land under POFA2012. The RK is not responsible for actions of the driver.
CP has failed to demonstrate who the driver was and therefore who is liable for the PCN. Reference is made to the Henry Gleenslade ruling and the relevant paragraph whereby CP have failed legally to transfer liability to the keeper.

Regarding landowner points please note that signatures have been blanked out. Only those of the contractor are evident and not the landowner. This is an altered contract with no end date and no map detailing the area covered by the contract.

Regarding signage the appellant requests that pages 38-40 be disallowed. The sign PRESENTED is large, bold and readable. The real sign does not form part of the parking area, is small & on the opposite side of the road. This conflicts with BPA CoP S18 para 2, Appendix B: The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers, without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Many CP signs are also in competition with yellow and blue signs, regarded as colour contrasts to avoid in the BPA guide.

I would see if any of those points can also be worked into the 2000 character limit, even if it means deleting your opening sentence (which is unnecessary)

also look at adding something about their recent admissions in another case (Lounesbo)

18 September 2018
Dear

Re: Care Parking

Thank you for contacting Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) in relation to the management of parking at our Metrolink Park and Ride facilities.

As you may be aware, the tram operator, Keolis Amey Metrolink (KAM) sub contract the management of Metrolink parking facilities to Anchor Care Parking who have been patrolling the car parks since 2 April 2012. It is a free service for our Metrolink users and Anchor has been employed to manage the use of the facilities.

TfGM own the car park land and we mark out our own facilities to ensure that there is optimum parking for passengers but also access for maintenance and emergency vehicles to get to the stop platform at any time. We have identified that the area in which you chose to park your car was there to ensure access to the platform for maintenance and emergencies. It is deliberately not marked as a designated parking area for safety access.

I do recognise that your appeal to POPLA was successful and that your penalty charge notice (PCN) was overturned; it was allowed under POFA 2012, as POPLA were not satisfied that you, the driver of the vehicle had been identified

Yours sincerely

J n Lamonte
Chief Executive

my opinion is that TfGM as a tram operator are licensing the land from Network Rail and if that is the case then POFA2012 does not apply (bylaws would apply and the correct invoice is a penalty notice) and so a keeper is not liable, he says that TfGM own the land but I do not believe it as those trams also run on N/W RAIL railway lines and use N/W RAIL car parks too

so see what else can be added in your favour as keeper, keeping under 2000 characters


but a good start

Tentatively

Added the points I thought were relevant, now at 1641 characters.

The amount requested on the PCN is not relevant/ correct as the appellant is the registered keeper (RK) and the PCN was issued to the driver. Care Parking (CP) has no evidence that they transferred liability from the driver to the RK and that POFA was followed correctly.

The contract they have provided in Section G does not name the landholder. So there is no clear path from Care Parking to the landholder themselves. There is no evidence stating who the actual landholder is.

Regarding landowner points please note that signatures have been blanked out. The signature of the landholder is not readable, neither is the signature of the Care Parking representative. This is an altered contract with no end date and no map detailing the area covered by the contract.

If the landholder is Network Rail then bylaws apply and POFA 2012 does not apply. They have not proven who the driver is and they themselves say that they have assumed that the driver and keeper are one and the same person without proving it; POFA 2012 does not allow for assumptions.

The land is also under statutory control of TFGM and as such there can be no keeper liability. This is not relevant land under POFA2012. The RK is not responsible for actions of the driver.

They also state that the Notice To Keeper was sent correctly, which is false. I received the NtK on the 19th September, 76 days after the alleged contravention.

As such the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been met (the notice should be received no later than 56 days after the date of the parking event), therefore there is no keeper liability.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.