DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59079--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: b789
Date: February 20, 2025, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is very good. I have taken the liberty to enhance it slightly
and flesh out the 5th section about PoFA:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal – Minster Baywatch Parking Charge Notice
>
> Parking Charge Reference: [XXXXXXX]
> Operator: Minster Baywatch
> Alleged Contravention: Exceeding a 14-hour combined stay over
a one-week period
> Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
>
> Minster Baywatch issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to my
vehicle for allegedly breaching a recently introduced “14-hour
maximum combined stay over any one-week period” rule at a
Meadowhall car park. As the registered keeper, I formally appeal
this charge on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Failure to Highlight Material Changes
>
> Minster Baywatch introduced a new parking restriction—the
14-hour maximum combined stay over a week—without adequately
notifying regular visitors. This is a material change to the
parking terms, yet the operator has buried it within existing
signage in the same small font, colour, and style, making it
indistinguishable from prior terms.
>
> This breaches Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Single Code
of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to:
>
> [indent]• Clearly signal material changes at the entrance and
throughout the site.
> • Use temporary notices, bold text, bright colours, or other
prominent means for at least four months to ensure
awareness.[/indent]
>
> Minster Baywatch has failed to implement any of these
requirements, making enforcement of this newly introduced rule
both unfair and unenforceable.
>
> Additionally, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) requires
contract terms to be transparent and prominent. Burying a major
new restriction in small print violates Schedule 2 of the CRA,
rendering the term unenforceable against consumers.
>
> 2. Inadequate Notification of Material Changes
>
> Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence of when the 14-hour
combined stay rule was introduced. Based on available
information, this change likely took effect in December 2024.
Under PPSCoP Section 3.4, the operator was required to:
>
> [indent]• Place temporary notices at all site entrances for a
minimum of four months following the change.
> • Ensure existing customers are made explicitly aware of new
restrictions to prevent inadvertent breaches.[/indent]
>
> Meadowhall has multiple multi-storey car parks, accommodating
approximately 12,000 vehicles. The sheer scale of the site means
that a single temporary notice at one entrance is insufficient.
>
> I personally visited the site, capturing dashcam footage which
confirms no signage at car park entrances alerts users to any
updated terms. Dated screenshots from two separate visits show
that motorists can enter the car park without seeing any
notification of the rule change. Full video footage is available
for review.
>
> By failing to clearly notify motorists of a material change,
Minster Baywatch is non-compliant with the PPSCoP, further
undermining the enforceability of this charge.
>
> 3. Unfair and Impractical Contractual Terms
>
> The 14-hour combined weekly limit is an unfair and impractical
contractual term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA)
because:
>
> [indent]• It requires motorists to track cumulative parking
durations across multiple visits over seven days, something most
visitors do not and cannot reasonably do.
> • If the vehicle is used by multiple drivers, compliance is
practically impossible unless all users meticulously record each
visit.
> • Meadowhall is a large shopping and leisure complex, where
customers visit for various activities (shopping, cinema,
restaurants, and more). Expecting visitors to manually calculate
their cumulative parking over a week is unrealistic and
disproportionate.[/indent]
>
> This term creates a significant imbalance between motorists
and the parking operator, making it unfair under Schedule 2 of
the CRA. A term that cannot be reasonably followed by the
average consumer is inherently unenforceable.
>
> Additionally, expecting customers to track cumulative parking
durations over multiple calendar years (e.g., one visit in 2024
and one in 2025) is absurd, further proving that this term is
both excessive and unreasonable.
>
> 4. Misapplication of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
>
> Minster Baywatch’s rejection of my initial appeal misapplies
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in an attempt to justify this
charge. However, the circumstances are entirely different:
>
> [indent]• Beavis concerned a single stay with a clear,
prominently displayed overstay limit, whereas this case involves
a hidden, cumulative weekly limit that is neither obvious nor
practical to track.
> • In Beavis, signage was deemed prominent and unambiguous.
Here, the 14-hour rule lacks clear prominence, failing PPSCoP
and CRA transparency standards.[/indent]
>
> The Beavis ruling only upheld charges where the terms were
clear, fair, and properly communicated. The conditions in this
case do not meet that threshold, rendering this charge
unenforceable.
>
> 5. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012 – Operator Fails to Establish
Keeper Liability
>
> Minster Baywatch has failed to meet the strict requirements of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA),
meaning keeper liability cannot be established. Specifically:
>
> [indent]• The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 8th January
but not received until 22nd January, well beyond the mandatory
14-day timeframe required under POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5).
> • The NtK was sent via untracked post, meaning there is no
guaranteed evidence of when it entered the postal system or that
it was delivered in accordance with POFA’s strict
timeframe.[/indent]
>
> The PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e), Note 2 states:
>
> [quote]Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of
the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system).
--- End Quote ---
Minster Baywatch is now put to strict proof that the NtK was
actually entered into the postal system on the date claimed.
They must provide:
[indent]• A postal log from their mail processor confirming
dispatch.
• A Royal Mail or mail consolidator statement proving when the
notice was posted.[/indent]
A certificate of posting by hybrid mail receipt by the bulk
mailing consolidator is not evidence of when the notice was
actually entered into the postal system and only shows when the
notice was sent to the consolidator.
Without strict proof, presumed delivery timelines under POFA do
not apply, and Minster Baywatch cannot establish keeper
liability. Since POPLA is bound by POFA compliance, this alone
is sufficient to cancel the PCN.
Conclusion
This PCN is unenforceable due to Minster Baywatch’s:
[indent]• Failure to highlight a material change in terms.
• Lack of adequate signage to notify regular users of new
restrictions.
• Unfair and impractical contract terms.
• Incorrect reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis.
• Failure to comply with POFA 2012.[/indent]
For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this
appeal and instruct Minster Baywatch to cancel the Parking
Charge Notice.
[/quote]
#Post#: 59086--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 20, 2025, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed - it's a very well written appeal.
I wonder if it is worth us throwing in landowner authority into
the mix, given the usual Minster Baywatch/Branby Wilson
switcheroo?
#Post#: 59093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: b789
Date: February 20, 2025, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here it is revised with the landowner contract section:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal – Minster Baywatch Parking Charge Notice
>
> Parking Charge Reference: [XXXXXXX]
> Operator: Minster Baywatch
> Alleged Contravention: Exceeding a 14-hour combined stay over
a one-week period
> Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
>
> Minster Baywatch issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to my
vehicle for allegedly breaching a recently introduced “14-hour
maximum combined stay over any one-week period” rule at a
Meadowhall car park. As the registered keeper, I formally appeal
this charge on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Failure to Highlight Material Changes
>
> Minster Baywatch introduced a new parking restriction—the
14-hour maximum combined stay over a week—without adequately
notifying regular visitors. This is a material change to the
parking terms, yet the operator has buried it within existing
signage in the same small font, colour, and style, making it
indistinguishable from prior terms.
>
> This breaches Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Single Code
of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to:
>
> [indent]• Clearly signal material changes at the entrance and
throughout the site.
> • Use temporary notices, bold text, bright colours, or other
prominent means for at least four months to ensure
awareness.[/indent]
>
> Minster Baywatch has failed to implement any of these
requirements, making enforcement of this newly introduced rule
both unfair and unenforceable.
>
> Additionally, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) requires
contract terms to be transparent and prominent. Burying a major
new restriction in small print violates Schedule 2 of the CRA,
rendering the term unenforceable against consumers.
>
> 2. Inadequate Notification of Material Changes
>
> Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence of when the 14-hour
combined stay rule was introduced. Based on available
information, this change likely took effect in December 2024.
Under PPSCoP Section 3.4, the operator was required to:
>
> [indent]• Place temporary notices at all site entrances for a
minimum of four months following the change.
> • Ensure existing customers are made explicitly aware of new
restrictions to prevent inadvertent breaches.[/indent]
>
> Meadowhall has multiple multi-storey car parks, accommodating
approximately 12,000 vehicles. The sheer scale of the site means
that a single temporary notice at one entrance is insufficient.
>
> I personally visited the site, capturing dashcam footage which
confirms no signage at car park entrances alerts users to any
updated terms. Dated screenshots from two separate visits show
that motorists can enter the car park without seeing any
notification of the rule change. Full video footage is available
for review.
>
> By failing to clearly notify motorists of a material change,
Minster Baywatch is non-compliant with the PPSCoP, further
undermining the enforceability of this charge.
>
> 3. Unfair and Impractical Contractual Terms
>
> The 14-hour combined weekly limit is an unfair and impractical
contractual term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA)
because:
>
> [indent]• It requires motorists to track cumulative parking
durations across multiple visits over seven days, something most
visitors do not and cannot reasonably do.
> • If the vehicle is used by multiple drivers, compliance is
practically impossible unless all users meticulously record each
visit.
> • Meadowhall is a large shopping and leisure complex, where
customers visit for various activities (shopping, cinema,
restaurants, and more). Expecting visitors to manually calculate
their cumulative parking over a week is unrealistic and
disproportionate.[/indent]
>
> This term creates a significant imbalance between motorists
and the parking operator, making it unfair under Schedule 2 of
the CRA. A term that cannot be reasonably followed by the
average consumer is inherently unenforceable.
>
> Additionally, expecting customers to track cumulative parking
durations over multiple calendar years (e.g., one visit in 2024
and one in 2025) is absurd, further proving that this term is
both excessive and unreasonable.
>
> 4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
>
> Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence that it has
landholder authority to issue and enforce parking charges. The
operator is put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and
unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the
landholder to the operator.
>
> There is no evidence that Minster Baywatch:
>
> [indent]• Has adhered to the landholder’s definitions,
exemptions, grace periods, or hours of operation.
> • Has been granted authority to enforce parking charges in its
own name, rather than acting as a mere agent.
> • Has the right to override landowner decisions regarding
complaints and charge cancellations.[/indent]
>
> Minster Baywatch must provide an unredacted copy of its
landholder contract, including any site agreements or manuals
defining:
>
> [indent]• Exemptions (e.g., for genuine customers or
residents).
> • Boundaries of enforcement and operational start/expiry
dates.
> • The landowner’s ability to cancel charges.[/indent]
>
> A witness statement alone is insufficient evidence, as such
statements are often pre-signed, generic documents that fail to
reference specific site terms. If Minster Baywatch lacks full
proprietary rights over the land, then it cannot establish
standing to pursue this charge.
>
> 5. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012 – Operator Fails to Establish
Keeper Liability
>
> Minster Baywatch has failed to meet the strict requirements of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA),
meaning keeper liability cannot be established. Specifically:
>
> [indent]• The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 8th January
but not received until 22nd January, well beyond the mandatory
14-day timeframe required under POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5).
> • The NtK was sent via untracked post, meaning there is no
guaranteed evidence of when it entered the postal system or that
it was delivered in accordance with POFA’s strict
timeframe.[/indent]
>
> The PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e), Note 2 states:
>
> [quote]Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of
the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system).
--- End Quote ---
Minster Baywatch is now put to strict proof that the NtK was
actually entered into the postal system on the date claimed.
They must provide:
[indent]• A postal log from their mail processor confirming
dispatch.
• A Royal Mail or mail consolidator statement proving when the
notice was posted.[/indent]
A certificate of posting by hybrid mail receipt by the bulk
mailing consolidator is not evidence of when the notice was
actually entered into the postal system and only shows when the
notice was sent to the consolidator.
Without strict proof, presumed delivery timelines under POFA do
not apply, and Minster Baywatch cannot establish keeper
liability. Since POPLA is bound by POFA compliance, this alone
is sufficient to cancel the PCN.
Conclusion
This PCN is unenforceable due to Minster Baywatch’s:
[indent]• Failure to highlight a material change in terms.
• Lack of adequate signage to notify regular users of new
restrictions.
• Unfair and impractical contract terms.
• Lack of landholder authority.
• Failure to comply with POFA 2012.[/indent]
For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this
appeal and instruct Minster Baywatch to cancel the Parking
Charge Notice.
[/quote]
#Post#: 59169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: February 21, 2025, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant, thanks for all your help. I've done some more reading
about it and while it's not on the car park terms in the car
parks, Meadowhall have repeatedly spoken to the press about it
and said they'll remove it for any genuine customers, you just
need proof that you were a customer for 14+ hours over the
course of the week. Which seems backwards, fine everyone first,
cause undue stress, then if they happen to have read online
about it, allow them to appeal directly with them. It's almost
like they don't want customers!
#Post#: 59211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: February 21, 2025, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver was the same person on both occasions, and there is
CCTV evidence to back this up. I’m not sure whether this CCTV
belongs to Minster Baywatch or the landowner but it’s my
understanding they would have access to it to confirm the driver
is the same person.
Why would you want to give this game away?
Have you seen the evidence?
IMO, your starting point should be the impossibility of
performance for any driver and the absurdity of the restriction.
Their premise is that EVERY time a vehicle enters the site the
same person must be driving. What utter nonsense. I don't
normally like the 'predatory conduct' term because in the main
PPCs are doing what they're paid to do. But here I think it's
justified. There is NO basis on which to assume - and act on
this assumption by requesting keeper info from DVLA and issuing
a PCN to the keeper- that every time vehicle A enters the site
it must be(not may be, but must be) driven by the same person.
They have to convince POPLA and ultimately a court that this
approach is reasonable. Good luck with that.
This deals with the principle. You've gone further by
acknowledging that in your case their guess was correct.
Why?
#Post#: 59991--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: February 28, 2025, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So I’ve had a reply to the POPLA appeal, it’s 80 pages so I’ll
attach their response, plus some example photos they’ve
included, and the documents they’ve attached. There’s a document
signed from Broadgate estates and I’ve no idea who they are in
relation to Meadowhall, I assume something to do with landowner
authority. If other pages from the 80 page response are required
please let me know, but if there’s any suggestion on what
comments I can make I’d appreciate the help.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/vbmndqT
#Post#: 60006--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: b789
Date: February 28, 2025, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you host the operators evidence pack somewhere so we can see
it all? The extracts you have show are useful, but more of the
landowner contract would be worthwhile.
From what you have shown, the original contract was valid only
for an expressed period with validity from 1st October 1998 and
expressed expiration on 30th September 2021. I do not see
anywhere in what you've shown us that there was any automatic
renewal. As such, their contract with the landowner expired on
30th September 2021.
The "variation agreement" signed by British Land on behalf of
the landowner appears to be an attempt to retrospectively
resurrect an expired contract. Since the original contract had
an explicit expiry date of 30th September 2021 and did not
contain any provision for automatic renewal or continuation, any
argument that it continued by implied contract is legally weak.
If a contract has a fixed term and the parties wish to continue
it, they must actively renew it or create a new contract before
expiry. A contract cannot be revived simply by continued
performance unless both parties agree that their conduct amounts
to a new contract on identical terms. The courts are unlikely to
infer a binding implied contract when the written agreement
explicitly set an end date with no renewal provisions.
For an implied contract to exist, there must be mutual intention
to continue on the same or new terms. Even if both Minster
BayWatch and the landowner continued their arrangement, there is
no evidence they agreed to identical terms.
Did they negotiate different terms after September 2021? Were
invoices issued and paid under the original contract terms, or
were they renegotiated? Was there any written confirmation from
either party acknowledging the contract had expired but was
continuing informally? Without these, any claim of an implied
contract is speculative.
The "Variation Agreement" is even more problematic. The January
2024 variation retroactively attempts to extend the contract
long after expiry. If the contract had already expired in 2021,
it was legally dead. The variation agreement cannot amend a
contract that no longer exists. A variation can only modify an
active contract, not revive an expired one.
you can argue that the material changes to the terms and
conditions that they conveniently admit to, undermine the claim
that the contract simply continued unchanged. The operator may
argue that they have been in place since 2018, implying
continuity.
However, if the terms and conditions changed significantly
within the last 4 months, this suggests a new contract or
renegotiation, not a simple continuation of the old contract. A
genuine implied contract must have identical terms—if key terms
changed, it’s evidence that a new contract was needed.
This all creates doubt about whether Minster BayWatch had
landowner authority when issuing the PCN on 4th January 2025.
They have confirmed that material changes were introduced and
displayed on signs at the car park entrance. If the contract was
a straightforward continuation, why were these changes needed?
Significant changes suggest a renegotiation or new agreement,
rather than an automatic extension of the 2018 contract.
Minster BaWatch needs to provide clear evidence of valid
landowner authority for the new terms—not just rely on a flawed
extension argument. Without proof of an active, valid contract
covering the date of the alleged contravention (4th January
2025), their legal standing is questionable.
Any PCNs issued by Minster BayWatch after 30th September 2021
could be unenforceable if they cannot prove valid landowner
authority.
All this and other failures by Minster BayWatch to answer
questions raised in your appeal and your rebuttal to their
evidence will have to be formulated so that it can be copied and
pasted into the POPLA webform response which is limited to
10,000 characters. Leave it with me. If anyone else cares to
have a look at what has been provided so far, and can see other
failures by the operator, post them here.
#Post#: 60011--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 28, 2025, 11:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Can you host the operators evidence pack somewhere so we can
see it all?
>
--- End Quote ---
DropBox and Google Drive are both good options.
I too would like to see the full landowner contract. I have some
experience in dealing with contract variations in my day job,
but these are signed before the conclusion of the original
contract, and the original contract usually contains some
reference to the fact that it may be amended by a variation at
some later stage.
I should have some time later in the weekend to have a more
thorough look.
#Post#: 60048--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: February 28, 2025, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/w6QQa9y
Here’s everything relating to the contract they sent, it’s a
little low res as I’ve had to screen shot it as I’m away with
work so only have phone access
#Post#: 60051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: February 28, 2025, 1:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Me again; the amended document increasing the contract period is
signed by British land who sold their last shares in Meadowhall
last year if that’s any relevance
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page