DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 51644--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: January 2, 2025, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are the important bits from their reply!
HTML https://imgur.com/a/sugvsHb
I have about 10 more days to submit my POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 51666--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: b789 Date: January 2, 2025, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It really doesn't matter about the keying error. If the contract
is invalid, then there can be no contract.
The sign says Bransby Wilson, a completely separate legal entity
from Minster Baywatch. The fact that there may be a second,
smaller sign with Minster Baywatch on it is not enough for them
to rely on it.
There is ambiguity. The CRA 2015 states that if a term in a
consumer contract or a consumer notice could have different
meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is
to prevail.
There is nothing else that needs considering. If the POPLA
assessor cannot understand that, then you can ignore their
decision and let Minster Baywatch try to take you to court where
they would get a thrashing, not for the first time, over this
exact same issue.
All this faffing over the keying error is irrelevant. If a large
sign displays the name "Bransby Wilson" prominently but a much
smaller sign underneath mentions "Minster Baywatch," there is
confusion about who is managing the car park, who is responsible
for enforcing the terms, and who has the authority to issue a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
Since there are different interpretations of who the contractual
party is (Bransby Wilson or Minster Baywatch), the CRA 2015
requires that any ambiguity be resolved in favour of the
consumer. You simply argue that the unclear signage invalidates
any contract allegedly formed with Minster Baywatch.
Request evidence that Minster Baywatch has the right to enforce
parking in the car park, given the prominence of Bransby
Wilson's branding. I will bet £100 that Minster Baywatch does
not have a contractual right to issue PCNs in their own name
that location. Put them to strict proof.
You can also include the other argument about "Pay and Stay" and
the 24 hours. Whether that means you can enter and leave
multiple times is ether specifically stated in the terms (it
doesn't appear to be) or it isn't. Again, ambiguity in the
contract.
Throw the CRA 2015 Section 69 at the POPLA assessor and let them
argue why they do or do not accept it. If they don't, so what? A
POPLA negative decision is not binding on you.
#Post#: 51668--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: DWMB2 Date: January 2, 2025, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=4189.msg51666#msg51666
date=1735831121]
There is nothing else that needs considering.
[/quote]
Perhaps, but I can see little downside to pointing out other
issues with Minster's case. That said, I'd lead with the
signage.
#Post#: 51690--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: H C Andersen Date: January 2, 2025, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion you can get to the same end but after setting out
exactly what the sign(s) say(as far as is even-handed and
relevant to the argument), and then by a process of examination
show what it is you're setting out to establish.
Perhaps:
As can be seen, the prominent sign states:
Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions
Please note that this car park is privately owned
Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd and the owners of this site
accept no [general disclaimer]
BPA Member of the British Parking Association
On a lower yellow panel there are the following:
Minster Baywatch Ltd is authorised by the landowner to
***(operate??) this car park on their behalf.
The car park conditions are set out within this notice..
..and thereafter the writing is indistinct.
BPA Approved Operator logo.
From the BPA's website:
BPA Member: Bransby Wilson
BPA Approved Operator: Minster Baywatch.
From the Single Code of Practice(which applies in accordance
with its published timetable):
Parking Operator ...a person who...is entitled to recover a
parking charge from the driver. The creditor.
From PoFA
"parking charge”—
(a)
in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of
a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or
charge
From the Notice to Keeper (issued on Minster Baywatch headed
paper):
Minster Baywatch Ltd(the creditor).
Then I suggest you draw this together, possibly along these
lines:
The prominent sign clearly implies(any reasonable person would
say states) that BWPS manage the site on behalf of the landowner
- the contrary cannot reasonably be argued given BWPS attachment
to the disclaimer for loss/damage etc.
However, BWPS are not Approved Operators of any Accredited Trade
Association and therefore not permitted to access DVLA data.
BWPS is the only name attached to the prominent sign therefore
they are deemed to offer the contract terms on behalf of the
unnamed landowner.
The SCoP makes it clear that only the Parking Operator is
entitled to recover a Parking Charge and is therefore the
'creditor'.
However, the NTK clearly states that MBL are the 'creditor'
without any reference, by way of a statement either explicit or
implicit, that another party is the 'creditor' in law as regards
the Parking Charge.
I suggest that it must be clear to the assessor what is
happening. BWPS secure a contract to manage the site and offer
parking terms on behalf of the landowner. However, by virtue of
not being a BPA Approved Operator they are unable to access DVLA
data in order to identify the keeper. They have therefore
contracted a third party who is a legal stranger to the contract
to issue parking charges. But instead of this company, BWL,
identifying themselves as an agent of the principal, BWPS, they
are claiming to be the creditor in their own right.
I respectfully submit that this is contrary to the requirements
of the SCoP and therefore recovery of the Parking Charge by BWL
cannot be endorsed by POPLA and my appeal must be allowed.
By way of a parallel example, the assessor is probably aware
that in the public sector contracting out of penalty charge
enforcement by Enforcement Authorities(councils) is commonplace.
However, at all times the penalty is payable to the Enforcement
Authority and not the contractor. I could also add that
consideration of formal representations is a function restricted
by law to Enforcement Authorities. Similarly with the SCoP which
requires Parking Operators to consider appeals in a manner
commensurate with their Approved Operator status and not, as
here, to contract out to a third party - (OP I did ask you for
the full reply but you only posted what you considered to be the
gist of it. Pl post all 4 corners of their reply )
It would be useful to see in detail what the yellow panel says
because this would probably give rise to a separate strand of
analysis along the lines of 'even if it was accepted that the
wording of the lower panel in some way authorised BWL to act on
BWPS's behalf such that they could be considered to be the
creditor, this could not be considered to have been conveyed to
the driver by virtue of the sign's lack of prominence and its
minute font size etc. etc.
And then you have other arguments. But IMO set out the facts
upon which you want to rely and then analyse, compare, contrast
and conclude.
#Post#: 52082--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: January 6, 2025, 4:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks everyone for their input!
With the help of AI, I've put this POPLA appeal together. It's a
long one. so bear with me..
Appeal Basis: This appeal is based on the principle that unclear
signage invalidates any alleged contract formed with Minster
Baywatch, as per consumer protection law, and that Minster
Baywatch has failed to demonstrate the right to enforce parking
terms at this location.
Legal Framework: Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015),
Section 69 states:
"If a term in a consumer contract or a consumer notice could
have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to
the consumer is to prevail."
The ambiguous and conflicting signage present at the site,
coupled with the unclear role of Minster Baywatch as opposed to
Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS), creates multiple
interpretations of who the contractual party is. Consequently,
the CRA 2015 requires any ambiguity to be resolved in favour of
the consumer. This invalidates any alleged contract with Minster
Baywatch.
Signage Observations:
Prominent Signage:
The most prominent signage at the car park entrance states:
"Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions.
Please note that this car park is privately owned.
Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd and the owners of this site
accept no [general disclaimer]."
This signage clearly implies that Bransby Wilson Parking
Solutions (BWPS) manages the site on behalf of the landowner.
Furthermore, the prominent sign includes the BPA Member logo
with the name "Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions", not Minster
Baywatch.
Secondary Signage:
A lower, less prominent yellow panel contains the following
text:
"Minster Baywatch Ltd is authorised by the landowner to operate
this car park on their behalf. The car park conditions are set
out within this notice..."
However, this secondary sign is unclear, as the text beyond
"...the car park conditions are set out within this notice..."
becomes indistinct. This means the terms and conditions are not
legible and therefore unenforceable.
BPA Website: From the BPA website:
BPA Member: Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions.
BPA Approved Operator: Minster Baywatch.
This creates further ambiguity about which party is the "Parking
Operator" entitled to recover the parking charge as defined by
the BPA and the relevant Code of Practice.
Single Code of Practice (SCoP): The SCoP defines a "Parking
Operator" as:
"A person who...is entitled to recover a parking charge from the
driver. The creditor."
The SCoP makes it clear that only the Parking Operator is
entitled to recover a parking charge. The prominent signage
suggests BWPS is managing the site, but the Notice to Keeper
(NTK) issued by Minster Baywatch states that Minster Baywatch
Ltd is the "creditor." There is no explicit or implicit
indication that Minster Baywatch is acting as an agent for
Bransby Wilson, leading to a contradiction that must be resolved
in favour of the consumer under CRA 2015 Section 69.
Contradictions in the Parking Contract:
Prominent Signage: BWPS appears to be the party offering parking
terms on behalf of the landowner. However, BWPS is not a BPA
Approved Operator and therefore cannot access DVLA data to issue
parking charges.
Notice to Keeper (NTK): Minster Baywatch is claiming to be the
"creditor" without referencing BWPS as the principal.
This suggests that BWPS has secured the contract to manage the
site but has subcontracted Minster Baywatch to issue parking
charges. Instead of Minster Baywatch identifying themselves as
an agent of BWPS, they claim to be the "creditor" in their own
right. This approach violates the SCoP, as the actual
contractual party—BWPS—is not an Approved Operator.
Request for Evidence: To clarify the ambiguity:
I request evidence that Minster Baywatch has the contractual
right to enforce parking in this car park, given the prominence
of BWPS branding.
Evidence that Minster Baywatch is authorised to issue parking
charges on behalf of the landowner in this location.
Without such evidence, Minster Baywatch does not have the
contractual right to issue PCNs in their own name at this site.
Ambiguity of Terms ("Pay and Stay" and Multiple Visits): The
terms and conditions fail to clarify whether "Pay and Stay"
permits multiple entries and exits within a 24-hour period. As
the terms do not explicitly state otherwise, ambiguity arises.
In line with CRA 2015 Section 69, this ambiguity must be
resolved in favour of the consumer, allowing for multiple visits
within the paid period.
Conclusion:
The unclear and conflicting signage invalidates any alleged
contract between Minster Baywatch and the consumer.
The NTK incorrectly identifies Minster Baywatch as the
"creditor," contrary to the SCoP requirements.
Minster Baywatch must provide evidence of their authority to
enforce parking charges at this site.
The ambiguous "Pay and Stay" terms must be resolved in favour of
the consumer, per CRA 2015 Section 69.
Given these points, I respectfully request that this appeal is
upheld and the parking charge is cancelled.
#Post#: 52228--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: DWMB2 Date: January 7, 2025, 3:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't rely on AI to draft things for you. HC Andersen has
provided some pointers above.
Order your points numerically to help the flow of the appeal.
You need to tidy up the punctuation too - some sentences contain
multiple colons ":" which just looks untidy.
[quote]BPA Website: From the BPA website:
BPA Member: Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions.
BPA Approved Operator: Minster Baywatch.[/quote]
It's not clear what your point is here.
#Post#: 52368--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: January 8, 2025, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=H C Andersen link=topic=4189.msg51690#msg51690
date=1735840996]
In my opinion you can get to the same end but after setting out
exactly what the sign(s) say(as far as is even-handed and
relevant to the argument), and then by a process of examination
show what it is you're setting out to establish.
Perhaps:
As can be seen, the prominent sign states:
Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions
Please note that this car park is privately owned
Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd and the owners of this site
accept no [general disclaimer]
BPA Member of the British Parking Association
On a lower yellow panel there are the following:
Minster Baywatch Ltd is authorised by the landowner to
***(operate??) this car park on their behalf.
The car park conditions are set out within this notice..
..and thereafter the writing is indistinct.
BPA Approved Operator logo.
From the BPA's website:
BPA Member: Bransby Wilson
BPA Approved Operator: Minster Baywatch.
From the Single Code of Practice(which applies in accordance
with its published timetable):
Parking Operator ...a person who...is entitled to recover a
parking charge from the driver. The creditor.
From PoFA
"parking charge”—
(a)
in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of
a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or
charge
From the Notice to Keeper (issued on Minster Baywatch headed
paper):
Minster Baywatch Ltd(the creditor).
Then I suggest you draw this together, possibly along these
lines:
The prominent sign clearly implies(any reasonable person would
say states) that BWPS manage the site on behalf of the landowner
- the contrary cannot reasonably be argued given BWPS attachment
to the disclaimer for loss/damage etc.
However, BWPS are not Approved Operators of any Accredited Trade
Association and therefore not permitted to access DVLA data.
BWPS is the only name attached to the prominent sign therefore
they are deemed to offer the contract terms on behalf of the
unnamed landowner.
The SCoP makes it clear that only the Parking Operator is
entitled to recover a Parking Charge and is therefore the
'creditor'.
However, the NTK clearly states that MBL are the 'creditor'
without any reference, by way of a statement either explicit or
implicit, that another party is the 'creditor' in law as regards
the Parking Charge.
I suggest that it must be clear to the assessor what is
happening. BWPS secure a contract to manage the site and offer
parking terms on behalf of the landowner. However, by virtue of
not being a BPA Approved Operator they are unable to access DVLA
data in order to identify the keeper. They have therefore
contracted a third party who is a legal stranger to the contract
to issue parking charges. But instead of this company, BWL,
identifying themselves as an agent of the principal, BWPS, they
are claiming to be the creditor in their own right.
I respectfully submit that this is contrary to the requirements
of the SCoP and therefore recovery of the Parking Charge by BWL
cannot be endorsed by POPLA and my appeal must be allowed.
By way of a parallel example, the assessor is probably aware
that in the public sector contracting out of penalty charge
enforcement by Enforcement Authorities(councils) is commonplace.
However, at all times the penalty is payable to the Enforcement
Authority and not the contractor. I could also add that
consideration of formal representations is a function restricted
by law to Enforcement Authorities. Similarly with the SCoP which
requires Parking Operators to consider appeals in a manner
commensurate with their Approved Operator status and not, as
here, to contract out to a third party - (OP I did ask you for
the full reply but you only posted what you considered to be the
gist of it. Pl post all 4 corners of their reply )
It would be useful to see in detail what the yellow panel says
because this would probably give rise to a separate strand of
analysis along the lines of 'even if it was accepted that the
wording of the lower panel in some way authorised BWL to act on
BWPS's behalf such that they could be considered to be the
creditor, this could not be considered to have been conveyed to
the driver by virtue of the sign's lack of prominence and its
minute font size etc. etc.
And then you have other arguments. But IMO set out the facts
upon which you want to rely and then analyse, compare, contrast
and conclude.
[/quote]
Apologies, please find the full letter from minster baywatch
here:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/3MmJxlj
#Post#: 52392--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: b789 Date: January 8, 2025, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to make a POPLA appeal and put Minster Baywatch to
strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the
landowner that permits them to issue PCNs in their own name. It
must also be pointed out that the signs at the location show
that any contract is formed with Bransby Wilson, a completely
separate legal entity. This is evidenced from the prominent
signs.
The rest of the argument about Pay & Stay is secondary.
#Post#: 53911--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: January 18, 2025, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I have appealed to POPLA with the following (sorry, didn't post
it here to be vetted as I realised I only had one day left do
so)
"Appeal Basis: This appeal is based on the principle that
unclear signage invalidates any alleged contract formed with
Minster Baywatch, as per consumer protection law, and that
Minster Baywatch has failed to demonstrate the right to enforce
parking terms at this location.
Legal Framework: Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015),
Section 69 states:
"If a term in a consumer contract or a consumer notice could
have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to
the consumer is to prevail."
The ambiguous and conflicting signage present at the site,
coupled with the unclear role of Minster Baywatch as opposed to
Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS), creates multiple
interpretations of who the contractual party is. Consequently,
the CRA 2015 requires any ambiguity to be resolved in favour of
the consumer. This invalidates any alleged contract with Minster
Baywatch.
Observations:
1: The most prominent signage at the car park entrance states:
"Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking
Solutions.”
This signage clearly implies that Bransby Wilson Parking
Solutions (BWPS) manages the site on behalf of the landowner.
2: A lower, less prominent yellow panel contains the following
text: "Minster Baywatch Ltd is authorised by the landowner to
operate this car park on their behalf.”
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.
Conclusion:
The unclear and conflicting signage invalidates any alleged
contract between Minster Baywatch and the consumer.
I respectfully submit that this is contrary to the requirements
of the Single Code of Practice and therefore recovery of the
Parking Charge by Minster Baywatch cannot be endorsed by POPLA
and my appeal must be allowed."
Minster Baywatch has returned with their reply, and I have 6
more days to submit comments.
Their replies here:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/knfy2iF
Thanks so much in advance for any input!
#Post#: 53930--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: b789 Date: January 18, 2025, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You didn't put them to strict proof that the contract with the
landowner authorises the operator to issue PCNs in their own
name. Have they provided an unredacted contract flowing from the
landowner to Minster Baywatch? You ave not shown all the rest of
their evidence pack.
Did you not send a photo of the signage with your POPLA appeal
as evidence of the allegation about lack of clarity with whom
the driver/operator contract was made?
You have until tomorrow, 19th January to submit your POPLA
appeal so why did you rush unnecessarily?
You cannot upload any images or introduce new arguments at this
stage. All you can do is rebut their points and highlight any of
your points that were not rebutted.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page