Ocean Parking - Manchester Metrolink - Parked after operation hours

cooldude255220

I've put together potential wording for an IAS appeal.

However, in doing so, I've spotted what may be a bit of a problem.

Byelaw 14 states (my bold):

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.

I am more or less happy that the car park is part of the system (for reasons you'll hopefully see explained below). However, Vehicle is defined by the byelaws in such a way that I would argue doesn't include cars:

any light rail vehicle, locomotive or other vehicle adapted to travel upon the system (whether in operational use or not).

A car is not a light rail vehicle. It is not a locomotive. And it is not adapted to travel upon the system. So in my opinion it may be that the byelaws don't actually mean the parking on that land is subject to statutory control.

Nevertheless, I have put together an appeal for critique, which can be seen here.

I've tried to keep it relevant to the key point, whilst also trying to head off some of the boilerplate rubbish seen in this post.

DE_612183

@cooldude255220 lovely appeal!!!

cooldude255220

I've been thinking about the byelaws point again.

As we all know, POFA excludes from the meaning of "relevant land", "any land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control."

It defines a vehicle as "a mechanically-propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically-propelled vehicle."

The definition of a vehicle in these byelaws is:

any light rail vehicle, locomotive or other vehicle adapted to travel upon the system (whether in operational use or not).

It is arguable that a tram (aka light rail vehicle) is a mechanically-propelled vehicle. Indeed this post on LinkedIn says it was not disputed - in the case it is referring to - that a tram was a mechanically propelled vehicle.

So, it could be argued:

The carpark is land to which the byelaws apply (for the reasons in my draft appeal).

Byelaw 14 controls parking of vehicles (and those vehicles accord with the meaning of vehicles in POFA).

If you were, somehow, to park a Tram in the car park, then that conduct would be caught by byelaw 14.

And therefore it is land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control, and so therefore it is not relevant land.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81903369#Comment_81903369

I've been pondering this issue again.

Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 4 of POFA states:

(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.

Now, I don't think it's fair to say that these byelaws impose a liability in respect of parking on that land of vehicles generally, because the byelaws restrict the definition of vehicles in effect to Trams and other similar vehicles.

And because of that, it also cannot be said that the description includes the vehicle in question, because a car is not a Tram.

So I think I've flipped back to my original thinking that it may not be relevant land after all.

James_Poisson

Those byelaws are a confusing mishmash, it also talks about:

NO person shall cause or permit to be brought onto, or permit to remain upon any Vehicle or any Station: -
a) any bicycle or other wheeled vehicle (save for wheelchairs, pushchairs and prams)….

Further down it talks about:

Traffic Regulation Order

Gr1pr

Its worth noting that the Metrolink system is run and overseen by TfGM and uses a mish mash of council land, plus railway land , including tram stops, so I doubt that any land is relevant land, be it used for train or trams. !

The fact that there are associated car parks is just the nature of the beast, leased out to TfGM to support the tram network infrastructure over rail and road

havanaaffair

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902307#Comment_81902307

Thanks for your kind effort - I appealed using your document.

To report back - as expected, it has been rejected, see attachments.

I think after weighing it up I may just pay the fine. I have a lot of life stress at the moment and the prospect of dealing with this situation which will go to court - even if it would eventually win, would cause anxiety and require capacity that I need elsewhere.

Thanks for all the input.

Screenshot 2026-03-19 at 18.40.54.png

Screenshot 2026-03-19 at 18.41.03.png

Jame4ters

It isn’t a fine and I’m sure that everyone else on here will say don’t pay it

The IAS decision, like all their there other ones, is best ignored. .

Ultimately it is your decision but this forum is very successful with helping people avoid these invoices

Coupon-mad

"I think after weighing it up I may just pay the fine. I have a lot of life stress at the moment and the prospect of dealing with this situation which will go to court".

Eh?

It's not a fine.

Nobody pays these.

Ocean don't sue people.

James_Poisson

Why on earth would you pay these greedy scammers, they are over the moon that this happened so that they can use their threaten and scare tactics, and they won't take it to court.

You are still thinking of this as a "fine" why?

That rejection has gone on and on about parking this parking that when in the middle of the rubbish is the crux of why it isn't about parking but about a commercial contract which they didn't offer, as you were not invited to be on site you were in fact trespassing:

No offer, no contract, no consideration!