DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 48983--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: mickR Date: December 9, 2024, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ah ok (btw no idea where "doe" savers came from) ???
confusing signage
#Post#: 49010--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: b789 Date: December 9, 2024, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a suitable appeal to Mister Baywatch:
[quote]Appeal against Parking Charge Notice – Reference [Insert
PCN Number]
Date: [Insert Date]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration Number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing as the Keeper of the vehicle to formally appeal the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above. I dispute the
validity of this PCN for the following reasons:
1. Signage Discrepancy and Breach of the Single Code of Practice
(SCoP)
The BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets clear standards
for signage at parking sites to ensure clarity and fairness for
motorists. Relevant sections include:
[indent]• Clause 3.1.3(c): Signs within controlled land must
clearly display the identity of the parking operator and their
contact details. In this case, the prominent signage is branded
with "Bransby Wilson," with no clear indication that Minster
Baywatch is the operator responsible for enforcement.
• Clause 3.1.3(i): Signage must be clear and unambiguous. The
conflicting signage creates confusion about which company is
responsible for enforcement, violating this requirement.
• Clause 3.1.3(j): Signs must clearly display the parking charge
for breaches of terms and conditions. The inconsistency between
the signage undermines the clarity required under this
clause.[/indent]
The failure to meet these requirements results in misleading
information and an unenforceable contract.
2. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015)
The lack of clarity and conflicting signage also breaches the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly:
[indent]• Section 62: A term is unfair if it causes a
significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the
parties to the detriment of the consumer. The unclear signage
creates such an imbalance, as drivers cannot reasonably
determine which company they are contracting with.
• Section 68: Written terms must be transparent, meaning they
must be legible and understandable. The conflicting operator
identities on the signage at this location fail to meet this
standard.[/indent]
As a result, no valid contract exists between the driver and
Minster Baywatch.
3. Ambiguity in Contract Formation
A valid contract requires clarity regarding the parties
involved. The prominent signage branded with "Bransby Wilson"
leads a reasonable driver to believe that Bransby Wilson is the
operator managing the car park. The secondary, much smaller
Minster Baywatch signage does not provide sufficient clarity to
override this perception, rendering the purported contract void.
4. Authority to Issue Parking Charges
To ensure compliance with the Single Code of Practice, I request
that Minster Baywatch provide evidence of their authority to
enforce parking charges at this site. Specifically:
[indent]• A copy of the contract with the landowner granting
Minster Baywatch the authority to issue PCNs.
• Confirmation that the signage complies with the requirements
of Clause 3.1.3 of the SCoP, including operator identification
and clarity.[/indent]
5. Request for Cancellation
Given the breaches of the Single Code of Practice, the Consumer
Rights Act 2015, and the lack of clear contractual terms, I
request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.
Should you reject this appeal, I formally request:
[indent]• A detailed response addressing all points raised in
this appeal.
• A copy of the evidence requested above, including the contract
with the landowner and proof of signage compliance.
• A POPLA code to allow me to escalate this matter to the
independent adjudicator.[/indent]
This appeal is submitted in good faith as the registered Keeper
of the vehicle. Please direct all correspondence regarding this
matter to me.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details][/quote]
#Post#: 49079--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: December 9, 2024, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this, as always!!! Much, much appreciated.
I was just wondering though, why would they not accept an appeal
based on the fact that it was a genuine mistake of entering the
wrong reg, and since payment was made, there was no financial
loss?
[quote author=b789 link=topic=4189.msg49010#msg49010
date=1733751869]
Here is a suitable appeal to Mister Baywatch:
[quote]Appeal against Parking Charge Notice – Reference [Insert
PCN Number]
Date: [Insert Date]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration Number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing as the Keeper of the vehicle to formally appeal the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above. I dispute the
validity of this PCN for the following reasons:
1. Signage Discrepancy and Breach of the Single Code of Practice
(SCoP)
The BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets clear standards
for signage at parking sites to ensure clarity and fairness for
motorists. Relevant sections include:
[indent]• Clause 3.1.3(c): Signs within controlled land must
clearly display the identity of the parking operator and their
contact details. In this case, the prominent signage is branded
with "Bransby Wilson," with no clear indication that Minster
Baywatch is the operator responsible for enforcement.
• Clause 3.1.3(i): Signage must be clear and unambiguous. The
conflicting signage creates confusion about which company is
responsible for enforcement, violating this requirement.
• Clause 3.1.3(j): Signs must clearly display the parking charge
for breaches of terms and conditions. The inconsistency between
the signage undermines the clarity required under this
clause.[/indent]
The failure to meet these requirements results in misleading
information and an unenforceable contract.
2. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015)
The lack of clarity and conflicting signage also breaches the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly:
[indent]• Section 62: A term is unfair if it causes a
significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the
parties to the detriment of the consumer. The unclear signage
creates such an imbalance, as drivers cannot reasonably
determine which company they are contracting with.
• Section 68: Written terms must be transparent, meaning they
must be legible and understandable. The conflicting operator
identities on the signage at this location fail to meet this
standard.[/indent]
As a result, no valid contract exists between the driver and
Minster Baywatch.
3. Ambiguity in Contract Formation
A valid contract requires clarity regarding the parties
involved. The prominent signage branded with "Bransby Wilson"
leads a reasonable driver to believe that Bransby Wilson is the
operator managing the car park. The secondary, much smaller
Minster Baywatch signage does not provide sufficient clarity to
override this perception, rendering the purported contract void.
4. Authority to Issue Parking Charges
To ensure compliance with the Single Code of Practice, I request
that Minster Baywatch provide evidence of their authority to
enforce parking charges at this site. Specifically:
[indent]• A copy of the contract with the landowner granting
Minster Baywatch the authority to issue PCNs.
• Confirmation that the signage complies with the requirements
of Clause 3.1.3 of the SCoP, including operator identification
and clarity.[/indent]
5. Request for Cancellation
Given the breaches of the Single Code of Practice, the Consumer
Rights Act 2015, and the lack of clear contractual terms, I
request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.
Should you reject this appeal, I formally request:
[indent]• A detailed response addressing all points raised in
this appeal.
• A copy of the evidence requested above, including the contract
with the landowner and proof of signage compliance.
• A POPLA code to allow me to escalate this matter to the
independent adjudicator.[/indent]
This appeal is submitted in good faith as the registered Keeper
of the vehicle. Please direct all correspondence regarding this
matter to me.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details][/quote]
[/quote]
#Post#: 49080--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: DWMB2 Date: December 9, 2024, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote] why would they not accept an appeal [/quote]
Because they don't make money from accepting appeals
#Post#: 49082--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: b789 Date: December 9, 2024, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Do not for a moment imagine that you are dealing with an
organisation that has any culture of customer service. These
companies all originated from ex-clampers who found out that it
is more respectable to scam motorists without having to get
their hands dirty, thanks to the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012.
They are single-mindedly interested in only one thing, how easy
it is to scam money from all the "mugs" out there who have
little to no idea about their rights and the law when it comes
to parking tickets. This is legalised scamming.
These unregulated private parking companies issue over 41,000
PCNs a day. Yes... a day! Combined, they are a multi billion
pound business that pays no VAT and is hugely profitable.
They rely on the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who have
little to no idea about how this all works and they can easily
scare most victims into at least paying them the "mugs discount"
rate and for the rest, they use Debt Recovery Agents (DRAs) to
scare the rest into paying the inflated fee as huge numbers of
their victims ignorantly believe that these DRAs can send round
bailiffs and issue CCJs. They can't but that doesn't stop huge
numbers of "mugs" feeding their greed.
So, you can try and appeal to their good nature, which we know
doesn't work or you can play them at their own game and
outmanoeuvre them on the legal battlefield. The choice is yours.
The experience is ours.
#Post#: 49083--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: December 9, 2024, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=4189.msg49082#msg49082
date=1733769238]
Do not for a moment imagine that you are dealing with an
organisation that has any culture of customer service. These
companies all originated from ex-clampers who found out that it
is more respectable to scam motorists without having to get
their hands dirty, thanks to the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012.
They are single-mindedly interested in only one thing, how easy
it is to scam money from all the "mugs" out there who have
little to no idea about their rights and the law when it comes
to parking tickets. This is legalised scamming.
These unregulated private parking companies issue over 41,000
PCNs a day. Yes... a day! Combined, they are a multi billion
pound business that pays no VAT and is hugely profitable.
They rely on the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who have
little to no idea about how this all works and they can easily
scare most victims into at least paying them the "mugs discount"
rate and for the rest, they use Debt Recovery Agents (DRAs) to
scare the rest into paying the inflated fee as huge numbers of
their victims ignorantly believe that these DRAs can send round
bailiffs and issue CCJs. They can't but that doesn't stop huge
numbers of "mugs" feeding their greed.
So, you can try and appeal to their good nature, which we know
doesn't work or you can play them at their own game and
outmanoeuvre them on the legal battlefield. The choice is yours.
The experience is ours.
[/quote]
Thanks for this reminder and wakeup call, I should know better,
considering it's my 3rd PCN!!!
I will use appeal using the advice you provided, thank you.
#Post#: 50268--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: December 17, 2024, 3:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My partner, without my knowledge, went to appeal as the keeper
on the basis of entering the wrong reg and provided them with
two receipts from the same carpark bearing his old reg (the one
which he entered instead of our current car). Of course the
appeal got rejected (the long-ass reply attached here:
Or the gist of it here:
"Further to your appeal received on 17/12/2024 regarding the
above charge, we note your comments;
however, when this charge was issued this vehicle was in
contravention of the agreed terms and
conditions for all users of this site.
Your appeal has been reviewed along with all evidence gathered
at the time of the breach of the site
rules.
There is a contract to enter this site, as stipulated by signage
located around the car park, which clearly
states a valid payment is required for using the site, a valid
fee must cover the duration of parking. Your
vehicle was observed to contravene this condition. After having
thoroughly examined the payment
records for the date and times in question, we can find no
payment having been made for your vehicle
or a vehicle with a similar registration for the contravention
date.
We note your appeal and evidence provided showing a payment made
for the day before for a different vehicle registration however
as this vehicle was on site on the day before (22/11/2024) and
also exited the site on the day before, a payment to cover the
date in question (23/11/2024) was required to be made for the
vehicle upon returning to the site on this date as any session
must cover the entire duration any vehicle is on site.
Please find attached site signage for reference.
We have also included the sites payment log having
searched the incorrect vehicle registration mentioned in your
appeal which you used to make payment
on 22/11/2024 and which matches the evidence you provided and
confirms that no payment was made
for 23/11/2024. The ANPR log has also been included confirming
the vehicle in question was on site on
22/11/2024 and exited on 22/11/2024 and returned on the
contravening date of 23/11/2024 - a separate
visit to 22/11/2024. We have also included the payment log for
both the contravening vehicle
registration and for the incorrect vehicle registration
mentioned in your appeal.
We are therefore unable to cancel the charge as it was issued
correctly."
First of all, we paid to park for 24 hours, from 22/11 734pm to
23/11 734pm. However the NTK was for the car's entry on 23/11 at
912am, exiting at 23/11 1035am. This still holds true even if
the wrong reg was entered (which of course we didn't know then).
I can't really make out what they are saying to be honest. Are
they saying that we are not allowed to exit and re-enter within
24 hours despite having paid for it?
I know we've taken the wrong step. Feel free to reprimand me!!!
Is this case still salvageable? We're at the POPLA stage now
which I know is useless anyway.
#Post#: 50276--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: b789 Date: December 17, 2024, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So you didn't bother to use the provided appeal. Why ask for
advice then?
#Post#: 50279--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: DWMB2 Date: December 17, 2024, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A couple of points as we explore what may be salvageable:
[list]
[li]b789's points that were not included in the appeal to the
operator can still be raised at POPLA[/li]
[li]Have they offered a £20 major keying error discount? If not,
you could raise their failure to do so as a breach of the
SCoP[/li]
[li]The use of the term "pay & stay" could be argued to mean
that one must stay after paying (i.e. not leave and come back).
However, the other terms state "any session must cover the
entire duration any vehicle is on site", which, one could argue
your payment did. Here you're essentially arguing that the terms
are ambiguous regarding whether returns are permitted.
[/list]
#Post#: 50343--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: December 18, 2024, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=4189.msg50276#msg50276
date=1734474721]
So you didn't bother to use the provided appeal. Why ask for
advice then?
[/quote]
Yes, it's my fault as my partner didn't realise I was on it but
he appealed in a fit of rage (at the parking company).
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page