Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Daver
    • By Daver 22nd Aug 18, 10:47 AM
    • 48Posts
    • 24Thanks
    Daver
    Metrolink Care parking PCN
    • #1
    • 22nd Aug 18, 10:47 AM
    Metrolink Care parking PCN 22nd Aug 18 at 10:47 AM
    I have read the stickies relating to parking on Railway related land, I am acting for someone who left the car at a metrolink station car park, went into town and collected the car the next day only to find they had been issued a PCN for parking outside the tram operating hours issued by care parking. I have read the excellent post by stationcarparkticket2018 and the process appears to be wait until the NTK then appeal using the BPA template within 28 days, the only part I would like clarification about is whether they are now allowed by POPLA to issue codes, I understand this was suspended pending clarification on bylaws, the following statement is on POPLA's website:-

    Byelaws

    In September 2016, POPLA took the decision to adjourn all appeals relating to parking charges or penalty charges issued on land subject to byelaws. We did so after receiving challenges that we did not have a remit to determine a byelaw breach.
    We accept that only a court can determine a breach of law. However, the British Parking Association expected its approved operators to allow a free route to independent appeal on all parking ‘tickets’. Consequently, parking operators issued POPLA codes when refusing appeals against parking charges or penalties issued on land subject to byelaws and the appeals ended up with POPLA.
    We initially considered such appeals because we share the British Parking Association’s view that all motorists should have a route to a free independent appeal against a parking ‘ticket’ issued by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. We consider it right that if we find that a parking charge or penalty had not been issued correctly, we can allow the appeal and require the parking operator to cancel the charge or penalty. Nonetheless, the law around byelaws is complex and we took the decision to adjourn to ensure we were not overstepping our remit.
    Since taking the decision to adjourn, POPLA has liaised with key stakeholders to establish a way of dealing with such appeals in the best interests of all involved. Through our liaison, the Department
    for Transport agreed to produce guidance on railway byelaws. We had expected to receive guidance in the second quarter of 2017. However, the 2017 general election meant that this timetable was no longer realistic and the guidance was put on hold. Now the election has taken place, we are hopeful we will receive clarification on this issue in the coming months.
    For the time being, we remind all motorists impacted by this adjournment that the parking operator involved should not pursue payment while an appeal is ongoing with POPLA.
    Due to the lack of progress on byelaws guidance, and the building backlog of cases at POPLA, some operators began cancelling parking ‘tickets’ issued on byelaws land at the first appeal, even where they were of the view that the parking ‘ticket’ had been issued correctly.
    The British Parking Association considered the situation unsustainable because, if motorists felt they could park with impunity, it would make parking management very difficult. Therefore, the British Parking Association took the decision to remove the requirement for parking operators to signpost motorists to POPLA for parking charges or penalty charges issued under byelaws from 18
    September 2017.
    POPLA recognises the impact this might have on some motorists but we remain committed to offering all motorists the right to a free independent appeal. We will continue working with all interested parties to gain clarification on this issue as soon as practically possible.
    Further updates will be provided on our website as things develop.


    Does this mean the parking companies controlling Railway carparks have to issue a popla code if challenged or can just ignore any requests for a popla code at appeal?
    Last edited by Daver; 22-08-2018 at 10:50 AM.
Page 1
    • twhitehousescat
    • By twhitehousescat 22nd Aug 18, 11:34 AM
    • 2,406 Posts
    • 2,939 Thanks
    twhitehousescat
    • #2
    • 22nd Aug 18, 11:34 AM
    • #2
    • 22nd Aug 18, 11:34 AM
    the info above is slightly misleading

    Byelaws

    In September 2016, POPLA took the decision to adjourn all appeals relating to parking charges or penalty charges issued on land subject to byelaws. We did so after receiving challenges that we did not have a remit to determine a byelaw breach.
    Time pretending I was asleep whilst under his desk , has given me insight to this sordid world
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 22nd Aug 18, 11:45 AM
    • 38,037 Posts
    • 85,375 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #3
    • 22nd Aug 18, 11:45 AM
    • #3
    • 22nd Aug 18, 11:45 AM
    The motorist has a right to alternative dispute resolution in accordance with the ADR Act 2015. The fact some PPCs won't give access to ADR is irrelevant.
    It's an act of parliament.

    Just follow the appeals process by using the template from the NEWBES thread. If you get a PoPLA code, use it.
    If you don't get a code, complain to the BPA, DVLA, and your MP that you are being denied access to ADR which is yours by right for not less than one year.

    This assumes the PPC is Care Parking, not Care Park UK, who are IPC members.

    Complain to your MP anyway no matter what.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 22-08-2018 at 11:48 AM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Redx
    • By Redx 22nd Aug 18, 2:16 PM
    • 20,391 Posts
    • 25,754 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 22nd Aug 18, 2:16 PM
    • #4
    • 22nd Aug 18, 2:16 PM
    all smoke and mirrors until you put your initial appeal in using the blue text template appeal (appeal as keeper , not as driver , to CARE/ANCHOR)

    if they are alleging a parking charge notice has been issued they will refuse the appeal and issue a popla code

    if they reply saying its a penalty charge notice under bylaws , then its likely that they wont issue a popla code

    the devil is in the detail, which in any case you take to POPLA regardless as long as they issue a popla code

    cross the bridges when you come to them , dont assume there are barriers in place , plus dont assume you know the outcome

    in my experience having seen dozens on here, they refuse the appeal and issue a popla code - same as APCOA (whereas INDIGO stick to the popla statement in post #1 and dont issue popla codes)

    my advice ? use the blue text appeal on the assumption its a parking charge notice and take it to popla if and when you get a popla code, based on previous popla appeals for CARE/ANCHOR in the last 12 months, you will find its all been done before
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Daver
    • By Daver 22nd Aug 18, 5:14 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Daver
    • #5
    • 22nd Aug 18, 5:14 PM
    Keeper?
    • #5
    • 22nd Aug 18, 5:14 PM
    As I am fighting this for a close family member and I am not the registered keeper then would the appeal be in their name or could it be in my name as a temporary keeper? Thanks for the clarifications, as ever this forum is a gold mine of knowledge and support.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 22nd Aug 18, 5:19 PM
    • 20,391 Posts
    • 25,754 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 22nd Aug 18, 5:19 PM
    • #6
    • 22nd Aug 18, 5:19 PM
    the appeal comes from the person named on the pcn, usually the KEEPER , even if somebody else is mentoring the steps being taken and is doing it in their name

    if it is a windscreen ticket being fought , then the KEEPER appeal is done in the keepers name on day 25 or day 26 , like the newbies FAQ says (and hope they fail to issue an NTK between day 29 and day 56))

    if its a postal notice, then its appealed within 28 days of receipt , by the person named on it , or a mentor in their name
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Daver
    • By Daver 22nd Aug 18, 7:02 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Daver
    • #7
    • 22nd Aug 18, 7:02 PM
    • #7
    • 22nd Aug 18, 7:02 PM
    Thanks RedX!
    • Daver
    • By Daver 4th Sep 18, 5:44 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Daver
    • #8
    • 4th Sep 18, 5:44 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Sep 18, 5:44 PM
    Question relating to this being Bylaws land, the ticket has the following printed on the back relating to Late payments and liability:-

    Failure to pay the parking charge notice within 28 days from the date of issue may result in the charge being passed to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Registered keeper details may be requested from the DVLA under reasonable cause criteria of recovering unpaid parking charges notices. This Parking charge notice has been lawfully issued and meets the criteria of schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms Act 2012. Failure to make payment of this charge within the allowed periods may result in the case being passed to our Debt recovery agent and solicitors for further action which may incur further charges being made against you.

    As this is TfGM land and is under statutory control and deemed not relevant land does POFA 2012 not apply? If it doesn't then would they legally be able to obtain Keeper details as they would the be breaking the conditions set out in POFA 2012 and therefore BPA COP in doing so as they are not legally able to enforce the charge against the Keeper

    Where all the strict conditions of POFA 2102 have not been met the parking company operator has no legal right to enforce the charge against the keeper, and also has no legal right to require the keeper to name the driver. The Operator only has the option to chase the driver for payment. In practice, however, the Operator can only enforce the charge against the driver if they can find out the driver’s name and address. But provided that the keeper does not name the driver, then the parking company operator is left without a party to pursue. The operator cannot legally purse the keeper for the charge, and has no way of finding out who the driver was.

    The following are the conditions that must all be met for Keeper Liability to apply:
    1. The ticket was issued to a car in a car park in England or Wales (note that keeper liability does not apply in Scotland or Northern Ireland in any circumstances).
    2. The car park was on “relevant land”. Relevant land is defined as private land and specifically excludes the following land:
    (a) a public highway
    (b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority
    (c) any other land where parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control (such as airports and railway stations which are covered by byelaws).
    along with numerous other points including

    In addition to the he PCN must identifying the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge.....in this case would the creditor be TfGM and not Care Parking? as it is not relevant land......no mention of TfGM on the ticket!
    Last edited by Daver; 04-09-2018 at 5:48 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Sep 18, 5:52 PM
    • 11,319 Posts
    • 11,860 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 4th Sep 18, 5:52 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Sep 18, 5:52 PM
    As this is TfGM land and is under statutory control and deemed not relevant land does POFA 2012 not apply? If it doesn't then would they legally be able to obtain Keeper details as they would the be breaking the conditions set out in POFA 2012 and therefore BPA COP in doing so as they are not legally able to enforce the charge against the Keeper.
    Originally posted by Daver
    They have 'reasonable cause' to ask the DVLA for the Registered Keeper's details for the simple reason of asking the keeper for the name and address of the owner or driver.
    .
    • Daver
    • By Daver 4th Sep 18, 7:51 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Daver
    Hence if the keeper refuses to name the driver they are snookered as they cannot persue the keeper as they cannot comply with Pofa and cannot enforce the ticket.....which begs the question, is it not just worth telling them this in the first instance to take a hike as the drivers name will not be divulged and ending all communication with them as they have no other recourse!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Sep 18, 7:54 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,470 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, that is an option. You do not have to use the template appeal.

    We merely suggest a template to stop numpties blabbing about who was driving (eeek!) and because people find it easier not to DIY.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Sep 18, 7:58 PM
    • 11,319 Posts
    • 11,860 Thanks
    KeithP
    Hence if the keeper refuses to name the driver they are snookered as they cannot persue the keeper as they cannot comply with Pofa and cannot enforce the ticket.....which begs the question, is it not just worth telling them this in the first instance to take a hike as the drivers name will not be divulged and ending all communication with them as they have no other recourse!
    Originally posted by Daver
    Yes, you can do that but it won't stop them pursuing the keeper.

    Have you not noticed their modus operandi?

    That is: hound people until they give up and pay.

    I imagine that the majority of those parking speculative invoices that are paid, are paid simply because the victim wants the problem to go away. Not because the PPC has done everything (or anything?) right.
    .
    • Daver
    • By Daver 4th Sep 18, 8:07 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Daver
    Obviously if they are told to do one then they don't get the additional pain / cost of having to issue a popla code so it makes sense to string it out and cause them the maximum inconvenience possible.
    • Daver
    • By Daver 4th Sep 18, 8:10 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Daver
    Yes, you can do that but it won't stop them pursuing the keeper.

    Have you not noticed their modus operandi?

    That is: hound people until they give up and pay.

    I imagine that the majority of those parking speculative invoices that are paid, are paid simply because the victim wants the problem to go away. Not because the PPC has done everything (or anything?) right.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Yes as you say they can persue the keeper but they wont have any legal standing though, just lots of posturing and BS and a hope that the bullying panics the victim into paying up.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Sep 18, 8:11 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,470 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Whatever you send to that PPC, they will issue a POPLA code anyway.
    • Daver
    • By Daver 4th Sep 18, 8:31 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Daver
    Yes, that would appear to be their MO but even if you lose at POPLA they still cannot do anything because they have no way of knowing who the driver is and cannot enforce the charge against the keeper so it does make you wonder why they bother trying when 98% of the tickets they issue will just be paid anyway, is it really worth it for them to continue to wage war against the small minority who have armed themselves with the knowledge available to fight them from sites like this?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Sep 18, 8:38 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,470 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I agree - so do Smart Parking, Highview & CEL, who have enough sense to cancel as soon as they see the template from the NEWBIES thread, as they are (by choice) non-POFA PCN firms.

    They know they cannot beat a keeper, a bit like Benteke of *that* club.
    • Daver
    • By Daver 4th Sep 18, 8:46 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Daver
    having read numerous threads about Care Parking I very much doubt they actually even realise that they cannot rely on POFA on metrolink sites.....pretty poor business model.
    • Daver
    • By Daver 14th Oct 18, 12:12 AM
    • 48 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    Daver
    Well.....some interesting information. after some research and numerous emails to TfGM I have found relating to Ashton Moss and the metrolink parking facilities....the advice on here is that Metrolink car parks fall under byelaws, well this it would appear that this may not apply to Ashton Moss as the land isn't owned by either TfGM or network Rail, it is in fact leased from Legal and General (who own the Ashton Moss retail park and the land around) so would it mean that the land will not actually be non-relevant land under POFA 2012. The laughable thing about this is that Care parking, who infest this particular car park, are worse than useless...the keeper appealed under their name but used an email address not belonging to them to send the email so Care Parking responded in the name of the email address owner not the name clearly given in the appeal document, they even stated in their rejection letter that they had obtained the name name and address of the keeper and that they would be persuing him ( the email address owner is male)....the keeper is female!
    To cut a long story short, they are relying on POFA according to the PCN that I have seen, however it is day 57 since the tickets were issued.....no NTK........how stupid can they get, lots of information on here about issuing NTk's that don't have POFA compliant wording....but to not even bother sending one shows how inept these parking monkeys are.
    On a serious note I think that any metrolink cases need investigating individually as it look like some sites are owned by network rail or TfGM, some are leased from private companies so would not actually come under bylaws and at some point it is possible that someone will fall foul of this.
    Section B: Case Summary and Rules/Conditions

    1. The appellant has submitted their POPLA Appeal on the grounds 'Other' as they wish to express their own views in regards to the issuing of the parking charge notice. The appellant has also attached a PDF File to support their appeal. Care Parking will answer the appellant's points respectively.

    2. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued at Metrolink Ashton Moss on the 18/08/ 2018 at 02.34 hours, for the contravention 'Parking Outside of Tram Service Hours'.


    3 Metrolink Ashton Moss is clearly signed with Entrance Signage and Contractual Warning Signs throughout, which state - 'A Parking Charge will be issued when: Parking Outside of Tram Service Hours.'. The signage also includes a pictogram of a moon and stars with a parking P which is lined through for ease of understanding.
    The Entrance Sign age states 'Parking for Metrolink Passengers Only. No Overnight
    Parking. Copies of the sign age are enclosed in Section G.


    4. The Parking Charge Notice was issued for 'Parking Outside of Tram Service Hours' as seen on the screenshot below of the Metrolink timetable, the vehicle was in fact on site outside of these times.


    5. The Contractual Warning Signage clearly states 'This car park is for use of Metrolink Passengers only' the PCN was issued at 02.34 hours, it would not be possible for the appellant to be a Metrolink Passenger at this time, as the service was not running as has been shown on the timetable above. The car park is free for Metrolink users, however being a Metrolink user does not negate motorists from the parking restrictions stated on the Contractual Warning Signage.
    6. We have seen no evidence the appellant was a Metrolink user on the day of the contravention, however this has no relevance to the issuing of the PCN. The Contractual Warning Signage states, 'A parking charge will be issued when: Parking Outside of tram service hours', it also states 'If you park on this land contravening
    the above parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge to the sum of
    100.00'. A copy of the signage in place is enclosed in Section G, additional images showing where the signage is placed are also included in Section F.


    7. There is Contractual Warning Sign age throughout the site stating the Terms and Conditions of the car park, therefore when the appellant parked on-site they accepted those Terms and Conditions, if they did not agree with the Terms and Conditions they did not have to park there and could have left the site. Care Parking have a contract with the Landowner to enforce the Parking Terms and Conditions in place, a copy is enclosed in Section G, and the appellant parked in Contravention of those Terms. Our Signage clearly states the parking requirements and the costs of none compliance.

    8. The appellant has submitted their appeal on the grounds 'Other', they have not stated any mitigating circumstances for this, however the PCN was issued due to the appellants vehicle being parked on site outside of tram service hours, as can be seen in the Operatives time and date stamped images enclosed within Section F. The appellant has failed to make any attempt to mitigate the issuing of the PCN, throughout the appeals process.


    9. However, after reading the case which has been submitted to POPLA, it is obvious that this has been copied and pasted from an internet forum. The appellant appeals to POPLA on a number of grounds, none of which can be supported within the appeal, nor do they mitigate the fact the contravention occurred.

    10. Although the POPLA case is based on information widely available on parking forums, the contents of which are often outdated and inaccurate, Care Parking will answer the appellant's points raised respectively.


    11. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply - The 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. A redacted copy of our Contract with the Landowner of this site is enclosed in Section G, the Contract gives us authority to issue and pursue outstanding charges in relation to parking activity.


    12. The Parking Charge Notice was issued to the windscreen of the vehicle, the appellant has then submitted an Appeal to Care Parking twenty-fivedays later, which is enclosed within Section E, claiming they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and "deny any liability".

    13. Eleven days after the appeal outcome was sent to the appellant, we received notification the appellant had submitted an Appeal to POPLA.


    14. Therefore, in line with the timeframes set out in the BPA AOS Code of Practice, 28 days after issue or like in this case 28 days after an appeal outcome, a Notice to Keeper has not been sent, nor have the Registered Keepers details been obtained from the DVLA, although the appellant is stating this is themselves. We would therefore assume the appellant was either the motorist at the time of the contravention or is choosing not to name the driver, in which case the Registered Keeper is liable for the PCN using the Protection of Freedoms Act.


    15. A copy of the PCN which was issued to the vehicle, is enclosed in section C, we know the appellant received this, as previously stated they submitted an Appeal to Care Parking twenty-five days after the PCN was issued.


    16. The appellant's dates regarding the Notice to Keeper are irrelevant, as the appellant had appealed to Care Parking and whilst a PCN is going through the Appeals Process, in line with the BPA AOS Code of Practice, all correspondence is placed on hold, therefore Care Parking have correctly not sent a Notice to Keeper.


    17. As no Notice to Keeper has been sent, the appellant's further points regarding this are irrelevant.


    18. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver - Care Parking have answered the appellant's points for this ground previously. However, the PCN has been appealed from it being issued to the
    windscreen of the vehicle, we would therefore assume the appellant was either the motorist at the time of the contravention or is choosing not to name the driver, in which case the Registered Keeper is liable for the PCN using the Protection of Freedoms Act.


    19. The appellant is correct they do not need to name the driver, if it was not
    themselves. However, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012) covers the requirements of the liability of the charge with regard to the registered keeper. If the name of the driver is not supplied, the POFA 2012 allows Care Parking to pursue the registered keeper for payment of the PCN.


    20. Railway Land is Not 'Relevant Land' - This 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. A redacted copy of our Contract with the Landowner of this site is enclosed in Section G, the Contract gives us authority to issue and pursue outstanding charges in relation to parking activity.

    21. 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.


    22. The appellant is quoting mis-information they have copy and pasted off an Internet Forum, however as previously advised, Metrolink car parks are privately owned and therefore the Protection of Freedoms Act applies. Metrolink have their own legal department, they would not act unlawfully, they have confirmed the Byelaws in
    place only apply to 'the system', they would not allow the parking enforcement to be
    in place if this was not the case.

    23. No evidence of Landowner Authority - This claim is baseless as no copy of a Contract has been provided to the appellant by us for them to justify their claim, for the avoidance of doubt a redacted copy of the Contract to operate is Enclosed in Section G, the Contract gives us authority to issue and pursue outstanding charges in relation to the parking activity.


    24. Care Parking are a BPA Approved Operator, we have a contract with the Landowner, enclosed in Section G, and the site is clearly signed with Contractual Warning Signage throughout and Entrance Signage, which all complies with the BPA AOS Code of Practice, copies also enclosed in Section G.


    25. In regards to the appellant's further points, Care Parking are under no obligation to provide this information, as it is commercial in confidence, therefore will only be provided in Court. However, Care Parking are an Approved Operator with the British Parking Association and as such have to provide them and the DVLA with such checks at audit. This has been done each year as required by both parties for all active sites, thus the appellants claim is inaccurate and baseless.

    26. No Breach of Byelaw - As previously advised, 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.


    27. I note that there is no attempt to mitigate the issue of the PCN and instead an approach of providing copied and pasted misinformation has been adopted by the appellant.
    28. The appellant has failed to provide any evidence to support their claims throughout the appeals process.

    29. The car park is free for Metrolink users, however as stated on the Contractual
    Warning Signage in place across the site, 'A Parking Charge Notice will be issued when: Parking Outside of tram service hours', the appellant has failed to provide any evidence they were a Metrolink passenger on the day of the contravention.


    30. As can be seen in the Operative's images enclosed within Section F, there are several Contractual Warning Signs in close proximity to the appellant's vehicle. Additional images showing where the signage is placed throughout site are also enclosed within Section F.

    31. There is Contractual Warning Sign age throughout the site stating the Terms and Conditions of the car park, therefore when the appellant parked on-site they accepted those Terms and Conditions, if they did not agree with the Terms and Conditions they did not have to park there and could have left the site. Care Parking have a contract with the Landowner to enforce the Parking Terms and Conditions in place, a copy is enclosed in Section G, and the appellant parked in Contravention of those Terms. Our Signage clearly states the parking requirements and the costs of none compliance.


    32. We have not seen any evidence the appellant was a patron of the Metrolink on the day of the contravention however, as previously advised the PCN was issued at
    02:34, it would therefore not have been possible for the appellant to be a tram user
    at this time as the service was not running.


    33. Care Parking have enclosed a screenshot from Transport for Greater Manchester's website, www.tfgm.com within Section G, which states the Opening times and information regarding Overnight Parking at Metrolink Ashton Moss. For the avoidance of doubt, we have also enclosed a copy of the Park & Ride -Terms and Conditions.


    34. Metrolink do not allow overnight parking, to ensure fair use of the parking for all
    daily tram commuters and to prevent the use of the car parks as a free alternative to long stay parking.

    35. Care Parking are a BPA Approved Operator, we have a contract with the Landowner, enclosed in Section G, and the site is clearly signed with Contractual Warning Signage throughout and Entrance Signage, which all complies with the BPA AOS Code of Practice, copies also enclosed in Section G.


    36. There is signage in place throughout the site stating the parking Terms and Conditions, copies of which are enclosed in Section G, it is also visible in the additional images in Section F.

    37. The appellant has made no attempt to mitigate the issuing of the Parking charge Notice, nor provided any evidence to support their claims throughout the appeals process.


    38. Care Parking would therefore conclude that the driver of vehicle XXXXXXX failed to comply with the Contractual Warning Signage in place and that PCN reference
    XXXXXXXX was correctly issued. At02:34, it would therefore not have been possible for the appellant to be a tram user at this time as the service was not running.


    33. Care Parking have enclosed a screenshot from Transport for Greater Manchester's website, www.tfgm.com within Section G, which states the Opening times and information regarding Overnight Parking at Metrolink Ashton Moss. For the avoidance of doubt, we have also enclosed a copy of the Park & Ride -Terms and Conditions.


    34. Metrolink do not allow overnight parking, to ensure fair use of the parking for all
    daily tram commuters and to prevent the use of the car parks as a free alternative to long stay parking.

    35. Care Parking are a BPA Approved Operator, we have a contract with the Landowner, enclosed in Section G, and the site is clearly signed with Contractual Warning Signage throughout and Entrance Signage, which all complies with the BPA AOS Code of Practice, copies also enclosed in Section G.


    36. There is signage in place throughout the site stating the parking Terms and Conditions, copies of which are enclosed in Section G, it is also visible in the additional images in Section F.

    37. The appellant has made no attempt to mitigate the issuing of the Parking charge Notice, nor provided any evidence to support their claims throughout the appeals process.


    38. Care Parking would therefore conclude that the driver of vehicle XXXXXXX failed to comply with the Contractual Warning Signage in place and that PCN reference
    XXXXXX was correctly issued.
    Last edited by Daver; 06-11-2018 at 1:24 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Oct 18, 12:33 AM
    • 11,319 Posts
    • 11,860 Thanks
    KeithP
    So who leases the car park land from L&G?

    Surely not Care Parking?

    If it is leased by TfGM or NR, and therefore covered by bylaws, then it is my understanding that it is not 'relevant land' as defined by POFA.


    According to this .. http://www.ukcarparks.info/ashton-moss-car-park-ashton-moss#sthash.BnggXNxL.dpbs it's owned by Transport for Greater Manchester.
    But I guess that could be wrong or out of date.
    Last edited by KeithP; 14-10-2018 at 1:39 AM.
    .
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

339Posts Today

1,904Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The responses to this thread are no question the best of british! https://t.co/jv5Q2ErQQC

  • RT @SMinihane87: @MartinSLewis After she received the title she addressed it in literally the first episode of the next season of the appre?

  • RT @WhichUK: ??CHRISTMAS WARNING TO PARENTS?? Don't buy any of these slimes for your kids ? they all contain potentially unsafe levels of?

  • Follow Martin