Metrolink Care parking PCN

Redx

I would agree that TfGM has a mish mash on this due to the expansion of the METROLINK system, which started on the Bury Yo Victoria Station train line if I remember correctly, so was Network Rail and stations to start with


the section out past Old Trafford etc was also NR and I remember going on the trains and getting off there at the cricket ground at Warwick Rd station to get to Old Traffond FC when Besty was playing


so I agree that some of it will be on private land, some on council roads like Ashtron New Road , some on Network Rail, some stations like Ashton will be NR too


neither Care Parking nor TfGM make it clear and its clear from their own reply above that they had to check on ownership and probably always will have to check too


this means that we still assume that Care have no idea who the landowner is on any particular stretch, nor do they know if POFA2012 applies or not , plus they are stupid and fail to send out an NTK even though POFA2012 is 6 years old


so coufusion reignd and this means a popla appeal alleges all of it so they have to prove what the score is to popla in each and every case, but they tend to fail on the lak of NTK and failure under POFA2012 whether it applies or not


even their CEO thinks these are penalty notices as can be seen in a recent METROLINK thread on here in his reply


so let them be confused and stay confused, they took the job, they get paid for doing the job and half of what they do does not make sense (like no overnight stays for example)


a win is a win, no matter what the technicality, because I dont see abuse of patron parking when I read these threads , I see victimisation of well meaning passengers and customers in most if not all cases

Daver

Well, on the 11th hour of the 21st day careparking decided it was time to submit 'evidence' to POPLA, a couple of glaring errors stand out, number 1 being their admission that they never issued an NTK as they knew from communication was who the keeper of the vehicle is. Now it is my understanding ( and I may well be corrected ) that they MUST issue the NTK irrelevant of any communication they have from someone claiming to be keeper to be able to transfer the responsibility for the PCN from the driver to the keeper and if they don't...no keeper liability!
Number 2 being that they refer several times to their signage on site in section G of their evidence these very images are shown below. The alleged parking violation occurred over night and was photographed by their operative at 0234 am, on the 18th August 2018, which is the early hours of Saturday morning, the signs in their evidence pack show that his IS allowed, therefore Popla should cancel this ticket on this basis or on the fact that they have not followed POFA21012 rules

Number 3 being that their contract is Keoilis Amy Metrolink and is shown in their evidence pack so it would be deemed railway land, in which case POFA 2012 would not even apply, bylaws would, despite their claims it is private land!

Daver

POPLA Case: XXXXXXXXX

Section B: Case Summary and Rules/Conditions

1. The appellant has submitted their POP LA 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 hrs 2018 at x hours, for the contravention 'Parking Outside of Tram Service Hours'.


3. Metrolink Ashton Moss is clearly signed with Entrance Sign age 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 XX.XX 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 POP LA 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 compliantNotice 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.

Daver

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 XXXXXX failed to comply with the Contractual Warning Signage in place and that PCN reference
XXXXXXX was correctly issued.

Daver

[IMG][/img]

Daver

[IMG][/img]

Daver

[IMG][/img]

Daver

So to summarise,
1.The PCN should not have been issued in the first place as the evidence of the signs they have submitted show clearly that parking Is allowed overnight on a friday and saturday night

2. They state that they did not issue a NTK, and freely admit to that, but are relying on POFA 2012 but have not followed the correct procedure to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, they do no know the driver but appear to make assumptions that it may be the appellant that is the driver but using pofa transfers the liability to the keeper anyway.

3, POFA 2012 does not apply as their contract is with Keolis Amy Metrolink so this is railway land and therefore not relevant land.


4 The landowner contract does not show any map / boundaries.

Anyone feel free to comment, just in the process of drafting a rebuttal to their 'evidence' but clearly the sinage they have provided to POPLA proves there was no actual contravention!

Daver

KeithP wrote: »

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.

The land is leased from L & G by Keolis Amy Metrolink ( which appears to be who care parking have a contract with) this was confirmed by TfGM in email correspondance with them, this was their reply..
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.

Daver

My rebuttal, to be submitted to Popla, to their evidence will be as follows:-

The amount requested on the PCN is not relevant / correct as the appellant is the registered keeper and the PCN was issued to the driver. Care Parking has no evidence that they have transferred liability from the driver to the Registered keeper and that the requirements of PoFA 2012 were followed correctly.
No notice to keeper was ever served, which is admitted in the care parking evidence pack, and this is necessary if the registered keeper is being pursued. The only way Care parking can transfer liability from driver to the registered keeper is by using the provisions of the PoFA 2012 and correctly following the procedure laid out. Therefore as Care parking have not followed the requirements laid out there can be no liability transferred from the driver, who is unknown to them, to the registered keeper.
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 registered keeper is not responsible for actions of the driver.
Care Parking 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, this does not demonstrate that Care Parking have the land owners authority to operate on the land in question.
The signage provided in care parking’s evidence pack in section G and referenced in their summary clearly states that there is no overnight parking except Friday and Saturdays, as the alleged contravention was the early hours of Saturday 18th August 2018 there has been no contravention and therefore the ticket was not correctly issued, this is clearly stated in their evidence.

Character count including spaces is 1997 !!