Advice please regarding parking charge notice issued by Care parking at Stretford tram station

Dear super helpful forum folk reply received below via email today. Nothing to keeper in writing. will again access the general forum but would welcome advice to the ;response


Private & Confidential
12 June 2018
Email address
PARKING CHARGE NOTICE APPEAL xxxxxx PCN NUMBER xxxxxx POPLA VERIFICATION CODE: xxxxxxx
Dear X
Your appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 16 Apr 18 at Stretford Metrolink for the alleged contravention of Obstructive Parking 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 16 Apr 18 at 10:35 this vehicle, Registration was parked at Stretford Metrolink in an area outside of a marked parking bay.
- When parking at Stretford Metrolink trhe 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: vehicles must park only within marked bays. The vehicle was parked in contravention of this term of the contractual warning signs when the driver parked the vehicle in this area outside of a marked bay.
- are signs displaying the terms and conditions for parking on site at regular intervals throughout this site and an entrance sign is in place.
- The parking of this vehicle at this location was therefore unauthorised and this charge was issued correctly.
-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.
- You are welcome to revisit the car park as the Contractual Warning Signs are at different intervals of the car park outlining the parking restrictions in place. Please be aware you must park within a marked bay or you will receive a Parking Charge Notice.
- The images of your vehicle are linked below, please follow the link and it will direct you to the images taken of your vehicle at the time of the contravention.

Photographic evidence supporting the issue of this PCN can be viewed by following the link and entering your vehicle registration and PCN reference number. Copies of these photographs are available on request.
As you appealed outside the 14 day discounted period the full parking charge amount is now due and payable.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. 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:
1. Pay the parking charge.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA , The Independent Appeals Service by making your appeal online at.
a. Your POPLA verification code xxxxx. Please be advised that if you opt for
independent arbitration of your case, the ability to pay the parking charge at the reduced rate of £60 will immediately end. 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.
b. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services 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.
3. 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.
Yours sincerely,
For Appeals Team

I do not ike the fact they make reference to parking Internet forums and copying and pasting documents.

Dear helpful team! the Popla appeal is due tomorrow for the alleged parking offence as detailed above and this is the draft. Please can the legal wording be checked/ clarified if folks dont mind. Cribbed as advised but do not want to slip up on a technicality. The template was found from 2015 and a difference alleged breach so could be a number of errors
I really, really appreciate support/help and can understand people paying these fines as it is very stressful. Its all very technical/legal etc.
Hope youre all enjoying the heatwave, football and tennis!

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

RE: POPLA Code **********

Vehicle Registration: *******
PPC: Care parking
PCN ref: ******
Alleged Contravention Date: **/**/2018
Date of notice: **/**/2018

On **.**.2018 a ;Parking charge notice was issued for the sum of £100 charge for the alleged contravention of Obstructive parking;. The vehicle was parked on the edge of a marked bay for approximately 90 minutes in a car park where fees are not levied as this is a free parking space for the use of car park users to take the local metro-link service covering the Greater Manchester conurbation.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
1) Not relevant land for registered keeper liability
2) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3)No authority to levy charges
4)Keeper is not liable for the charge as POFA does not apply
5)Signage
6)No Notice to Keeper

1) Not relevant land for registered keeper liability

I contend that this is not 'private land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability. It's Transport for greater Manchester land and is known to have Byelaws and the right to 'registered keeper liability' is simply not available on land covered by local Bylaws. Railway or Airport land is generally not 'relevant land' under the definition within the POFA. The keeper puts the Operator to strict proof to POPLA that this particular parking area is not covered by Statute or Byelaw and is 'relevant land' (as defined in Schedule 4 paragraph 3) because it is not 'relevant land' at all.

2) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.

The BPA code of practice states:

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable

The keeper require Care parking to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.


3)No authority to levy charges.

A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowners behalf and enforce for breach of contract.
The Operator must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, a contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue charge notices at this location
The Keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles the Operator to levy these charges and to pursue these 'charges' in their own name as creditor in the courts and, therefore, has no authority to issue charge notices.
The keeper puts the Operator to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I request that the Operator produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Operator.

4)Keeper is not liable for the charge as POFA does not apply

POFA 2012 does not apply, which means Registered Keeper liability does not apply
I 1) This was not a parking incident as defined by the POFA 2012 which states:
Quote:
3) The operator may only pursue the driver
4) The operator has offered no proof as to the identity of the driver

I, therefore, respectfully request that my appeal is upheld


5)Signage

Prominent, clear signs are a strict requirement of the CoP and are especially important in an area where a driver will be leaving the car for a substantial amount of time without the need to pay. The fine is in large letters however the alleged obstruction is merely signposted in small-print' style.
The keeper puts it to the Operator to demonstrate how their signage meets the BPA's regulations.

As there was no contract entered in to I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.


6)No Notice to Keeper received.

I, therefore, respectfully submit that my appeal by upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours Sincerely,