Ocean Parking - Metrolink Manchester

Coupon-mad

"it is owned by Network Rail and is subject to the Railway Byelaws"

"Railway Land"

- is it?

I'm a Sussex lady with no such things as trams here, but I thought this was the Metrolink Tram system...is that not different byelaws?

pret32

Coupon-mad said:

"it is owned by Network Rail and is subject to the Railway Byelaws"

"Railway Land"

- is it?

I'm a Sussex lady with no such things as trams here, but I thought this was the Metrolink Tram system...is that not different byelaws?

Hi Coupon Mad, see my previous post with map of location. Believe the land is leased to TFGM and owned by Network Rail - as station is used as a tram station and also train station.

Coupon-mad

But @Grizebeck linked the relevant byelaws (that you must attach as evidence - as a PDF and NOT as a link, because POPLA assessors won't go clicking on links).

Anyway, his link says:

"Transport for Greater Manchester, pursuant to the powers conferred upon it by the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Act 1988 and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No2) Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Acts’) does hereby, as owner of the System (as hereinafter defined), make the following Byelaws".

Nothing to do with Network Rail.

Grizebeck

This is a metrolink car park not a "northern trains" car park

pret32

Thanks both for correcting this, however I got the Railway Land point from a previous successful POPLA appeal for the same Metrolink car park as mine, so thought this term would be ok? The OP was ‘Tentatively’ and thread ‘Metrolink Careparking Fine’. 

Coupon-mad

It's not OK. someone copied something irrelevant instead of adapting it properly to suit their case. Don't copy their errors.

Needs rewording, that's all.

pret32

Coupon-mad said:

It's not OK. someone copied something irrelevant instead of adapting it properly to suit their case. Don't copy their errors.

Needs rewording, that's all.

All understood - thanks Coupon Mad. Amended first point below;

1. The location in question is not ‘relevant land’
Under Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), section 1, it states that:

“(1) This schedule applies where –
(a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.

The location in question is not 'relevant land' as defined by PoFA 2012, as it falls under the Metrolink System which is ran by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and is subject to their Byelaws; see attachment Metrolink_Byelaws_Signed__OCRd [PDF]. Since byelaws apply to the location, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'Keeper Liability' under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. As I am the registered keeper, I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I challenge the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof that this land is not already covered by byelaws. The location, Metrolink Navigation Road Car Park, being governed by TfGM Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under PoFA does not apply, and therefore Ocean Parking are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

Is this better?

Coupon-mad

Yes but as advised above you need to pick out the relevant section of the byelaws and what it says.

Also attach the DFT's Guidance as a PDF (no links for POPLA):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

It's obvious which bit to quote.

pret32

Umkomaas said:

Grizebeck said:

Coupon-mad said:

Except if the OP is able to show that this is not relevant land, in which case the PPC must never use that NTK which misleads the keeper that the POFA applies...when it sounds like it doesn't.

It will hinge upon what evidence the OP has that this piece of land is covered by byelaws.

https://tfgm.com/public-transport/tram/bye-laws

Section 14. 

Kill it at POPLA (no keeper liability - not relevant land), then formal complaint to the DVLA (misleading NtK). 

Hi Coupon Mad, to confirm the relevant section to quote would be 'Section 14 Parking Of Vehicles' for the TfGM Byelaws ?

Thanks for the DFT Guidance, I will include this as an attachment too and also quote '4. On what type of land does Section 4 apply?'. That section pertains to exclusions of POFA. Is that correct?

pret32

Hi Coupon Mad, updated Point 1 below with your recommendations. 

1. The location in question is not ‘relevant land’
Under Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), section 1, it states that:

“(1) This schedule applies where –
(a) The driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land”. Following from this, in section 3, PoFA 2012 states that: “(1) In this schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than - … (b) any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. And that: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question”.

The location in question is not 'relevant land' as defined by PoFA 2012, as it falls under the Metrolink System which is ran by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and is subject to their Byelaws; see attachment Metrolink_Byelaws_Signed__OCRd [PDF], specifically Section 14 Parking of Vehicles;

“14. PARKING OF VEHICLES

WITHOUT prejudice to the other provisions of these Byelaws, no Person shall park or drive or cause to be parked or driven any vehicle on any part of the System or otherwise in such a position or manner as is likely to cause or does cause obstruction to any Vehicle or to the System or to the Persons using or intending to use the System.”

To further support the location is not ‘relevant land’, please also see attachment Department_For_Transport_Guidance_Unpaid_Parking_Charges [PDF], specifically Section 4. On what type of land does Schedule 4 apply?;

“The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.”

Since byelaws apply to the location, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and is specifically excluded from 'Keeper Liability' under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. Furthermore as I am the registered keeper, I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I challenge the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof that this land is not already covered by byelaws. The location, Metrolink Navigation Road Car Park, being governed by TfGM Byelaws, is not relevant land and Keeper Liability under PoFA does not apply, and therefore Ocean Parking are unable to pursue the registered keeper in lieu of the driver’s details.

Is this ok to submit to POPLA now? Conscious that I will be reaching the 28 day limit soon so would like to get submitted. Thanks