Ocean Parking - Metrolink Manchester

Coupon-mad

Yes that's as good as that point can be, I think.

pret32

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's as good as that point can be, I think.

Thanks I'll get the POPLA appeal submitted

pret32

pret32 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's as good as that point can be, I think.

Thanks I'll get the POPLA appeal submitted

To confirm, submit as 'Other', and submit appeal as an attachment (PDF) and do not use the text box? Also will submit attached PDFs of TfGM & DFT evidence too

Grizebeck

Yes.......

pret32

Grizebeck said:

Yes.......

Thanks Grizebeck, all submitted. Now to relax (for the weekend at least) and await response...

pret32

Some good news.. received an email today regarding the appeal. POPLA assessed the case and decided the appeal was successful. Interestingly, the operator did not submit any evidence within the 21 days allowed - so an instant win for the case. 

I will share the full POPLA decision. 

Thanks to Coupon Mad, Grizebeck & Keith P for your help and advice throughout.

pret32

POPLA decision below;

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Stewart Hanley

Assessor summary of operator case

In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case

I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA's remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. As the operator has not submitted a case file or evidence within the 21 day period allowed, I am unable to assess the validity of the charge. I note the appellant has submitted their reasons of appeal, however I have no need to consider this information. I cannot assess the validity of the charge and therefore I consider it was issued incorrectly and allow this appeal.

Grizebeck

Good to hear

Bullies_Beware2

Just to update this thread. TfGM who outsource the management of the Metrolink franchise own the Metrolink Network freehold where it is off street. The Metrolink lines of route are largely former railway routes publicly owned by British Railways and were vested in the publicly owned Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive in the late 1980s following parliamentary approval in 1988. The first Metrolink lines opened in 1992 and further lines were taken in and opened since. Accordingly the lines of route, stations and all former station car parks were and remain in public ownership at all relevant times up to  the present  day and are therefore POFA exempt no matter how TfGM, Metrolink  and Anch Security Services Ltd may wriggle.  Metrolink refuse to discuss the matter and will slam the phone down on you if you dare to advise them of the real legal position and direct you illegally and contrary to the real legal context to Ocean Parking - which isn't even a company -merely a trading name of Anchor Security Services Ltd. I was employed by British Rail Property Board and have a clear and complete understanding of property ownership terms and facts - unlike, it seems - the current employees and legal advisors to TfGM and Metrolink who have no business wilfully and deliberately misleading the public
 

Robt350c

Hi,

Just copying this here also as more likely to get a response:-

I've just received a parking charge notice from Ocean Parking of £100, for not being parked 'wholly within a bay' at Ladywell Metrolink park and ride car park. This was on the end of a row with with no other parking space next to it and car more or less on the line of the bay.

I'd like to appeal this as it's frankly ridiculous and purely a money making exercise.

Should I just put in a basic appeal first and then when rejected by Ocean go into more detail with the second appeal? For the first appeal I was just going to provide pictures from google satellite view showing it's an end space. 

Also, the pictures provided on the letter don't clearly show the infringement and the letter suggests I can view all the pictures on their website but I can't find a way to do that.

Appreciate any help on this, would it be exempt as for the reasons described in the post above?

Thanks in advance!