URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 54659--------------------------------------------------
       Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: gme
       Date: January 23, 2025, 5:20 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       1. Received a notice to keeper about overstaying at Meadowhall
       shopping centre. Parking charge notice has been issued. You’re
       apparently allowed 14 hours combined stay over a 7 day period,
       Monday to Sunday.
       2. The letter claims the driver visited on 30th December for 10
       hours, 10 mins, and 4th January for 10 hours, 19 mins.
       3. The driver did visit at those times for those durations, but
       was unaware there was a week long limit on the maximum total
       stay. The driver has been visiting the location regularly for
       two decades, there are obvious restrictions on blue badge and
       parent parking bags as these bays are marked, but there is
       apparently signage regarding the 14 hour limit which was either
       missed upon arrival, or no attention paid to it as previously it
       has only referred to the disabled bays and parent and child bays
       which the driver has no intention of using. There is also known
       restrictions on Meadowhall staff using the customer car parks
       which the driver would also assume would be a part of any
       signage, so again it’s not something which the driver would
       check for updates on during every visit to the location. The
       driver is not a Meadowhall employee.
       4. The driver was at the location for those visits, with a
       single bank transaction from a shop on each occasion showing
       they were a paying customer, though the PCN only refers to a
       maximum combined stay of 14 hours at the location, nothing else
       regarding the terms and conditions on the signage, so unsure if
       you have to make a transaction or not. You can visit the
       location and not spend money, it’s a shopping centre so you
       could sit in there all day and not buy anything in theory.
       5. The 14 hour limit was introduced a month ago according to a
       Google search. Again, the Driver was unaware of the signs being
       changed as there has always been signs regarding the disabled
       bays, parent bays and staff using customer car parks.
       6. The date of issue was 8th January, the letter only arrived
       yesterday (22nd Jan). There’s a 14 day window to pay a reduced
       fee, which has been missed. No clue as to why the letter took so
       long to arrive, likely due to Royal Mail delays. This means the
       reduced payment window has been missed through no fault of the
       drivers own.
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 54663--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: b789
       Date: January 23, 2025, 5:42 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Welcome. SO any things wrong with that Parking Charge Notice
       (PCN). Please stop fretting over the "mugs discount" you have
       missed. Do you always pay speculative invoices from private
       companies just because there is a 40% discount offered?
       If you follow the advice you won't be paying a penny to Minster
       Baywatch.
       What do the signs at the location say? Can you get some photos
       of them? Is there any mention of 'Bransby Wilson' on the signs?
       Hopefully, you have not been in touch with them yet.
       If the terms of the car park have materially changed within the
       last 4 months, they should have had very clear and prominent
       signs notifying drivers of the material changes. This is a
       requirement according to the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code
       of Practice (PPSCoP), section 3.4 which states:
       --- Quote ---
       > 3.4. Material changes – notices
       >
       > Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms
       and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a
       driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for
       public parking, the parking operator must place additional
       (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not
       less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear
       that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular
       visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not
       inadvertently incur parking charges.
       >
       > NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of
       parking enforcement where none has previously applied,
       introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the
       time limit within which free parking is available. Given the
       need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is
       whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly
       signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the
       change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be
       necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of
       the premises.
       --- End Quote ---
       The postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) you have received is not fully
       compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that
       they cannot hold the Keeper liable. As the Keeper, you are under
       no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated
       private parking company. They have failed to note the "period of
       parking" as required by paragraph 9(2)(b) of PoFA.
       So, before you attempt to appeal this, please answer the
       questions I asked earlier in the post.
       #Post#: 54668--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: gme
       Date: January 23, 2025, 5:59 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks for the helpful response. I’ve no photos myself as I’m
       not near Meadowhall at present, but there’s photos I’ve found
       online:
  HTML https://imgur.com/a/25aaDul
       These are examples of previous signage that I’m aware of, which
       mainly refer to the car park for being for customer use and
       having the right permits for marked bays.
  HTML https://imgur.com/a/JRJ1p1J
       Here is an image I found which shows the updated terms.
       These big yellow signs are throughout the car park, I’m not
       aware of any other signs indicating they have been updated. At
       the entrance to Meadowhall there are some upright A1 poster
       holders which do state that you must register for child & parent
       bays, these have been in place for a while as that was a new
       rule introduced last year as well. Nothing regarding 14 hour
       maximum stay as far as I saw.
       Edit: there is another page with photos of the ANPR camera shots
       of the car entering/exiting, and a page of legal jargon.
       #Post#: 54673--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: b789
       Date: January 23, 2025, 6:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       So where are the signs that show the tariffs and the terms for
       breach of those tariffs? The parent & child signs are incapable
       of forming any contract. The other signs with the large £100 on
       them are also impossible to read, thus breaching the operators
       ATA code of practice.
       Where is this "letter" you say states "The letter claims the
       driver visited on 30th December for 10 hours, 10 mins, and 4th
       January for 10 hours, 19 mins."? You've only shown us the NtK.
       You said that "The 14 hour limit was introduced a month ago
       according to a Google search." Where is this material change
       notified?
       #Post#: 54675--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: gme
       Date: January 23, 2025, 6:18 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I’ve attached ‘the letter’, these is the ANPR cameras showing
       the days/times of entry, which relates to the 20 hours
       cumulative time on premises which I was referring to.
       No notice of change has been made, to my knowledge. I’ve since
       googled it and seen a few articles published but I don’t follow
       the news outlets that have reported on it.
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 54699--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: b789
       Date: January 23, 2025, 9:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Without seeing the signs that formed the contract with the
       driver, it is difficult to progress this for now.
       The "notice of change" is nothing to do with notices in the
       local media. Any material change to the terms and conditions of
       parking have to be notified on the signage at the location. It
       has to be prominent and obvious. It has to notify regular users
       that there have been changes to the terms and where to fond
       these changes.
       #Post#: 54703--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: gme
       Date: January 23, 2025, 9:56 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       There’s one singular sign on entry, I’ve been to look today,
       this states that the terms have changed and that’s it. It
       doesn’t state what or when. The parent and child permits were
       introduced in August 2013 and various additional signs warning
       specifically of this have been in place since. I’m unsure when
       the time limit changes were imposed, the earliest mention I can
       find online is 4th December but these are all unrelated social
       media posts. The driver is also unaware of these additional
       changes or these signs, aside from the parent and child updates.
  HTML https://imgur.com/a/uWrumEZ
       The above link includes a screenshot showing the placement on
       entry and a close up of what it reads. I didn’t notice it on
       entry as I was focused on the car on the left who was
       approaching the junction as I was about to make the turn, it’s
       my right of way but you do have to be cautious. When I reviewed
       my dashcam footage that’s when I spotted the sign. The driver
       also states they have never seen that sign before in their life.
       It’s unknown if it was there during the time of the alleged
       infringements.
       There are several car parks and entry points and when I checked
       my own dashcam footage of visiting the location personally on
       unrelated occasions, I can’t see that same sign repeated, there
       are other signs but they’re all in different formats, with
       different layouts and fonts, nothing is cohesive and nothing is
       particularly readable from a moving vehicle. The only consistent
       signage on entry is the yellow signs with the detailed terms,
       but it would be quite difficult to read these when driving past
       as the text is incredible small.
       On entry to the centre, there are the following attached
       additional signs warning of parent and child permits, these have
       been there since the previous changes were made. There’s nothing
       even remotely similar to this mentioning the 14 hours.
       Thanks again for taking the time to respond, I do appreciate it
       and will let the driver know the provided information.
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 54716--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: b789
       Date: January 23, 2025, 10:52 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       OK, so there is one single sign alerting drivers of material
       changes. You state that there are no other signs within the car
       park that repeat or alert regular users of the car park what
       these material changes are.
       We are not interested in the Parent Child signs as they are not
       relevant to this matter. Do you think that the operator has
       complied with the requirements of the PPSCoP which states:
       --- Quote ---
       > NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of
       parking enforcement where none has previously applied,
       introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the
       time limit within which free parking is available. Given the
       need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is
       whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly
       signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the
       change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be
       necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of
       the premises.
       --- End Quote ---
       I am still unclear how the tariffs are displayed and explained.
       It sounds confusing the way you've explained it with multiple
       parking sessions allowed but with restrictions. It MUST be
       posted somewhere. How do you pay for these parking sessions? If
       it is online then show us. If it is at a payment machine, there
       must be a sign showing the tariffs.
       #Post#: 54734--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: gme
       Date: January 23, 2025, 11:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It’s free parking, the only restriction is the 14 hours per
       week, it isn’t possible to pay for any additional time, go over
       the 14 cumulative hours and you get the PCN automatically via
       ANPR  cameras.
       The parent thing requires a permit which must be obtained from
       the centre, which is then displayed, similar to a blue badge, if
       you don’t get the permit or display it when using a parent bay,
       you’ll be given the penalty charge too. This requires a parking
       warden to issue as it isn’t ANPR controlled, the warden will
       leave the PCN on the windscreen.
       It is confusing, the attached is the Private Land terms and
       conditions notice displayed around the car parks but the only
       one warning you that this has been changed was the one on entry
       photographed above. I will try to get a clearer photo detailing
       the small print on the bottom of the terms and conditions sign.
       I’m unsure whether the terms and conditions refers to the driver
       or the vehicle, which is daft given some people share a car so
       could easily clock up 14 hours over a week if multiple people
       visit on separate occasions but use the same vehicle.
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 54739--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
   DIR By: DWMB2
       Date: January 23, 2025, 11:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The parties to a parking contract are the driver and the parking
       operator. Whilst Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
       provides a mechanism to recover unpaid charges from the keeper,
       that does not alter the parties between whom the contract was
       formed.
       In light of this, I'm not sure what evidence Minster Baywatch
       could produce to show that the driver was the same on each
       occasion, and that any driver has exceeded the 14 hours per week
       limit.
       The signage is silent as to whether the 14 hours applies to the
       driver or the vehicle, which brings to mind the following from
       the Consumer Rights Act
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2:
       [indent]69 Contract terms that may have different meanings
       [indent][i] (1)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.[/indent] [/indent][/i]
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 6
   DIR Next Page