DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 53974--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: January 18, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately I made a mistake with the dates and the POPLA due
date was actually 14 Jan so I had to put something together
quickly!
They have also included this information about their contract:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/3UFO25D
Also, I did include a photo of the signages!
#Post#: 53998--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: b789 Date: January 18, 2025, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The POPLA code is valid for 33 days from the appeal rejection
date. Please don’t jump to conclusions. They allow 5 days for
service. 28 + 5 =33
The landowner contract is between Barnby Wilson, not Minster
Baywatch.
#Post#: 54023--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: January 19, 2025, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It stated that I had 28 days from the date of their response to
my appeal issued to submit to POPLA :(
Had I f***ed up badly? Can I remedy this at this stage?
#Post#: 54031--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: b789 Date: January 19, 2025, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We know it says 28 days but in reality, it is 28 days from
service and we now that the code will work up to day 33.
It's not a massive cock up but we would ave preferred to see
what you intended to submit so that we could make sure that you
covered all the necessary points correctly. If POPLA do not
uphold your appeal, it is no big deal because their decision is
not binding on you.
Let's wait and see what the operator submits as their evidence
and whether they rebut all the points you raised.
#Post#: 54049--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: January 19, 2025, 10:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=4189.msg54031#msg54031
date=1737290122]
We know it says 28 days but in reality, it is 28 days from
service and we now that the code will work up to day 33.
It's not a massive **** up but we would ave preferred to see
what you intended to submit so that we could make sure that you
covered all the necessary points correctly. If POPLA do not
uphold your appeal, it is no big deal because their decision is
not binding on you.
Let's wait and see what the operator submits as their evidence
and whether they rebut all the points you raised.
[/quote]
Hi yes, they have replied with their evidence:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/knfy2iF
and the contract here
HTML https://imgur.com/a/3UFO25D
#Post#: 54135--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: b789 Date: January 20, 2025, 4:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can only submit basic text in response to the operators
evidence pack. So, I suggest you copy and past the following
into the POPLA response webform as your response:
[quote]Appellant’s Response to Operator’s Evidence
The operator has failed to adequately rebut the key points
raised in my original appeal regarding unclear signage and the
ambiguity over who the contractual party is in this matter.
1. Signage Confusion and Ambiguity
The operator has failed to address the fundamental issue of
conflicting signage. The prominent signage at the car park
entrance states, "Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson
Parking Solutions." This explicitly indicates that Bransby
Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS) manages the site. In contrast,
the tiny, less prominent yellow signage mentions Minster
Baywatch. These conflicting signs create significant ambiguity
about which party is responsible for the operation of the car
park.
It is critical to note that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions and
Minster Baywatch are two entirely separate legal entities, each
registered at Companies House under distinct company
registration numbers. This is an indisputable fact. The operator
has not provided any evidence to explain or clarify this dual
involvement. No reasonable driver could be expected to identify
Minster Baywatch as the contracting party when Bransby Wilson’s
name is most prominently displayed on the signage.
As a result, any alleged contract with Minster Baywatch is
unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015),
Section 69, which requires ambiguous terms to be interpreted in
favour of the consumer.
2. Conflict in Submitted Documents
The operator has included two separate documents in their
evidence pack: the "order form" and the "confirmation of
authority." The "order form," which contains the substantive
contractual elements, is signed exclusively by Bransby Wilson.
Minster Baywatch is mentioned only in the secondary
"confirmation of authority," which does not establish them as
the contractual party forming agreements with drivers at the
site.
Given that Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are separate
legal entities, it is wholly unclear who is responsible for
enforcement, signage, or the management of this car park. This
unresolved ambiguity invalidates the alleged contract with
Minster Baywatch.
3. Failure to Address CRA 2015, Section 69
The operator has completely failed to address my argument that
ambiguous terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer
under CRA 2015, Section 69. The conflicting signage and the
unclear roles of Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch create a
situation where a reasonable driver cannot identify the party
with whom they are allegedly contracting. The operator’s failure
to respond to this point further reinforces my position that the
alleged contract is void.
4. Failure to Prove Payment Obligation
The operator has failed to provide evidence that a valid
contract existed between the driver and Minster Baywatch.
Without clear signage identifying Minster Baywatch as the
operator, there is no legal basis to demand payment.
Furthermore, the operator’s reliance on ANPR and payment logs
does not override the fundamental requirement for clear,
unambiguous contractual terms.
5. ANPR and Payment Records
The operator’s evidence focuses on the ANPR log and payment
records but fails to acknowledge that I have already highlighted
the confusion regarding the registration entry. The payment made
for a similar registration demonstrates no intent to evade
payment. This further undermines the rationale for issuing the
Parking Charge Notice and highlights the lack of any financial
loss suffered by the operator.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to rebut the critical points of my
appeal:
• The conflicting signage does not establish Minster Baywatch as
the contractual party.
• Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are entirely separate
legal entities, each with a distinct company registration
number. The operator has not explained how Minster Baywatch has
authority to issue parking charges when Bransby Wilson is the
party responsible under the contract.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 invalidates the alleged contract
due to ambiguity.
For these reasons, I request that POPLA uphold my
appeal.[/quote]
#Post#: 54159--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: January 20, 2025, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much!!!!!
Fingers crossed!
[quote author=b789 link=topic=4189.msg54135#msg54135
date=1737367465]
You can only submit basic text in response to the operators
evidence pack. So, I suggest you copy and past the following
into the POPLA response webform as your response:
[quote]Appellant’s Response to Operator’s Evidence
The operator has failed to adequately rebut the key points
raised in my original appeal regarding unclear signage and the
ambiguity over who the contractual party is in this matter.
1. Signage Confusion and Ambiguity
The operator has failed to address the fundamental issue of
conflicting signage. The prominent signage at the car park
entrance states, "Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson
Parking Solutions." This explicitly indicates that Bransby
Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS) manages the site. In contrast,
the tiny, less prominent yellow signage mentions Minster
Baywatch. These conflicting signs create significant ambiguity
about which party is responsible for the operation of the car
park.
It is critical to note that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions and
Minster Baywatch are two entirely separate legal entities, each
registered at Companies House under distinct company
registration numbers. This is an indisputable fact. The operator
has not provided any evidence to explain or clarify this dual
involvement. No reasonable driver could be expected to identify
Minster Baywatch as the contracting party when Bransby Wilson’s
name is most prominently displayed on the signage.
As a result, any alleged contract with Minster Baywatch is
unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015),
Section 69, which requires ambiguous terms to be interpreted in
favour of the consumer.
2. Conflict in Submitted Documents
The operator has included two separate documents in their
evidence pack: the "order form" and the "confirmation of
authority." The "order form," which contains the substantive
contractual elements, is signed exclusively by Bransby Wilson.
Minster Baywatch is mentioned only in the secondary
"confirmation of authority," which does not establish them as
the contractual party forming agreements with drivers at the
site.
Given that Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are separate
legal entities, it is wholly unclear who is responsible for
enforcement, signage, or the management of this car park. This
unresolved ambiguity invalidates the alleged contract with
Minster Baywatch.
3. Failure to Address CRA 2015, Section 69
The operator has completely failed to address my argument that
ambiguous terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer
under CRA 2015, Section 69. The conflicting signage and the
unclear roles of Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch create a
situation where a reasonable driver cannot identify the party
with whom they are allegedly contracting. The operator’s failure
to respond to this point further reinforces my position that the
alleged contract is void.
4. Failure to Prove Payment Obligation
The operator has failed to provide evidence that a valid
contract existed between the driver and Minster Baywatch.
Without clear signage identifying Minster Baywatch as the
operator, there is no legal basis to demand payment.
Furthermore, the operator’s reliance on ANPR and payment logs
does not override the fundamental requirement for clear,
unambiguous contractual terms.
5. ANPR and Payment Records
The operator’s evidence focuses on the ANPR log and payment
records but fails to acknowledge that I have already highlighted
the confusion regarding the registration entry. The payment made
for a similar registration demonstrates no intent to evade
payment. This further undermines the rationale for issuing the
Parking Charge Notice and highlights the lack of any financial
loss suffered by the operator.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to rebut the critical points of my
appeal:
• The conflicting signage does not establish Minster Baywatch as
the contractual party.
• Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are entirely separate
legal entities, each with a distinct company registration
number. The operator has not explained how Minster Baywatch has
authority to issue parking charges when Bransby Wilson is the
party responsible under the contract.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 invalidates the alleged contract
due to ambiguity.
For these reasons, I request that POPLA uphold my
appeal.[/quote]
[/quote]
#Post#: 113558--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: March 17, 2026, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=phlegmborough2 link=topic=4189.msg54159#msg54159
date=1737372513]
Thank you so much!!!!!
Fingers crossed!
[quote author=b789 link=topic=4189.msg54135#msg54135
date=1737367465]
You can only submit basic text in response to the operators
evidence pack. So, I suggest you copy and past the following
into the POPLA response webform as your response:
[quote]Appellant’s Response to Operator’s Evidence
The operator has failed to adequately rebut the key points
raised in my original appeal regarding unclear signage and the
ambiguity over who the contractual party is in this matter.
1. Signage Confusion and Ambiguity
The operator has failed to address the fundamental issue of
conflicting signage. The prominent signage at the car park
entrance states, "Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson
Parking Solutions." This explicitly indicates that Bransby
Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS) manages the site. In contrast,
the tiny, less prominent yellow signage mentions Minster
Baywatch. These conflicting signs create significant ambiguity
about which party is responsible for the operation of the car
park.
It is critical to note that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions and
Minster Baywatch are two entirely separate legal entities, each
registered at Companies House under distinct company
registration numbers. This is an indisputable fact. The operator
has not provided any evidence to explain or clarify this dual
involvement. No reasonable driver could be expected to identify
Minster Baywatch as the contracting party when Bransby Wilson’s
name is most prominently displayed on the signage.
As a result, any alleged contract with Minster Baywatch is
unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015),
Section 69, which requires ambiguous terms to be interpreted in
favour of the consumer.
2. Conflict in Submitted Documents
The operator has included two separate documents in their
evidence pack: the "order form" and the "confirmation of
authority." The "order form," which contains the substantive
contractual elements, is signed exclusively by Bransby Wilson.
Minster Baywatch is mentioned only in the secondary
"confirmation of authority," which does not establish them as
the contractual party forming agreements with drivers at the
site.
Given that Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are separate
legal entities, it is wholly unclear who is responsible for
enforcement, signage, or the management of this car park. This
unresolved ambiguity invalidates the alleged contract with
Minster Baywatch.
3. Failure to Address CRA 2015, Section 69
The operator has completely failed to address my argument that
ambiguous terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer
under CRA 2015, Section 69. The conflicting signage and the
unclear roles of Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch create a
situation where a reasonable driver cannot identify the party
with whom they are allegedly contracting. The operator’s failure
to respond to this point further reinforces my position that the
alleged contract is void.
4. Failure to Prove Payment Obligation
The operator has failed to provide evidence that a valid
contract existed between the driver and Minster Baywatch.
Without clear signage identifying Minster Baywatch as the
operator, there is no legal basis to demand payment.
Furthermore, the operator’s reliance on ANPR and payment logs
does not override the fundamental requirement for clear,
unambiguous contractual terms.
5. ANPR and Payment Records
The operator’s evidence focuses on the ANPR log and payment
records but fails to acknowledge that I have already highlighted
the confusion regarding the registration entry. The payment made
for a similar registration demonstrates no intent to evade
payment. This further undermines the rationale for issuing the
Parking Charge Notice and highlights the lack of any financial
loss suffered by the operator.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to rebut the critical points of my
appeal:
• The conflicting signage does not establish Minster Baywatch as
the contractual party.
• Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are entirely separate
legal entities, each with a distinct company registration
number. The operator has not explained how Minster Baywatch has
authority to issue parking charges when Bransby Wilson is the
party responsible under the contract.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 invalidates the alleged contract
due to ambiguity.
For these reasons, I request that POPLA uphold my
appeal.[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
Hi everyone,
It's been a year and some!
I've received this email "Good afternoon,
Thank you for your correspondence dated 11th January 2026 (note:
correspondence referring to updating them of our new address)
We note that a Judgment has now been issued against you to the
sum of £271.96 and we now invite you to make payment in order to
conclude the matter.
Please make payment to the bank account details below:
Gladstones Solicitors Ltd
Barclays Bank
Account Number:
Sort Code:
Reference:
Should payment not be forthcoming by no later than 10th April
2026, the matter may be passed to an enforcement team to further
recover the debt owing"
Does it mean they went to court without our knowledge? I emailed
them to inform them of our change of address but as far as I'm
concerned, we did not receive anything in the snail mail.
thanks so much!
#Post#: 113573--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: phlegmborough2 Date: March 18, 2026, 3:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I've received another reply from Gladstones:
"Judgment was obtained electronically via Money Claims Online,
therefore there is not a physical copy of the Judgment.
Should payment not be forthcoming by no later than 10th April
2026, the matter may be passed to an enforcement team to further
recover the debt owing"
I am confused - my other parking notice involved steps such as
mediation, and an actual date for a court date etc.
#Post#: 113576--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from Minster Baywatch (paid parking but entered wrong re
g)
By: jfollows Date: March 18, 2026, 3:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Only a guess, but they failed to process your change of address
notification and issued a court claim against you at your
previous address, which you did not receive, and for which they
claimed a judgement in default.
If so, you need to ensure you have evidence of what you did. If
the change of address was properly made, then you can get this
unravelled.
Who was the “them” you notified, when and how? It’s normal
advice to write to the Data Protection Officer and require them
to change your address for service, and to get confirmation that
this has been done.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page