Metrolink PCN at East Didsbury

Lord_Didsbury

I got a ticket at East Didsbury Metrolink for parking there overnight. Issued by Care Parking.

After reading the FAQs and other metrolink posts I reckoned the advised approach is not to name the driver and, assuming the land is owned by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), would win an appeal at the POPLA stage. Ie, byelaws would apply and they can’t go after the owner.

However, I’ve read this judgement where the appeal failed because it WAS on TfGM land and byelaws do not apply! Therefore, I’m confused.

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75769502&highlight=metrolink

Did POPLA get it wrong in their judgement, is advice on the forums wrong, did I misunderstand the advice?
what is the correct approach?

(PS, sorry, wouldn't let me properly add in a hyperlink as a new user)

Le_Kirk

Is it a Penalty Charge Notice or a Parking Charge Notice? Penalty would be bye-laws and Parking from a PPC.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

Did POPLA get it wrong in their judgement,

Yes but the are inconsistent and their wrong decisions are not binding.

So the advice there and the POPLA appeal was correct and has merit.

The_Deep

If this is land covered by bye-laws there is very little they can do but write scary letters. Please answer Le Kirk's question in post number 2.

Lord_Didsbury

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Is it a Penalty Charge Notice or a Parking Charge Notice? Penalty would be bye-laws and Parking from a PPC.

Thanks for the reply.... it is a Parking Charge Notice.

Does this change my approach?

thganks

The_Deep

It does indeed. Can you not find out if the land is or is not covered by bye-laws? Why do PoPLA think that it is not?

Lord_Didsbury

The_Deep wrote: »

It does indeed. Can you not find out if the land is or is not covered by bye-laws? Why do PoPLA think that it is not?

Just to clarify something.
1. despite googling I can't find out who owns the land
2. the other POPLA judgement I quoted was for a different metrolink station. In that instance, even though the land was owned by TfGM POPLA ruled that it was private land and byelaws didn't apply

That's why I'm a bit perplexed.
If it is private land, what should my approach be?
OR should I assume it is TfGM land and appeal on the basis that it is subject to byelaws... and wait to see what happens?

Lord_Didsbury

Actually, I've discovered the land was council owned allotments that were closed in order to make it into a car park for the metrolink station.
I think the council still own it and have leased it to TfGM for 20 years.

"Accordingly, the Council set out the outline terms and conditions for the grant of a 20year lease to TfGM restricted to the purpose of public Park and Ride at a figure of£400k. The lease would also include a rolling development break option after 10years, which will enable MCC to retrieve the land should planning permission begranted for development. The £400k is by way of compensation to MCC for the costs relating to the previousrelocation of the allotments, though represents a commuted rental for parking use fora 20 year lease"

Is that good or bad news?

Coupon-mad

the other POPLA judgement I quoted was for a different metrolink station. In that instance, even though the land was owned by TfGM POPLA ruled that it was private land and byelaws didn't apply

That's why I'm a bit perplexed.

I already answered that.

POPLA were wrong and the person needed to use the LGO Kent decision to support their case to force POPLA to understand something they clearly do not.

I think the council still own it and have leased it to TfGM for 20 years.

"Accordingly, the Council set out the outline terms and conditions for the grant of a 20year lease to TfGM restricted to the purpose of public Park and Ride at a figure of£400k. The lease would also include a rolling development break option after 10years, which will enable MCC to retrieve the land should planning permission begranted for development. The £400k is by way of compensation to MCC for the costs relating to the previousrelocation of the allotments, though represents a commuted rental for parking use fora 20 year lease"

Is that good or bad news?

It's good news but quite a task for you to go one step further with your evidence for POPLA than the other poster did (and theirs was good).

You can use the quote you found, and you also need to use the LGO Kent decision (search the forum) to support their case to force POPLA to understand something they clearly do not.

Show us your POPLA draft going in strongly about the council ownership meaning that a parking firm CANNOT use the POFA and it has nothing at all to do with byelaws.

Lord_Didsbury

thanks very much for that, Coupon Mad!
i'll get it drafted