DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 50344--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: December 18, 2024, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=4189.msg50279#msg50279
date=1734475795]
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.[/li]
[/list]
[/quote]
Thank you! No, they didn't offer the 20quid discount. I will
raise these at POPLA now.
#Post#: 50352--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: DWMB2 Date: December 18, 2024, 5:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Show us a draft before submitting anything.
#Post#: 51136--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: December 27, 2024, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, would this POPLA letter work? I had help from chat gpt but
tweaked it further. Thank you!
1. Failure to Offer the £20 Major Keying Error Discount (Breach
of the BPA SCoP)
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (Single
Code of Practice) specifies that operators must offer a £20
reduced charge in cases of major keying errors. Despite this, I
was not given the opportunity to pay this discounted amount; I
have written to Minster Baywatch with proof that I have entered
the wrong reg, which is that of my previous car. I have attached
proof of having parked in this carpark previously with that of
my earlier car reg.
This is a clear violation of the SCoP, which sets out mandatory
standards for fair treatment of motorists.
As the BPA Code of Practice has not been adhered to, this
Parking Charge Notice should be deemed invalid.
2. Ambiguity in Terms Regarding Returns and Payment Coverage
The signage at this car park is ambiguous regarding the terms of
parking, particularly on whether returns to the site are
permitted.
The phrase "pay & stay" could be interpreted to mean that
drivers must remain on-site after paying, prohibiting leaving
and returning.
However, another term on the signage states that "any session
must cover the entire duration any vehicle is on site." My
payment did cover the full duration my vehicle was present
on-site, thereby fulfilling the terms of parking.
This ambiguity in the signage creates uncertainty and unfairness
for motorists, and as such, the terms should be interpreted in
my favor, as required under consumer law.
3. Signage Discrepancy and Breach of the BPA/IPC Single Code of
Practice (SCoP)
The signage at this location fails to comply with several key
requirements outlined in the SCoP. Specifically:
Clause 3.1.3(c): Signs must clearly display the identity of the
parking operator and their contact details. The prominent
signage at this car park is branded with "Bransby Wilson,"
creating the impression that Bransby Wilson is the operator.
There is 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 branding between Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch
creates confusion regarding the operator's identity, in
violation of this clause.
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.
The failure to meet these standards results in misleading
information and an unenforceable contract.
4. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015)
The lack of clarity and conflicting signage also breaches the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly:
Section 62: A term is unfair if it creates a significant
imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the
detriment of the consumer. The unclear signage creates such an
imbalance by leaving motorists unable to determine which company
they are contracting with or the applicable terms of parking.
Section 68: Written terms must be transparent, meaning they must
be legible and understandable. The conflicting operator
identities on the signage fail to meet this standard of
transparency.
As a result, no valid contract exists between the driver and
Minster Baywatch.
5. 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 much smaller Minster
Baywatch signage does not provide sufficient clarity to override
this perception. Without clear and consistent signage, no
enforceable contract exists between myself and Minster Baywatch.
6. Lack of Authority to Issue Parking Charges
To ensure compliance with the SCoP, I request that Minster
Baywatch provide evidence of their authority to enforce parking
charges at this site. Specifically:
A copy of the contract with the landowner granting Minster
Baywatch the authority to issue PCNs.
Confirmation that the signage at the site complies with the
requirements of Clause 3.1.3 of the SCoP, including operator
identification and clarity.
If Minster Baywatch is unable to provide such evidence, this
Parking Charge Notice must be deemed invalid.
I kindly request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this
Parking Charge Notice. Thank you for your time and careful
consideration of my case.
#Post#: 51341--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: December 30, 2024, 3:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi! Would appreciate some advice on my POPLA draft thanks so
much!
And happy new year!
#Post#: 51352--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: H C Andersen Date: December 30, 2024, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are compiling an appeal for the purposes of a POPLA
hearing. IMO, start at the beginning and don't launch into
lecturing the assessor on the law. How could they apply the law
anyway when you haven't set out the facts?
I am the owner of car VRM 123. The vehicle was parked at the
location on 22 Nov. and parking rights were purchased for 24
hours expiring at 7.34pm 23 Nov. This is confirmed by ** in
their letter dated *** rejecting my appeal.
At *** on 22 Nov. VRM 123 left the site and returned at 9.12am
on 23 Nov.
..and this is where your account is a little fuzzy...
...when VRM 123 returned to the site on 23rd and for reasons
best known to themselves the driver purchased parking rights
when none was needed as they intended to leave and did leave
before 7.34pm. This seems to be the root of the problem because
not only did the driver not need to purchase parking rights,
they also had a brain fog and entered VRM 567, a vehicle which
they'd previously owned, disposed of months before and which was
not on site.
Therefore as matters of fact:
VRM 123 was entitled to park up to 7.34pm on 23 Nov;
VRM 123 entered the site at 9.12am 23 Nov;
Parking rights were purchased for VRM 567 on 23 Nov. when this
vehicle wasn't on site.
The creditor's alleged breach is that VRM 123 was on site
without the benefit of parking rights. But this is incorrect as
parking rights were purchased on 22 Nov. and were still current
at 10.35am 23 Nov. when the vehicle left the site.
Is this the factual background??
#Post#: 51388--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: December 30, 2024, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is indeed rather confusing – my case that is!
So what happened in brief was:
1. Paid for 24 hour parking from 22/11 to 23/11 BUT under the
wrong reg (previous car reg).
2. Exited carpark, returned 23/11 in the same car (still within
24 hours).
Strangely, Minster Parking did not offer the 20quid keying error
discount, but now is also going on about our return on the 23/11
as being a separate entry, when it clearly covers 24 hours.
#Post#: 51401--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: H C Andersen Date: December 30, 2024, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
?
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.
So if the only car involved on 22nd and 23rd was VRM 123 and
they say that only one VRM is attached to the parking rights,
namely VRM 567, then why didn't they issue 2 PCNs, one for 22
and another for 23rd?
Are you positive that the 'wrong' VRM was entered on 22nd?
#Post#: 51419--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: December 30, 2024, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=H C Andersen link=topic=4189.msg51401#msg51401
date=1735583171]
?
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.
So if the only car involved on 22nd and 23rd was VRM 123 and
they say that only one VRM is attached to the parking rights,
namely VRM 567, then why didn't they issue 2 PCNs, one for 22
and another for 23rd?
Are you positive that the 'wrong' VRM was entered on 22nd?
[/quote]
Yes, VRM 123 entered the carpark on 22/1, but ABC 987 was the
reg that was mistakenly used for the payment. VRM exited the
carpark on 22/1 and re-entered/exited on 23/1.
No idea why they didn't issue two PCNs if they claim there are
two issues here, which is wrong reg (hence non-payment) AND
re-entering carpark without another payment.
I am confused myself now......
#Post#: 51569--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: January 1, 2025, 5:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hope someone can help me with this despite the (unintended)
mistake of appealing it with the wrong reasons!
#Post#: 51604--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: H C Andersen Date: January 1, 2025, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post their letter of rejection pl.
Your* appeal will focus on Code of Practice issues and therefore
we need to know who the hell's name is on the letter and all
other matters regarding who's who in this saga.
By when must your appeal be submitted?
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page