Care parking windscreen PCN - outside BB Bay marking Whitefield Metrolink Free carpark , Bury new Rd Manchester

[karbot]

Careparking

 

where: Whitefield Metrolink Free carpark , Bury new rd , Whitefield, Manchester. (behind the station)

 

 

Hi I hope you can all help me with this query on behalf of my father who is 80 years old.

 

Attached are two photographs of my father's car parked clearly in a disabled bay but slightly too far to the right hand side.

 

He had to park this way because on arrival the original car in the left-hand bay was parked at an angle and was impeding into the disabled bay, forcing him to part to the right hand side. He correctly displayed his disabled badge.

 

My mother needs to have a full door opening access as a passenger and she is also 83 years old and is not very mobile. She was the passenger so he had to have space for her to get out.

 

On returning to the car sometime later the original car had been replaced with the one in the photograph and he had a parking ticket for failing to park within the designated bay.

 

He appealed to the parking company on the grounds that he had not impeded any other vehicles or prevented another vehicle parking in another bay and also mentioned that the car adjacent to the left HS has caused him to have to move over and that the car had been replaced since his return.

 

As you can quite clearly see from the photographs there is plenty of room to the right hand side and the parking bay disabled chevrons can clearly be seen. I presume this is to allow access for a door to be opened fully for example, wheelchair access.

 

As typically expected the parking company denied the appeal, ignored his explanation totally and sent him a popla code to start the next process to appeal to Popla.

 

I have used this site previously with great success and really appreciate the knowledge that some of you on here have. However whilst he's not denying parking over the bay line, they're are circumstances that forced him to use this bay as others were available either.

 

I am unsure of the correct argument to use with popla as clearly he is not impeding any other drivers which is the reason I would expect for parking wholly inside a bay.

 

Before we write to appeal again I would appreciate any advice you may have.

 

Thank you

5.pdf

4.pdf

[renegadeimp]

does it state penalty charge, or parking charge?

 

Did you get a ticket on the windscreen? If so, then you do absolutely nothing until you recieve an NTK which will be between 4-8 weeks time.

 

Also, just for fun, their signage is non compliant.

[disgruntled2007]

Perhaps if he’d reversed in...

[dx100uk]

really helpful reply disgruntled....

 

can you clarify where you have gotten the word PENALTY charge from please

 

dx

[karbot]

sorry slip of the pen yes " parking charge notice"

 

fo clarity he got a ticket on the window, waited 28 days and got the NTK within the 28 days - it was only then did he mention it to me. He then appealed by letter which was rejected and sent a popla code.

[DragonFly1967]

OK, I think we're going to need some clarity on the dates here.

 

Could you copy and paste both sections (for NtD and NtK) of this post please and fill in all the relevant bits.

[dx100uk]

thread title updated

[Bazooka Boo]

IMO if the rest of the signs are like the one posted, then they've not got a cat in hells chance.......

[renegadeimp]

he got a NTK BEFORE 28 days? then theyre out of luck. It must be sent within a set timeframe. Not outside it.

 

Also, as i said, the signage is non compliant, so theyre screwed from the start. You don't go telling them this of course but you use it as ammo if they are stupid enough to chase it through legal avenues.

[ericsbrother]

father appealed? You have been here a number of times before for help with private parking so why didnt you stop your father from dropping himself in it?

 

The signage isnt compliant with the requirements of identifying who is offeringa contract as specifies in the POFA so no liability for anyone to the company.

 

Also the idea of the hatched markings in a disabled bay is to allow people to access the vehicle

 

if the passenger is disabled then parking as he is to allow her out is perfectly reasonable to anyone but a money grabbing parking co.

 

Their sign makes it clear they are SOLEY employed to maximise parking so this demand is outside their remit as it does not affect anyone else's parking whereas overlapping a normal parking space may well limit available spaces.

 

In my mind this means that there is no cause for them to issue a ticket in the first place as they have acted beyond their powers.

 

My advice?

 

he can appeal to POPLA but they wont consider an appeal based on the law,

just on the few topics they are allowed to consider as part of the biased contract they are employed under

 

best to just let them send out more letters and then tell them where to go when they threaten action.

Any paperwork they do send will have to conform to the requirements of the POFA even though they wont be a NTK.

 

Let them write, post up what they send here and we will take it apart as I'm sure they will make mistakes as they cant write a sign priperly

Edited February 12, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[karbot]

just to add some clarity and factual information - he now tells me that he only has had a PCN on the windscreen 20/12/17

 

, He appealed as per the PCN instructions 30/12/17

 

He has Never had a NTK sent to him. (I presume this would be because he appealed and admitted being the driver.)

 

received a reply 7/02/18 denying the appeal.

[karbot]

Q. if we appeal to POPLA using the common sense and the obvious unobstructed parking reasoning . If POPLA turn down the appeal does that weaken our position if we eventually continue via a County court hearing?

 

Otherwise I will follow Ericsbrother's advice and we will sit tight for a bit of fun ahead.

[DragonFly1967]

Appeal rejection by (don't)Care Parking is to be expected. There's no profit in allowing appeals.

 

I assume that they've issued a POPLA code?

 

(don't)Care Parking have never taken a case to court. So I wouldn't be paying them regardless of anything else.

 

Looking in to this has also raised another interesting point. Whilst this may be the Metrolink, a lot of "tram" services use existing and disused (or shared) network rail assets. Which could mean that this station, and it's associated car park, are not relevant land and are therefore not subject to POFA as it would be a byelaw offence. I'll do some research on that. It won't help in this case, but may be useful in the future.

 

Such a shame that he's already appealed. Keeping quiet may have been an easy win.

[DragonFly1967]

Q. if we appeal to POPLA using the common sense and the obvious unobstructed parking reasoning . If POPLA turn down the appeal does that weaken our position if we eventually continue via a County court hearing?

 

Otherwise I will follow Ericsbrother's advice and we will sit tight for a bit of fun ahead.

 

Not at all. POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist. And as I've just said in my other post, don't care parking have never been seen anywhere near a court, so that's unlikely.

 

Your Father will get lots of begging and increasingly threatening letters from DCA's though, but they have as much power as a blown lightbulb and can safely be completely ignored.

[ericsbrother]

no such thing as unobstructed parking in POPLA world so why waste effort on that as an appeal. Does it weaken your case in court? no.

as they have failed procedurally better to sit tight and let them waste their money on this. The contractual matters or lack of a condition about obstructive parking will be better than arguing about POFA as many judges dont realise it overrides comon law ( god knows how they can get that wrong but they do)

[silverfox1961]

Hi

With the rejection of appeal, did they give a POPLA code? If so, I would use it, even if it was just for the fact it will cost Care Parking money with no guarantee of a win.

 

Even if POPLA rejected your appeal, Care Parking would have to take court action to get their pound of flesh and, as has been mentioned, they don't do court!