Metrolink Care Parking appeal

gerbs

Thank you, will do!

Phoebs_Le

Hi

I was wondering if someone has a good argument for the following points made by CareParking?

The contractual warning signage clearly states ‘This car park is for use of Metrolink Passengers only’ the PCN was issued at 01:58 hours, it would not be possible for you to be a Metrolink Passenger at this time, as the service was not running.
This car park is not a pay and display car park, it is a free car park for Metrolink Passengers only.
We have not seen any evidence you were a patron of the Metrolink on the day of the contravention however, as previously advised the PCN was issued at 01:58, it would therefore not have been possible for you to be a tram user at this time as the service was not running.
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.

The car was parked at a P&R on Sunday and the Metrolink used to go into town. Car was left overnight in favour of a taxi to get home. (It's illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol - no?) The car was picked up at 7am the following morning. Metrolink tickets were not saved by the driver to proof the use of the Metrolink service.

I would appreciate if someone has a good argument for this case?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

It doesn't sound like you are at POPLA stage, unlike the OP of this thread.

Please start your own thread with a bit of background, and we'll help.

I am thinking that the three arguments against that are;

(a) the point at which the car is parked in the daytime the occupants were Metrolink patrons and the terms do not say: 'by parking here you accept the contract only applies during METROLINK opening hours and the driver promises to remove your car by...pm or alternatively agrees to pay £100 for parking time beyond that point in time. Return only offered to METROLINK patrons after x am'.

and

(b) no parking licence is offered because they didn't have the above limited time offer in their signs, and they have confirmed 'Metrolink do not allow overnight parking' thus this can only be a matter of trespass, not contractual agreement/licence to park.

and

(c) The keeper has not been shown to be the driver & it's not relevant land.

At POPLA stage there will also be more points to add (NEWBIES thread post #3).

And - NEXT TIME FOR GOD'S SAKE COVER YOUR NUMBERPLATE WHEN LEAVING.

I'M PERFECTLY SERIOUS IN TELLING PEOPLE TO START DOING THAT TO AVOID SCAMS.

gerbs

Coincidental timing - I have just received my POPLA adjudication which went against me. Naffed off now!

Coupon-mad

Never mind. Can you post your POPLA Decision in the sticky for those?

Ignore Care Parking who never sue anyone. If that changes, you have a defence.

gerbs

Will do, was just saving it down.


Annoyingly, the adjudicator has ignored all my rebuttal points and has taken Care Parking's 'evidence' at face value.

Coupon-mad

OK, show us - but put paragraphs into the decision 'wall of words' in the POPLA Decisions thread (with a link to this thread, and mentioning your adversary was Care Parking, as the POPLA Decision doesn't say that).

Not here. In the sticky.

gerbs

Now posted in POPLA decisions thread

gerbs

Oops, didn't see your msg before I did it. I'll go and edit ....

Coupon-mad

Eeek, but put paragraphs into the decision 'wall of words'! About a dozen needed!