DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83687--------------------------------------------------
Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: August 1, 2025, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I received a NTK on 25th July (dated 18 July) claiming that a
vehicle for which I am the registered keeper had breached the
terms and conditions of parking at the location "Sheffield,
Grosvenor Casino, S2 4BG" on 12th July 2025.
Specifically that the "Vehicle was not authorised to use the car
park".
Looking at other cases here, I think the most pertinent facts
are:
- The NTK claims that the vehicle entered the car park at
14:01:59 and left at 16:09:16.
- A ticket was bought and displayed in the vehicle at 14:07 and
was valid for 2 hours.
- The sign at the paystation in the car park and the paystation
itself displays the name Bransby Wilson. Other signs in the car
park show Minster Baywatch - the company that has sent the NPK.
I have yet to take any action. I'd be grateful for any advice on
how best to proceed from the fantastic people on this forum.
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.imgur.com/KF3rmUq.jpeg
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.imgur.com/XKkaThb.jpeg
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.imgur.com/OHi6u2y.jpeg
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.imgur.com/sT8X9Oq.jpeg
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.imgur.com/vGOU1FE.jpeg
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.imgur.com/60U5mJp.jpeg
#Post#: 83763--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: b789
Date: August 2, 2025, 2:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This situation has been successfully challenged in court in the
past. The car park signage prominently displays Bransby Wilson
Parking Solutions as the operator, while the PCN is issued by
Minster Baywatch.
These are distinct companies registered separately at Companies
House. No clear contractual link is shown to justify enforcement
by Minster Baywatch. Ambiguity in contract terms must be
interpreted in favor of the consumer. Drivers cannot be expected
to contract with a party not clearly identified on the signage.
The signage creates confusion about who the contracting party
is. No reasonable driver would believe they were entering a
contract with Minster Baywatch. Minster Baywatch has not
demonstrated they are authorised to enforce parking at a site
operated by Bransby Wilson.
Under CRA 2015, Section 69, any ambiguity must be resolved in
favour of the consumer. The PCN is therefore legally
unenforceable.
Whilst any initial appeal will fail, there is a possibility that
POPLA would uphold the argument but even if it doesn't, it would
fail if they ever tried to make claim in court.
There is another point that has succeeded at POPLA... Is there a
timestamp on those photos on the Notice to Keeper (NtK)? If not,
then they have been cropped or altered, which is a breach of the
PPSCoP section 7.3(b) which states:
[indent]Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking
operator as the basis for issuing a
parking charge unless: the images bear an accurate time and date
stamp.[/indent]
Also, section 7.4 applies...
[indent]Parking operators must not digitally or by other means
alter images used as photographic
evidence other than:
a) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in
accordance with their GDPR
obligations; or
b) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter
the letters and numbers displayed.[/indent]
The NtK also fails to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) as
there is no invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge. There
is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the
Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal which will be rejected but will
get you the POPLA code. No need to embellish or remove anything
from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, 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 (MB)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.
MB have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83771--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: August 2, 2025, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for such a helfpul reply.
Would i deploy the fact the driver actually bought a ticket if
it goes to POPLA?
You are correct, there is no time stamp on the photos provided -
the time is written underneath.
#Post#: 83785--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: b789
Date: August 2, 2025, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you can use the fact that a ticket was purchased, but to be
honest, don't pin too much hope on POPLA either. If it is
successful, great. If it isn't, it's not binding and you don't
pay.
#Post#: 87944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 1, 2025, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies for the delay in returning to this thread, I have been
on holiday.
Whilst away I received the expected rejection of my appeal from
Minster Baywatch on the 12th August. The text of that response
is below.
Any helpful suggestions for how to draft my appeal to POPLA
gratefully received. I need to submit by 9th September at the
latest, but hope to get done this week.
Thanks again for your help.
Further to your appeal received on 05/08/2025 regarding the
above charge, we note your comments; however, when this charge
was issued this vehicle was in contravention of the agreed terms
and conditions for all users of this site.
Your appeal has been reviewed along with all evidence gathered
at the time of the breach of the site rules.
There is a contract to enter this site, as stipulated by signage
located around the car park, signage which clearly states that
the fee for the duration of parking must be covered or a vehicle
driver must record their details at any provisioned vehicle
registration system within the Grosvenor Casino on use of the
venue as a customer on each visit. Your vehicle was observed to
contravene this condition. After having thoroughly examined the
payment records and authorised list for the date and time in
question, we can find no payment nor authorised listing having
been made for your vehicle or a vehicle with a similar
registration.
We are therefore unable to cancel the charge as it was issued
correctly. You have now reached the end of our internal appeals
procedure and must choose to do one of the following: Pay the
charge at the prevailing rate of £60.00 within 14 days. Please
note that after this time the discounted rate will no longer
apply and the Charge will rise to £100.00.
MINSTER BAYWATCH LIMITED
P.O. Box 731 York YO31 7WP Website: www.minsterbaywatch.co.uk
Registered Address Minster Baywatch Ltd Popeshead Court Offices,
Peter Lane, York YO1 8SU Registered in England and Wales,
Company Registration Number 07517434
You can submit a further appeal to the Independent Appeals
Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the POPLA
code provided above, any appeal to POPLA must be made within 28
days. Please note that where a charge has been issued in
Scotland or Northern Ireland, only the driver may appeal to
POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA and you withdraw your appeal or
your appeal is rejected, the option to pay at the discounted
amount of £60.00 will no longer apply and the full amount of
£100.00 will be due. Further details on how to appeal to POPLA
can be found on their website, www.popla.co.uk.
If you choose to do nothing, after 35 days we will seek to
recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures
and may proceed with Court action against you. By law we are
also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services
(www.ombudsman-services.org/) provide an alternative dispute
resolution service that would be competent to deal with your
appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their
alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish
to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
To support our eligibility to pursue this Parking Charge Notice,
we would like to draw your attention to the fact that on 4th
November 2015 there was a landmark Court decision that saw a
motorist challenge a Parking Charge Notice through the Court
system of England and Wales with the final appeal to the Supreme
Court. Where, in a final decision made by the Supreme Court
Judges, a Judgement was handed down supporting the view that a
parking charge should be viewed as an effective deterrent. The
judgment confirmed the parking charge was lawful and motorists
parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms
and conditions. Further information regarding this judgement can
be found at www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html
Payments can be made online 24-hours a day at
www.minsterbaywatch.co.uk or via our automated phone payment
system on 03330 230973. Alternative payment methods are
available - please refer to your original charge for details.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Minster Baywatch Ltd
#Post#: 88771--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 7, 2025, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My POPLA deadline is Tuesday so I'm going to have to put my
appeal together in the next 24 hours. If anyone does have any
advice on what to include I would very much appreciate it.
#Post#: 88846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: b789
Date: September 7, 2025, 2:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your POPLA appeal code is valid for 33 days from the date of the
initial appeal rejection. Count 33 days from that date.
They allow 5mdsysmfor service of the POPLA code plus 28 days.
#Post#: 88862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 7, 2025, 3:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, that's good to know. Should I put together a POPLA
appeal based on:
1. Non-compliance of the NtK (with the reasons you posted above
- Confusion over who contract is with (CRA 2015, Section 69); No
time stamp on photograph (PPSCoP section 7.3(b)); Cropping the
image (section 7.4); No invitation for the Keeper to pay the
charge. (PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)).
2. Evidence that a ticket was bought (but mindful not to
identify the driver)
Anything else I should include or other things to note when
drafting? Should I post that back here for any comments before
submitting?
Thanks again for help- It is really appreciated.
#Post#: 88865--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: ixxy
Date: September 7, 2025, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Should there not be a 10 minute grace period? That's a major
breach of the joint code.
#Post#: 88866--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 7, 2025, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They are saying no record of the payment for the registration
rather than overstaying - so could be an error on their part or
the registration keyed incorrectly - but I agree any overstaying
is very minimal.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page