Metrolink Care parking PCN

KeithP

Daver wrote: »

Hence if the keeper refuses to name the driver they are snookered as they cannot persue the keeper as they cannot comply with Pofa and cannot enforce the ticket.....which begs the question, is it not just worth telling them this in the first instance to take a hike as the drivers name will not be divulged and ending all communication with them as they have no other recourse!

Yes, you can do that but it won't stop them pursuing the keeper.

Have you not noticed their modus operandi?

That is: hound people until they give up and pay.

I imagine that the majority of those parking speculative invoices that are paid, are paid simply because the victim wants the problem to go away. Not because the PPC has done everything (or anything?) right.

Daver

Obviously if they are told to do one then they don't get the additional pain / cost of having to issue a popla code so it makes sense to string it out and cause them the maximum inconvenience possible.

Daver

KeithP wrote: »

Yes, you can do that but it won't stop them pursuing the keeper.

Have you not noticed their modus operandi?

That is: hound people until they give up and pay.

I imagine that the majority of those parking speculative invoices that are paid, are paid simply because the victim wants the problem to go away. Not because the PPC has done everything (or anything?) right.

Yes as you say they can persue the keeper but they wont have any legal standing though, just lots of posturing and BS:) and a hope that the bullying panics the victim into paying up.

Coupon-mad

Whatever you send to that PPC, they will issue a POPLA code anyway.

Daver

Yes, that would appear to be their MO but even if you lose at POPLA they still cannot do anything because they have no way of knowing who the driver is and cannot enforce the charge against the keeper so it does make you wonder why they bother trying when 98% of the tickets they issue will just be paid anyway, is it really worth it for them to continue to wage war against the small minority who have armed themselves with the knowledge available to fight them from sites like this?

Coupon-mad

I agree - so do Smart Parking, Highview & CEL, who have enough sense to cancel as soon as they see the template from the NEWBIES thread, as they are (by choice) non-POFA PCN firms.

They know they cannot beat a keeper, a bit like Benteke of *that* club.

Daver

having read numerous threads about Care Parking I very much doubt they actually even realise that they cannot rely on POFA on metrolink sites.....pretty poor business model.

Daver

Well.....some interesting information. after some research and numerous emails to TfGM I have found relating to Ashton Moss and the metrolink parking facilities....the advice on here is that Metrolink car parks fall under byelaws, well this it would appear that this may not apply to Ashton Moss as the land isn't owned by either TfGM or network Rail, it is in fact leased from Legal and General (who own the Ashton Moss retail park and the land around) so would it mean that the land will not actually be non-relevant land under POFA 2012. The laughable thing about this is that Care parking, who infest this particular car park, are worse than useless...the keeper appealed under their name but used an email address not belonging to them to send the email so Care Parking responded in the name of the email address owner not the name clearly given in the appeal document, they even stated in their rejection letter that they had obtained the name name and address of the keeper and that they would be persuing him ( the email address owner is male)....the keeper is female!
To cut a long story short, they are relying on POFA according to the PCN that I have seen, however it is day 57 since the tickets were issued.....no NTK........how stupid can they get, lots of information on here about issuing NTk's that don't have POFA compliant wording....but to not even bother sending one shows how inept these parking monkeys are.
On a serious note I think that any metrolink cases need investigating individually as it look like some sites are owned by network rail or TfGM, some are leased from private companies so would not actually come under bylaws and at some point it is possible that someone will fall foul of this.
Section B: Case Summary and Rules/Conditions

1. 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 appellant has also attached a PDF File to support their appeal. Care Parking will answer the appellant's points respectively.

2. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued at Metrolink Ashton Moss on the 18/08/ 2018 at 02.34 hours, for the contravention 'Parking Outside of Tram Service Hours'.


3 Metrolink Ashton Moss is clearly signed with Entrance Signage and Contractual Warning Signs throughout, which state - 'A Parking Charge will be issued when: Parking Outside of Tram Service Hours.'. The signage also includes a pictogram of a moon and stars with a parking P which is lined through for ease of understanding.
The Entrance Sign age states 'Parking for Metrolink Passengers Only. No Overnight
Parking. Copies of the sign age are enclosed in Section G.


4. The Parking Charge Notice was issued for 'Parking Outside of Tram Service Hours' as seen on the screenshot below of the Metrolink timetable, the vehicle was in fact on site outside of these times.


5. The Contractual Warning Signage clearly states 'This car park is for use of Metrolink Passengers only' the PCN was issued at 02.34 hours, it would not be possible for the appellant to be a Metrolink Passenger at this time, as the service was not running as has been shown on the timetable above. The car park is free for Metrolink users, however being a Metrolink user does not negate motorists from the parking restrictions stated on the Contractual Warning Signage.
6. We have seen no evidence the appellant was a Metrolink user 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: Parking Outside of tram service hours', 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
£100.00'. 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.


7. There is Contractual Warning Sign age 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.

8. The appellant has submitted their appeal on the grounds 'Other', they have not stated any mitigating circumstances for this, however the PCN was issued due to the appellants vehicle being parked on site outside of tram service hours, as can be seen in the Operatives time and date stamped images enclosed within Section F. The appellant has failed to make any attempt to mitigate the issuing of the PCN, throughout the appeals process.


9. 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.


11. A compliant Notice to Keeper 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.


12. The Parking Charge Notice was issued to the windscreen of the vehicle, the appellant has then submitted an Appeal to Care Parking twenty-fivedays later, which is enclosed within Section E, claiming they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and "deny any liability".

13. Eleven days after the appeal outcome was sent to the appellant, we received notification the appellant had submitted an Appeal to POPLA.


14. Therefore, in line with the timeframes set out in the BPA AOS Code of Practice, 28 days after issue or like in this case 28 days after an appeal outcome, a Notice to Keeper has not been sent, nor have the Registered Keepers details been obtained from the DVLA, although the appellant is stating this is themselves. 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.


15. 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.


16. The appellant's dates regarding the Notice to Keeper are irrelevant, as the appellant had appealed to Care Parking 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, therefore Care Parking have correctly not sent a Notice to Keeper.


17. As no Notice to Keeper has been sent, the appellant's further points regarding this are irrelevant.


18. 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, 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.


19. 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.


20. 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.

21. 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 recover the full amount of this parking charge from the liable party.


22. 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.

23. 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.


24. 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.


25. 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.

26. No Breach of Byelaw - As previously advised, 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 recover the full amount of this parking charge from the liable party.


27. I note that there is no attempt to mitigate the issue of the PCN and instead an approach of providing copied and pasted misinformation has been adopted by the appellant.
28. The appellant has failed to provide any evidence to support their claims throughout the appeals process.

29. The car park is free for Metrolink users, however as stated on the Contractual
Warning Signage in place across the site, 'A Parking Charge Notice will be issued when: Parking Outside of tram service hours', the appellant has failed to provide any evidence they were a Metrolink passenger on the day of the contravention.


30. As can be seen in the Operative's images enclosed within Section F, there are several Contractual Warning Signs in close proximity to the appellant's vehicle. Additional images showing where the signage is placed throughout site are also enclosed within Section F.

31. There is Contractual Warning Sign age 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.


32. We have not seen any evidence the appellant was a patron of the Metrolink on the day of the contravention however, as previously advised the PCN was issued at
02:34, it would therefore not have been possible for the appellant to be a tram user
at this time as the service was not running.


33. Care Parking have enclosed a screenshot from Transport for Greater Manchester's website, https://www.tfgm.com within Section G, which states the Opening times and information regarding Overnight Parking at Metrolink Ashton Moss. For the avoidance of doubt, we have also enclosed a copy of the Park & Ride -Terms and Conditions.


34. Metrolink do not allow overnight parking, to ensure fair use of the parking for all
daily tram commuters and to prevent the use of the car parks as a free alternative to long stay parking.

35. 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.


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

37. The appellant has made no attempt to mitigate the issuing of the Parking charge Notice, nor provided any evidence to support their claims throughout the appeals process.


38. Care Parking would therefore conclude that the driver of vehicle XXXXXXX failed to comply with the Contractual Warning Signage in place and that PCN reference
XXXXXXXX was correctly issued. At02:34, it would therefore not have been possible for the appellant to be a tram user at this time as the service was not running.


33. Care Parking have enclosed a screenshot from Transport for Greater Manchester's website, https://www.tfgm.com within Section G, which states the Opening times and information regarding Overnight Parking at Metrolink Ashton Moss. For the avoidance of doubt, we have also enclosed a copy of the Park & Ride -Terms and Conditions.


34. Metrolink do not allow overnight parking, to ensure fair use of the parking for all
daily tram commuters and to prevent the use of the car parks as a free alternative to long stay parking.

35. 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.


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

37. The appellant has made no attempt to mitigate the issuing of the Parking charge Notice, nor provided any evidence to support their claims throughout the appeals process.


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

KeithP

So who leases the car park land from L&G?

Surely not Care Parking?

If it is leased by TfGM or NR, and therefore covered by bylaws, then it is my understanding that it is not 'relevant land' as defined by POFA.


According to this .. http://www.ukcarparks.info/ashton-moss-car-park-ashton-moss#sthash.BnggXNxL.dpbs it's owned by Transport for Greater Manchester.
But I guess that could be wrong or out of date.

Daver

I got the following reply to my question regarding ownership of the car park, it's not leased by Care Parking, just managed by them:
Thank you for your further email in relation to Ashton Moss Park and Ride facility.



Further to your email I have investigated this matter with our Estates Manager who has confirmed that the land is not under our control, it is not a formal lease giving TfGM sole right to use the land and therefore bylaws do not enter into the equation. The land is owned and managed by Legal and General and it is their site rules and regulations which must be adhered to.

If there is anything further I can help you with then please do not hesitate to contact me at customer.relations@tfgm.com.