DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54896--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: b789
Date: January 24, 2025, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Meadowhall is a massive complex with multiple car parks. Please
post out on a map exactly where the vehicle parked each time and
where the photos of the sign you have shown us is located.
Also, you need a phot of the general view of the signs. Not just
close ups. We ned to see how this terms appear in the general
layout.
#Post#: 54906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: January 24, 2025, 7:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Attached is an overhead shot of Meadowhall, the driver isn't
sure exactly where they parked on those days but the red circle
indicates the general area it would have been, this would be the
upper car park, in a central row of bays, not against any
perimeters, the red crosses indicate where the ANPR cameras are
and where the vehicle was captured entering/exiting. This is
also where the singular warning that the terms have changed sign
is placed.
The yellow circle is where I've just been to take the photo of
the sign, in the lower car park. I can go back and get some more
shots later of the car park where the vehicle was parked, though
in the meantime this WeTransfer link:
HTML https://we.tl/t-aOE1KHwDpZ<br
/>will allow you to download a video which shows later unrelated
dashcam footage entering the car park and circling the area
where the driver would have parked should you wish to see it. I
tried to host it on Imgur but it's over 60 seconds long. That is
generally the route the driver would have taken to enter the car
park, and the rough area the car would have been parked in. The
Driver would then have entered Meadowhall through the doors
visible.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 54932--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: b789
Date: January 24, 2025, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So the signs you have just shown us are from the Blue car park
but the actual location that the vehicle is alleged to have
parked in the Pink car park. When you get a chance, we need to
see the signs in the Pink car park. Close up and also general
view to see how readable they are from more than 6 feet away.
#Post#: 55156--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: January 26, 2025, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/8wC0OLj
Just been, same car park and approximate area the driver would
have parked in. The signs are identical to the ones in the
blue/green car park as previously pictured but I’ve included
some photos just walking from vehicle to the centre and back.
#Post#: 55170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: b789
Date: January 26, 2025, 9:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The signs are incapable of forming a contract because the actual
terms are almost unreadable in tiny font.
Also, we don't know what the material changes are. In such a
massive series of car parks, they have not complied with PPSCoP
section 3.4 where it says in the notes:
--- Quote ---
> ...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 ---
So, for now, you appeal as the Keeper of the vehicle with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle, and I dispute your 'parking
charge.' I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will
be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to
your client landowner.
>
> Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically under
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4. The NtK must include a clear
and specific invitation to the keeper to either pay the charge
or provide the name and address of the driver. This requirement
ensures that the keeper fully understands their liability and
has a clear course of action.
>
> You cannot rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) is addressed to the keeper to satisfy Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i). The law explicitly requires an unambiguous
invitation, with specific wording such as:
>
> [indent]• "As the Keeper, you are now invited to pay this
parking charge or..."[/indent]
>
> This is not an implied requirement; it must be explicitly
stated. A generic statement such as "payment is required" or
"the charge must be paid" does not meet the legal threshold. If
the notice fails to include this clear invitation, it cannot
transfer liability to the keeper under PoFA.
>
> The purpose of this strict wording is to ensure clarity for
the keeper. Any failure to meet this statutory obligation
renders your NtK invalid for claiming keeper liability.
>
> Additionally, the signage at the location is woefully
inadequate and does not meet the required standards for clarity,
legibility, and prominence, as outlined in the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). After receiving the PCN, I
visited the location of the alleged breach and found the signage
to be sparse, poorly positioned, and written in minuscule font
that cannot be read from a reasonable distance. This is
particularly concerning given the complex terms you are
attempting to enforce, such as the alleged contravention of a
"14-hour maximum combined stay over any one-week (Monday to
Sunday) period."
>
> The lack of any reasonable means to monitor compliance with
this term makes it an unfair and unenforceable contractual
condition under consumer law. Specifically, the term that limits
a vehicle to a "14-hour maximum combined stay over any one-week
(Monday to Sunday) period" is entirely impractical to enforce in
a fair or transparent manner. Without a payment or ticketing
system that records entry and exit times across multiple visits,
there is no reliable or transparent mechanism for either the
motorist or the operator to calculate the total combined stay.
This places an unreasonable burden on the motorist, who would be
required to independently track and sum up their parking
durations over an extended time period, potentially across
several visits, with no tools or assistance provided to
facilitate this.
>
> Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), terms of a contract
must be fair, clear, and transparent. A term that requires
motorists to calculate their total combined parking time over a
one-week period without any support, and with no practical way
to confirm or dispute the operator’s calculations, creates a
significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. This
term is designed in such a way that it is difficult, if not
impossible, for an ordinary motorist to comply with it.
Furthermore, it leaves the operator with unchecked discretion to
issue Parking Charge Notices based on potentially flawed data or
assumptions, further exacerbating the imbalance.
>
> In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court made
it clear that clear and prominent signage, alongside fair and
transparent terms, are essential for the enforceability of
parking charges. The signage in this case does not meet the
required standard, as it buries this convoluted condition in
fine print that is neither legible from a reasonable distance
nor sufficiently prominent to alert a motorist to its
significance. This contrasts sharply with the principles
established in Beavis, where the charge was deemed enforceable
in part because the terms were clearly communicated and easily
understood by motorists.
>
> Additionally, under Schedule 2 of the CRA, terms may be
considered unfair if they require a consumer to meet obligations
that are unduly burdensome or if they allow the operator to
impose penalties arbitrarily. The absence of a clear, functional
system to track and verify parking durations over multiple
visits makes this term both arbitrary and unenforceable, as
motorists cannot reasonably be expected to monitor compliance
with such an onerous condition.
>
> Finally, this lack of clarity and enforceability contravenes
the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which
requires that terms and conditions must be clearly communicated
and fair to motorists. A condition such as this, buried in fine
print and dependent on external factors beyond the motorist’s
control, fails to meet these standards and cannot form the basis
of a valid parking charge.
>
> Further, it appears that there have been material changes to
the terms and conditions within the last four months, yet there
are no prominent notices in the car park (one of at least four
distinct, large, multi-storey car parks at this location) to
highlight these changes. This is a breach of Section 3.4 of the
PPSCoP, which requires operators to clearly highlight
significant updates to terms on signage within the car park. The
absence of such notices demonstrates your failure to meet the
transparency requirements imposed by your BPA membership and the
PPSCoP.
>
> The notes to section 3.4 of the PPSCoP which relates to
"material changes notices" specifically states:
>
> [indent]"...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."[/indent]
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with all
the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA),
you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the
charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not
sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving,
and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Minster Baywatch
has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the
driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable,
which you have failed to establish.
>
> Additionally, Minster Baywatch has also failed to fully comply
with all the requirements of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP). The lack of prominent signs and the woefully
inadequate way the terms are brought to the attention of the
driver constitute a clear breach of the PPSCoP and consumer
rights legislation. These failures render the charge
unenforceable.
>
> Minster Baywatch has no hope of success at POPLA, so you are
urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
--- End Quote ---
They will, of course, reject the initial appeal. However, they
are obliged to them give you a POPLA code and you can basically
use the content as the basis of your POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 55184--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: January 26, 2025, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Outstanding, thank you! If there is such a way to purchase a
beer/soft drink for yourself then please let me know how.
I'll send that off and await the outcome.
#Post#: 55641--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: January 28, 2025, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, appeal rejected. Will re write it for Popla I
suppose.
#Post#: 55642--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 28, 2025, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Show us a draft before submitting anything - one key change to
make from the original appeal is the audience - you are
addressing the POPLA assessor rather than Minster Baywatch, so
any references to 'you' etc. will need changing.
You should also bear in mind that unlike Minster Baywatch, the
POPLA assessor has no prior knowledge of the case, so you may
need to explain things more explicitly.
#Post#: 55674--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: January 28, 2025, 6:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good points, I’ll share it before I submit. I’m thinking of
including the dashcam footage from a previous visit which shows
the notice of material change signs are missing from one of the
car park entrances, would this be worth including? It’s a
separate car park to the one the driver used at the time however
there’s nothing in the NtK which indicates which car park the
driver was caught entering/exiting, it’s just date/time stamped.
This backs up evidence that the BCA rules and such aren’t being
followed correctly.
#Post#: 59063--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: February 20, 2025, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've been busy liquidating one business and trying to organise
the other so I've only just had time to write the appeal. Here's
what i've drafted so far:
Minster Baywatch have issued a Parking charge Notice to my
vehicle for allegedly overstaying a maximum permitted combined
stay of 14 hours over any one week period at a Meadowhall car
park. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and
am appealing the Parking Charge Notice issued by Minster
Baywatch for the following reasons:
1. Failure to Highlight Material Changes
The operator has included the “14-hour maximum combined stay
over a one-week period” rule among six rules displayed on
signage at the site. However, this new rule is presented in the
same small font size, colour, and style as the existing rules,
with no indication that it is a recent addition.
This contravenes Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Single Code
of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to take proactive
steps to notify users of material changes. The code explicitly
states that operators must:
•
and throughout the site.
•
temporary notices or other prominent means, such as bold text,
bright colours, or highlighted sections, for a reasonable period
(at least four months).
By failing to differentiate the new rule from the existing ones,
the operator has not met the required standards of clarity and
transparency. Regular users, such as the driver in this case,
would not reasonably be aware of this new rule, particularly
when it has been buried within existing terms without any effort
to highlight its significance.
Furthermore, this failure violates the Consumer Rights Act 2015,
as it imposes an unfair and opaque obligation on motorists who
are not given adequate notice of the new condition. The lack of
clear and prominent notification renders the enforcement of this
new rule unreasonable and unenforceable.
2. Inadequate Notification of Material Changes
The new “14-hour maximum combined stay over a one-week period”
rule has likely been very recently introduced, no clarification
as to when exactly this rule was brought in has been made but it
is assumed to be at some point in December 2024, yet there is a
distinct lack of signage within the premises to highlight this
significant change, nor any warning that new terms are imposed
from any effective date. Section 3.4 of the PPSCoP states that
for material changes to parking terms:
“Operators must place additional (temporary) notices at the
site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the
date of the change to ensure regular visitors do not
inadvertently incur parking charges.”
Meadowhall has several multi-storey car parks with approximately
12,000 spaces, the sheer scale alone suggests that a singular
temporary notice at site entrances would be woefully
inadequate. Upon visiting the site myself, I was able to enter
a car park without being notified that there are updated terms,
Dashcam footage from my vehicle confirms this, showing no
signage at the car park entrances to alert users of changes. The
absence of these required notices demonstrates non-compliance
with the PPSCoP and further supports my argument that the
alleged breach is unenforceable. Included are dated and time
stamped screenshots from two visits to the location on two
separate occasions which clearly shows customers are able to
enter a car park without being alerted to any material changes.
The full video footage is also provided.
3. Unfair and Impractical Contractual Terms
The requirement to track a “14-hour maximum combined stay over a
one-week period” is unfair, impractical, and unenforceable under
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). This term places an
unreasonable burden on motorists to:
•
multiple visits over a week.
•
named drivers using the vehicle.
No tools or systems are provided to facilitate this tracking,
nor does the operator make any effort to provide a transparent
mechanism for verifying or disputing parking durations. This
creates a significant imbalance in favour of the operator,
rendering the term unfair and unenforceable under the CRA. How
exactly is a Meadowhall customer supposed to track their precise
duration each week at a site which offers a Cinema, Bowling,
Mini-golf, other leisure activities, dining and shopping
facilities open 11 hours per day? Especially when the vehicle
has shared use; are customers now expected to formally liaise
with their friends and family regarding their vehicle use and
time spent at Meadowhall? If so, this is completely
unreasonable. Additionally, it is unreasonable to expect
customers to track cumulative parking durations over multiple
years as in this case, with one visit captured in 2024 and one
in 2025.
4. Reference to ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
Minster Baywatch’s rejection of my appeal references ParkingEye
v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, a case that ruled a parking charge was
enforceable due to clear signage and fair terms. However, the
circumstances in this case differ significantly:
•
unambiguous. In this case, the terms are not only new, but
buried in small print and lack prominence.
•
time limit that is easy for a customer to monitor, not a
convoluted weekly limit that is impractical to track.
The Beavis ruling emphasised the importance of transparency and
fairness, which the operator has failed to demonstrate here. Had
the driver been made aware of the “14-hour maximum combined stay
over a one-week period” rule, they would not have parked at the
site at all or would have made every effort to ensure they
complied with the terms. However, the rule was not clearly
highlighted or distinguished from the existing conditions, and
as such, the driver had no reasonable way of knowing about this
specific time limit and so the argument that it is a
satisfactory deterrent is invalid.
The failure to highlight this rule, particularly with an easily
understandable format or prominent notices, meant that the
driver inadvertently breached a term that they were not
adequately notified of. This lack of clarity and transparency
leads to an unjust charge, as the driver acted in good faith,
unaware of any new restrictions.
5. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012
The operator has failed to comply with the strict requirements
of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to
transfer liability to the registered keeper. Specifically:
•
delivered until 22nd January, beyond the statutory 14-day limit
required for keeper liability under POFA.
•
presumed delivery timeline is not guaranteed.
As such, liability for the parking charge cannot be transferred
to the registered keeper.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to demonstrate that the parking charge
is lawful, enforceable, and compliant with the relevant
standards. The lack of adequate signage, failure to highlight
material changes, and the unfair and impractical terms make this
charge unenforceable.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that
POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs Minster Baywatch to
cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page