DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 60073--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: Dave65
Date: March 1, 2025, 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I`m going to throw this one into the pot for the regulars to
comment on.
The "Blackbelt barrister" on his videos on U Tube and one of his
videos on parking charges he said that a contract could not be
made which included a post office box number as the companies
address. This he said was under the consumer rights act.
The signage shown on this car park gives Minster Baywatch as a
post office box address.
However, their address at Companies House is a normal
geographical address.
#Post#: 60076--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 1, 2025, 4:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PO Box argument isn't one that POPLA go for. We've had a
discussion about this issue in the past - when I'm back at my
computer I'll dig it out.
From memory, one of the regulars on the MSE forum has tried it
in court a few times with different judges without success.
#Post#: 60093--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: b789
Date: March 1, 2025, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is all down to how well the point is argued at POPLA and in
court. Providing only a PO Box address is not compliant with the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Companies (Trading Disclosures)
Regulations 2008, and the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.
This is the legal position:
[indent]• Because the signage forms part of the contract, it
must comply with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) and
other consumer laws.
• Contracts must be fair and transparent under CRA 2015. A PO
Box address hides the true identity of the business, which makes
the contract unfair and unenforceable.
• Businesses must provide a real address, not just a PO Box,
under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.
• If the parking company is a limited company, they must display
their registered office address under the Companies (Trading
Disclosures) Regulations 2008.[/indent]
If the signage does not meet legal requirements, it invalidates
the contract, making any PCNs issued under it unenforceable.
#Post#: 60099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 1, 2025, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There's no harm in throwing it in by all means, but it is worth
noting that pragmatically it's one that hasn't met with much
success previously. From memory, Bargepole had argued it ~6
times without success.
It'd be one to include as part of a broader defence led by more
compelling points, in my view.
#Post#: 60135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: March 1, 2025, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I mean the main argument is that there’s not enough to indicate
a change of the rules, right? There’s several car parks, in my
evidence I included proof that some don’t have signs notifying
of material changes, so as the driver was a regular customer
it’s reasonable to assume they weren’t reasonably made aware, in
MB’s evidence they show one sign showing that there’s a change
to terms but for a car park of that scale one sign, on some of
the entrances, shouldn’t be sufficient. They also state that the
customer could leave if they don’t agree with the terms but how
could the customer leave if there wasn’t sufficient attempt to
let them know that the terms have changed.
#Post#: 60157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: b789
Date: March 1, 2025, 6:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You will have to argue whether the signs “adequately” serve
their purpose. They don’t.
#Post#: 60209--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: Dave65
Date: March 2, 2025, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Was there a copy of the back of the PPN posted stating who to
pay the charge to?
#Post#: 60351--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: March 3, 2025, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes it’s Minster Baywatch with their registered address which is
a PO Box in York
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 60565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: gme
Date: March 4, 2025, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's my final draft of my comments as part of the POPLA
appeal, in response to Minster Baywatch's comments. I'm not sure
if it looks too much like a copy and past of my original appeal
so any feedback welcome.
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
I am submitting my comments on Minster Baywatch’s evidence in
relation to my appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I
maintain that the charge is unfair, unenforceable, and should be
cancelled based on the following legal and procedural grounds:
1. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
Minster Baywatch states that their signage meets BPA standards,
yet they have not demonstrated compliance with Section 19.10 of
the BPA Code of Practice, which requires operators to use
temporary signage when significant changes occur.
•
temporary notices or large, prominent signs at the entrance
specifically informing visitors of the new maximum stay rules.
•
Baywatch are difficult to read due to small font, indicating
they are not displayed prominently enough.
•
legitimate expectation that the parking terms remained
unchanged. The operator should have provided temporary notices
at entry points and inside Meadowhall to ensure existing
customers were fully aware.
•
multiple Meadowhall car parks without any clear warning of the
new terms, meaning regular visitors—especially those using
different car parks—are not adequately informed of the 14-day
combined visit restriction.
A failure to follow BPA signage guidelines means this charge
should be deemed unenforceable under the POPLA principle of
fairness.
2. Failure to Provide Adequate Notice of Material Changes
Minster Baywatch claims that new parking restrictions were
introduced, but they have not provided sufficient evidence that
these changes were clearly communicated to motorists,
particularly regular visitors. Under consumer protection laws
and industry standards, material changes must be prominently
displayed to ensure all users are aware of the updated terms.
•
contract terms (including parking restrictions) must be fair and
transparent. A sudden change in parking terms without clear,
advance notification to regular customers is likely unfair and
unenforceable.
•
motorist cannot be bound by unexpected terms unless they had a
reasonable opportunity to be aware of them before parking.
Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence that motorists were
given adequate notice of the changes before forming a contract.
Additionally, Minster Baywatch’s own photos of the Pink Car Park
entrance clearly show no additional temporary signage warning
motorists of new material changes—further violating the consumer
laws and BPA Code of Practice mentioned above.
Minster Baywatch also states:
“If a driver does not agree with a term noted on signage, the
driver is able to reject the terms by promptly leaving the
site.”
However, regular customers are not adequately warned of these
new terms to be fairly given a chance to accept or reject them.
3. Landowner Authority – Lack of Valid Contract
Minster Baywatch has provided a contract variation agreement
dated April 2024, signed between themselves and British Land
(Meadowhall GP Limited). However, this document does not prove
they had the authority to issue PCNs at the time of the alleged
contravention in January 2025 for the following reasons:
•
Investment Management in July 2024. This means British Land was
no longer a legal owner of the land at the time of the alleged
contravention.
•
was signed before British Land exited its ownership role, and
there is no evidence that the new owner (Norges Bank Investment
Management) agreed to continue this contract.
•
Section 7 that a parking operator must have a valid and current
contract with the landowner at the time of issuing PCNs. The
evidence submitted does not prove that Norges Bank Investment
Management authorised Minster Baywatch to operate on the site
after British Land’s sale.
I request that Minster Baywatch provide an unredacted contract
between them and Norges Bank Investment Management (the rightful
landowner from July 2024 onwards) proving they had authorisation
to enforce parking terms at the time of the alleged
contravention.
If they cannot provide such evidence, then they had no legal
standing to issue this PCN, and it must be cancelled.
4. Non-Compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012
Minster Baywatch claims the PCN was POFA-compliant, but the
Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not delivered in accordance with POFA
timelines:
•
until 22nd January 2025. POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) states
that for liability to transfer to the keeper, the NTK must be
delivered within 14 days.
•
making it impossible to verify compliance with POFA deadlines.
As the burden of proof is on the operator, the charge cannot be
enforced against the keeper.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold
my appeal and cancel this Parking Charge Notice. The charge is
unfair due to:
•
•
•
•
I appreciate your time in reviewing this appeal.
#Post#: 60573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch - overstayed - Meadowhall
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 4, 2025, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Personally I think you've got the focus wrong.
POPLA always start with whether a PCN has been issued correctly,
so IMO start there.
The creditor's modus operandi is unlawful. Contract terms can
only bind an individual driver on each single occasion that they
enter and remain on a site. This is a a relatively simple matter
to ascertain when a penalty charge arises as a result of a
single visit.
But this is not the case here.
Instead this creditor believes that they may issue a PCN when a
VRM has accumulated more than 14 hours on site within any 7-day
rolling week. Such an approach requires them to KNOW, not
suspect or guess but KNOW, that each and every entry by a
specified vehicle must have been made by the same driver. This
is impossible for them to know.
By issuing a PCN based solely upon cumulative uses of the site
by a vehicle the creditor is forcing the last driver to be aware
of what other drivers might have done and for how long.
This is a preposterous concept.
If the BPA and POPLA endorse such sharp practice then they bring
themselves and the industry into disrepute.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page