Care Parking - Station Car Park "Parking Charge Note"

SUPERMAC_

Hi,

I'm new here, so please be gentle! I received a "PCN" from Care Parking today for "parking in a no parking area" - it was chucking it down with rain, all the bays were taken and the car was parked at the end of a row of pays and not obstructing anyone. The car park is a free car park for the adjoining Metrolink Tram station. It is a window ticket, on the reserve they assert keeper liability. Obviously no NTK yet.

I've read the newbie thread, and by my calculations I should be emailing my first level appeal around Friday 5th April 2019 - this will be 25 days time, it's not entirely clear whether the days are business days or clear days, or whether the day of issue counts as a day? Intend to send it at 16:59 on the 5th April by email (as appeal by email is an option). Never contested one of these before - lazily just paid one previously but £100 fine for a "free" car park is obscene.

This is what i've come up with, but please let me know if any of it is overkill? Advice of any kind welcomed!

Cheers.

"Dear Sirs,

I am emailing with regards to the above reference PCN.

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require ALL photos and CCTV footage (if any) taken and an explanation of the allegation and your evidence, along with a close up actual photograph of the sign you contended was at the location on the material date.

Further, I dispute that the carpark in question at Navigation Road Metrolink station falls within the definition of "relevant land" pursuant to paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") as it is an area governed by byelaws under Point 14 of the Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transit System Act 1988. As a result, the land is subject to statutory control within the meaning of paragraph 3(1)(c) of schedule 4 of POFA, which expressly excludes land of this type from being "relevant land" pursuant to POFA. The PCN has therefore been issued in contravention of POFA, contrary to your assertion that it the PCN has in fact been lawfully issued.

In addition, as the registered keeper of this vehicle, I assert that the amount requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from this alleged incident. Parking is free for Metrolink users, and this is instead a sum sought as damages, paid for an alleged breach of your "terms". You will be aware that it is the position under the laws of England and Wales that when a sum is sought as damages, it must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which the party has suffered, and many not be punitive in nature. As the car park does not give users permission to park in return for a parking charge, there is no loss suffered.

Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, service of any legal documents by email is expressly not accepted, and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.

Yours faithfully,"

Coupon-mad

That's fine if you remove this 4 year out of date (hopeless) argument about 'no loss':

In addition, as the registered keeper of this vehicle, I assert that the amount requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from this alleged incident. Parking is free for Metrolink users, and this is instead a sum sought as damages, paid for an alleged breach of your "terms". You will be aware that it is the position under the laws of England and Wales that when a sum is sought as damages, it must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which the party has suffered, and many not be punitive in nature. As the car park does not give users permission to park in return for a parking charge, there is no loss suffered.

SUPERMAC_

Thank you so much for the speedy reply! Agreed it's a weak argument but does it do any damage to include it?

Coupon-mad

Horrendous harm. Not joking, makes you look hopelessly uninformed and easy to beat.

Redx

it rains a lot in manchester, mancunians like me are used to it (so no excuse)

as for your appeal , the initial appeal is 26 calendar days after the event , to get to CARE by day 28, appealingf as keeper

the £100 charge being obscene wont wash so dont even try it, the £100 charge has been a feature for 6.5 years on these private parking charges, and the BEAVIS case was £85, so not a hope in hell, sorry to say

your BEST BET is to read and follow the several other recent CARE METROLINK threads on here over the last 12 months, because the initial appeal WILL be turned down regardless

then its a keeper appeal to POPLA, which is easy seeing as all the work has already been done in those other threads

so remove that paragraph as advised , appeal as KEEPER on day 26 (no revealing to anyone about who was driving - that would be stupid)

then appeal as keeper to popla , as late as possible UNLESS an NTK arrives (you are hoping they will forget to send one in the post)

follow the same path as previous posters on here, dont go off piste

The_Deep

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's fine if you remove this 4 year out of date (hopeless) argument about 'no loss':

Why, if this is land covered by bye laws then surely Beavis is not
relevant. Beavis was allowed because there was a significant loss.

Please do not tell me that such an argument will lose at PoPLA. PoPLA is a farce. Only what a judge rules in court has significance imo. IMO, and I am waiting for a decent argument against it, Beavis only applies in very few of the cases we see here.

OP, this is a scam, get your MP on side.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has cleared Parliament and hopefully, this will become law shortly.

The_Deep

It is a window ticket, on the reserve they assert keeper liability.

If this is indeed land covered by bye laws they might struggle to get this past a judge.