Care parking - PCN Not in a Bay

iBiffy · 14 December 2018 at 3:53PM

Hi,
Yes I’m a newbie, but have spent a great deal of time reading through the immense amount of support offered, which is breathtaking.

I have read the newbie section including the One Size dit’s All template in blue.

My question is this. My vehicle received a PCN from Care at the Metrolink Car Park at Shaw & Crompton, the alleged offence being not parking in a bay.
The vehicle was parked adjacent to the end signed bay, where double yellow lines start. All within the car park area.

Your template letter refers exclusively to the provision of signage, quality and size.

I’m assuming my longer term appeal will be about the contract between landowner and myself, not signs?

Do I still start the ball rolling with the template re signs simply to secure a rejection and appeal number? Or is there a template re the land owner element?

Many thanks

IBiffy

KeithP · 14 December 2018 at 4:07PM

The keeper should send the blue text appeal that you have already found in the NEWBIES thread.

Send it unchanged - no additions or alterations necessary.

Redx · 14 December 2018 at 4:38PM

as above, the KEEPER appeals with the blue text template to get a popla code

then the KEEPER reads recent METROLINK threads of a similar nature and plagiarises one of the popla appeal examples, adapts it to suit and uploads it as a pdf to popla choosing OTHER on their site

what the driver may or may not have done is irrelevant, the keeper wins on a technicality

iBiffy · 14 December 2018 at 4:47PM

That’s fabulous, thank you. Very much appreciated.

Redx · 14 December 2018 at 4:49PM

bear in mind its the morons who blab about the driver or get caught up in the story and events who lose

a calm detached methodical and patient keeper just follows the same old welll trodden path of no keeper liability and Care, Metrolink and TfGm can get stuffed , lol

Umkomaas · 14 December 2018 at 6:55PM

I’m assuming my longer term appeal will be about the contract between landowner and myself, not signs?

There is no contract between the landowner and you. The relevant contract is between the parking company and you. That contract is embodied within the signs, nowhere else.

That's why signage is included in the initial appeal, and needs to be argued throughout the case.

iBiffy · 23 January 2019 at 12:21PM

Hi,

An update on the above if I may with a brief timeline included for ease.

The ticket was issued on 20th November 2018, and following the advice on here to the letter, I sent an appeal and dispute email on 14th December.

Care sent an automated acknowledgement on 18th November stating 'all appeals are answered no later than 35 days from receipt'

On 18th January, I received an email from appeals at careparking with an attachment reply stating

'Your appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 20 Nov 18 at **** Metrolink for the alleged contravention of Parking in No Parking area has been considered by our appeals team, having reviewed the evidence and the details supplied by yourself your appeal has been rejected. Your appeal has been rejected for the following reasons:

On 20 Nov 18 at 12:07 this vehicle, Registration ****** was parked at ******* Metrolink and was not parked in a marked bay.
When parking at ****** Metrolink the driver of this vehicle agreed to pay a Parking Charge of £100 if they did not park in accordance with the terms printed on the contractual warning signs. The contractual warning signs in place state: Park Only within Marked Bays.
This vehicle was parked in contravention of this term of the contractual warning signs by not parking in a marked bay, there is no requirement for additional markings as this area clearly is not a marked bay.
After an observation period the vehicle remained parked and the PCN was correctly issued.
Your vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice on the windscreen therefore, we deem
this as the first point of communication. In accordance with the BPA Code of Practise.
As seen in the operative images linked below there is a Contractual Warning Sign situated
next to your vehicle therefore, we would assume that the driver would have read a sign
outlining the parking restrictions in place.
You are correct that you do not need to name the driver. Regardless of the aforementioned
facts, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, covers the requirements of the liability of the charge with regard to the registered keeper. Although you state that you believe the written notice does not comply with the POFA 2012 you have not stated any grounds for this. Therefore, we can only assume that this with the rest of your appeal is cut and pasted from the internet parking forums, which we can evidence at court if required.
The signage is larger than the minimum size requirements of the British Parking Associations Approved Operators Scheme Code of Practice.
The Contractual Warning Signs in place at this location clearly state the parking restrictions in place and the cost of none compliance.

Your vehicle was parked in contravention of the Contractual Warning Signs in place therefore, the Parking Charge Notice is valid and was issued correctly.
The circumstances detailed within your appeal do not negate the parking restrictions in place at this location.
Photographic evidence supporting the issue of this PCN can be viewed by following the link and entering the vehicle registration and PCN reference number;[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]pay.careparking.co.uk[/FONT]. Copies of these photographs are available upon request.
As you appealed outside the 14 day discounted period the parking charge full amount is now due and payable.
This decision is final and no further communication will be accepted by Care Parking with regard to this appeal, therefore you are requested to now submit your payment of the monies owing.
You now have a number of options from which to choose:

Pay the parking charge.
Make an appeal to POPLA – The Independent Appeals Service by making an appeal online at
[FONT=&quot]popla.org.uk[/FONT].
- The POPLA verification code is: ********* If you opt to pay the parking charge you will
  be unable to appeal to POPLA. If you wish to appeal to POPLA this must be done within
  28 days of the date of this notification.
- By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services
  ([FONT=&quot]ombudsman-services.org/[/FONT]) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

This letter and all other correspondence received in relation to this PCN may be used to form part of our case for court action if necessary'

I'm off now to read the Metrolink POPLA appeals forums again, but I have a couple of clarification questions if I may (forgive the naivety, I'm a stickler for details) -

Is Day 1 the Date of Issue (20th), or the first day after?

Likewise, Day 57 is from Date of Issue, which would be 15th January? (Regardless of any internal deadlines for reply specified by Care as above).

No Notice to Keeper has been received, either by letter or email, (and Care's own response to the appeal was sent after the 15th. ) Happy Days.

Lastly, Care have alluded to my response being a Cut and Paste reply from 'the internet parking forums, which 'we can evidence at court if required'. Has anybody any anecdotal experience of them doing this?

Many thanks in advance

Fruitcake · 23 January 2019 at 12:34PM

The date of the alleged event is day zero. All days count irrespective of whether they are weekdays, weekends, or holidays.

No NTK ever means a win at PoPLA. No NTK after day 14 where no NTD was given, or no NTK by day 56 where a NTD was given means a win at PoPLA.

Other PoPLA appeal points are available and should be used.

Do byelaws apply at this location as that is also a winning appeal point?

Well done on the scammers noticing you are getting forum help. Please note that they will be reading this thread, so be very careful what you say and what other posters may quote.

Have you complained to your MP yet? This is the only way this unregulated scam will ever get stopped.

iBiffy · 23 January 2019 at 12:54PM

Fabulous, thanks for the swift reply.
No NTK received and the Keeper is now past Day 56, 15th January.

Noted re the scammers reading this Forum, thanks. I dont see any admission anywhere yet!!

Not sure about the bye laws, but I'll check.

And contacting my MP is next up too.

Thanks again.

iBiffy · 13 March 2019 at 12:02PM

[FONT=&quot]Hi
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I've received an update on the POPLA appeal, which is an image of 39 page reply from Care Parking, turned into a PDF. Go figure. Perhaps to stop any cutting and pasting here. Accordingly, without attaching the whole document, which includes personal details, email addresses etc on, I have to summarise as much as is feasibly relevant.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On the POPLA website, I'm offered the opportunity of a 2000 character reply, with no button to attach a file. So a PDF response seems a non starter.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Section A is their Appendix[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section B is The Signage[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]They claim that the Car Park in question ‘had clear entrance and warning signage’. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There were none at the entrance and some within the car park with some missing. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They’ve supplied multiple photographs of signage at a car park on the other side of the road - a newer car park but completely separated by a main road from the one in question, with separate access and egress points, so effectively no relation to the first. These appear to be stock photos, with varying weather conditions, and not taken at the time of the ticket issue[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It refers to being for Metrolink users only and that ‘we have seen no evidence the appellant was a Metrolink user on the day of the contravention, however this would not negate them from the parking restrictions stated on the Contractual Warning Signage’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Surely to produce a ticket is to identify the driver?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Curiously it says ‘The Appellant is referring POPLA to a PDF file for the points raised within their appeal, however there is no PDF file attached, so we are unable to comment on its context’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The PDF file was indeed attached, and listed as an attachment when it was submitted. The file contained the cut and paste appeal wording from Zimm, together with Photographs of the site in question.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do POPLA issue the appeal to Care regardless of whether the attachment is there (i.e. an automated process)? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If for whatever reason the PDF is not visible, will the reply to Care’s response still be allowed?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are 18 points relating to signage, which by and large repeat what the signs say by way of Contractual Warning, and that the signs clearly state the parking requirements and the costs of non compliance.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Within the points, it states that Care ‘are a BPA Approved Operator, ‘we have a contract with the Landowner (enc is a redacted document), and that the site is clearly signed with Contractual Warning signage throughout and entrance signage, which all complies with the BPA AOS Code of Practice’.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again there were no entrance signs.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It further says that ‘For the avoidance of doubt, bylaws relating to the Metrolink service are specific to the areas in which trams operate referred to in law as ‘The system’. As Trams do not operate within the car parks and the car parks are private land which support the systems operation, they are not part of this system. Each Metrolink Car park is privately owned and therefore the Protection of Freedoms Act applies. It is with this Act Care Parking intend to recover the full amount of this parking charge from the liable party.’[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This section ends with ‘Care Parking would therefore conclude that the driver of vehile ******* failed to comply with the contractual Warning Signage in place and that the PCN ref ****** was correctly issued.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Difficult to comply with entrance signs that weren’t there. There were signs with a lot of information on in very small fonts within the car park area.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section C is copies of the PCN and their own input screen of the Notice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section D Relates to Registered Keeper Details and Liability Trail[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Their evidence states ‘In this case the registered keeper details were applied for from the DVLA on 01 Feb 19, following the appellants appeal to Care Parking. We apply to the DVLA for keeper details 28 days after the date of issue in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme, Code of Practice. The case was placed on hold on receipt of the appeal, and the clock was not restarted until the appeal had been rejected, we place cases on hold whilst they are dealt with through our appeals system and again when being examined by POPLA. Screen shots below to support this. The Notice to Keeper issued to the appellant on 18 Feb 19 is also enclosed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The ticket was issued on 20th November 2018, and following the advice on here to the letter, I sent an appeal and dispute email on 14th December[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The email detailed that I was the keeper and would not be identifying the driver. It provided my name and address. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Care sent an automated acknowledgement on 18th December stating 'all appeals are answered no later than 35 days from receipt'. It is safe to assume that on 18th December, they had the keeper’s details, and were able to send an NTK. They didn’t send one.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On 18th January, I received an email from appeals at Careparking with an attachment effectively rejecting the appeal, but enclosing a POPLA code.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I then appealed to POPLA, with a closing date of 15th February 2018. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On the 19th February, I received a Notice to Keeper in the post, dated 18th February.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Treating Date of Issue (20th November) as Day Zero, the NTK was received 91 days after the PCN was issued.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section E shows the emails referred to and the rejection letter[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section F is entitled Images, plans etc.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It shows the 5 photos of the vehicle, taken by the issuing agent, together with 29 photographs of the signage in the car park across the main road, wholly unrelated to this car park. There are no plans.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The plans would show the proximity of the second car park and the signs.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section G refers to Other Evidence – [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Listed as Site Signage showing the Entrance signage in place and the contractual warning signage used throughout the site, and a redacted copy of Care Parking’s Contract with the Land Owner[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The signage is nothing more than a mock up diagram showing what the sign would look like, and not a photo insitu. As there were no entrance signs, a photo would be difficult.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The redacted contract is 4 pages long, dated 28.7.17[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The update on the POPLA site announcing care had replied was 24 hours before Care’s response was available to read, effectively removing one of my 7 days to reply. I have emailed POPLA as directed if a document isn’t visible but had no response. I need to reply to Care’s response by this weekend.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Care's response by claiming the existance of signage that wasnt there, providing photographs of other unrelated carparks and implying it was the car park in question is transparently dishonest. likewise claiming the PDF wasnt present.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]With no NTK received until after the POPLA appeal date had passed, they are claiming the clock was stopped pending their internal processes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What would be the best way to respond to Care's reply?
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Many thanks in advance for any help, advice you may offer.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad · 13 March 2019 at 2:30PM

On the POPLA website, I'm offered the opportunity of a 2000 character reply,

Yep that's normal, and your comments need to be bullet points (no new evidence, no re-stating or elaborating on your appeal). Just comments on their evidence.

This is worth saying to POPLA:

They’ve supplied multiple photographs of signage at a car park on the other side of the road - a newer car park but completely separated by a main road from the one in question, with separate access and egress points, so effectively no relation to the first. These appear to be stock photos, with varying weather conditions, and not taken at the time of the ticket issue.

You will win if you say this in your comments to POPLA and remind them that (whether or not POPLA have lost your PDF appeal in their system) the driver was NEVER identified and thus, the appellant keeper cannot be held liable in law, and you trust POPLA is not going to compound their failure after losing the appeal PDF in their dreadful system, by not recognising that this point alone, wins the appeal:

Treating Date of Issue (20th November) as Day Zero, the NTK was received 91 days after the PCN was issued.

But I am more worried about this, it's becoming a pattern:

Curiously it says ‘The Appellant is referring POPLA to a PDF file for the points raised within their appeal, however there is no PDF file attached, so we are unable to comment on its context’

We've seen people lose at POPLA recently and POPLA says 'there was no PDF'.

As well as commenting on the evidence using the Portal, separately email POPLA and complain that your PDF did upload but that the operators says they were not provided with it. State that this is a formal complaint about a failure of the POPLA system, and you are aware it's not the first time POPLA have 'lost' a PDF appeal a person has uploaded on their truly terrible, clunky system.

State that this has now got onto a national parking fighters' forum as fact, that POPLA have a technical issue affecting 'a large number of cases' by innocent appellants whose cases should be won, but whose appeals are not showing:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75579826#Comment_75579826

Tell them this is your person data and you require them to interrogate their system and find your PDF appeal, investigate what went wrong (again) and put the case 'on hold' while they locate the PDF and supply it to the operator.

And to confirm you have won your appeal anyway, due to the fatally late NTK.

Care parking - PCN Not in a Bay

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free