DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 88867--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 7, 2025, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> Should there not be a 10 minute grace period? That's a major
breach of the joint code.
>
--- End Quote ---
There should be, yes, but Minster Baywatch's claim is that no
payment was made at all.
OP - does the vehicle's VRM (reg plate) begin with 'E', by any
chance?
#Post#: 88869--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 7, 2025, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No, but the question intrigues me!
#Post#: 88874--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 7, 2025, 5:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It was the "E" next to the "3.00" on the ticket that made me ask
- I was considering the possibility that for one reason or
another, only 1 letter of the VRM had been registered when
paying. It's something I've seen happen before.
#Post#: 88942--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 8, 2025, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for everyone's help on this thread. I know I have a few
more days, but keen to get this off my plate.
Here is a link to the appeal I plan to submit, based on the
advice above, with personal details redacted. I plan to send in
an (unredacted) pdf version of this document once it is
finalised - I assume that is a valid way to do my appeal?
HTML https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XdLd8prR3E9bAEkTRtT4dPSy2sLvzGJaybWA9rIJ4EM/edit?usp=sharing
HTML https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XdLd8prR3E9bAEkTRtT4dPSy2sLvzGJaybWA9rIJ4EM/edit?usp=sharing<br
/>
I also copy the text below without the pictures.
Grateful for anyone's advice on how I can improve this. In
particular
1. I have not made reference to the signs that do mention
Minister Baywatch in the car park - as it felt like I was making
their case for them - but I could include if I want to emphasise
the point that it is confusing rather than (as now) anyone
reasonable would think they are contracting with Minister
Baywatch.
2. Is there anything I'm missing?
3. Is the format ok - I've just tried to structure as logically
as possible?
As ever, thanks in advance for any help anyone can offer.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Parking Charge Reference: [XXXXXXX]
Operator: Minster Baywatch
Alleged Contravention: Vehicle was not authorised to use the car
park
Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
Background
I received a letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd on 26th July 2025
(dated 18th July 2025) titled “Notice to Keeper or Hire
Company”. This letter identified me as the owner of a vehicle
that they claimed had breached “stated contractual terms and
conditions of use” of a car park and asked me to identify the
driver. The letter states if I fail to do so, they have a “right
to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge” from me as the
registered keeper. I attach photos of the front and back of
this letter as evidence at Annex 1.
I subsequently appealed to Minster Baywatch on the basis that
this Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with ALL the
requirements of the the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012,
and therefore they are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle
liable for the charge. This appeal was rejected and I was
advised to appeal to POPLA.
Outline of the basis of my appeal
My appeal to you is on three distinct grounds that I would like
you to consider individually and in full:
1. That Minster Baywatch Ltd has not demonstrated they are
authorised to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby
Wilson - Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, Section 69;
2. that the Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with
ALL the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
2012; and
3. that a valid ticket was purchased for the vehicle.
Evidence supporting my appeal
This section outlines my points of appeal in more detail and
provides supporting evidence.
1. Minster Baywatch Ltd has not demonstrated they are authorised
to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby Wilson -
Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, Section 69
Minster Baywatch Ltd are not named on the signs at or near the
pay machine.
The signs at the pay machine for the car park (see fig.1) and
the machine itself (see fig. 2) display the name “Bransby Wilson
Parking Solutions". These signs do not contain the name “Minster
Baywatch Ltd” or similar. These are distinct companies
registered separately at Companies House.
In addition, payments made by card at this car park show as
being made to “Bransby Wilson Parking” on the bank statement.
The RingGo app and website both show Bransby Wilson as the
operator of the car park.
The signage and payment details would lead any reasonable driver
to believe they are contracting with Bransby Wilson Parking
Solutions. No reasonable driver would believe they were entering
a contract with Minster Baywatch Ltd. Minster Baywatch Ltd 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.
2. The Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
The photos that Minster Baywatch Ltd have supplied in the Notice
to Keeper letter do not have timestamps. The time and date is
written-in underneath. This is a breach of the Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 7.3(b) which
states:
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.
The shape of the photographs and lack of a timestamp show that
these photos have been digitally altered, and so PPSCoP section
7.4 also applies:
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.
The Notice to Keeper also fails to comply with PoFA paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) as there is no invitation for the Keeper to pay the
charge.
The Notice to Keeper is, therefore, 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.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient
of the Notice to Keeper) to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
3. A valid ticket was purchased for the vehicle
The Notice to Keeper states that the “Vehicle was not authorised
to use the car park”. In the response to my initial appeal,
Minster Baywatch Ltd stated ”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”. The full response to my appeal is attached at
Annex 2.
In fact, a ticket was bought for the vehicle and displayed in
the windscreen. Fig 3 shows a picture of that ticket and Fig 4 a
redacted bank statement showing the purchase of the ticket,
reflected on the account the following day as a payment to
“Bransby Wilson". In line with point 1 above, any contract
entered was with Bransby Wilson and not Minster Baywatch Ltd.
So the basis for the PCN - that a payment for parking was not
made - is false and therefore the PCN is invalid. Note that this
information does not confirm the identification of the driver
and no inference or assumptions can be made.
Summary
Taken together this evidence shows that the PCN was not valid in
the first place - a ticket was in fact purchased - and any
contract for parking was made with Bransby Wilson and not
Minster Baywatch. Therefore the Notice to Keeper letter from
Minster Baywatch is invalid, but that notice also fails on its
own terms as it is not compliant with relevant law. Therefore I
conclude I am under no obligation to identify the named driver
and as the keeper of the vehicle not liable for any charge.
#Post#: 88957--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 8, 2025, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've not read the appeal yet (I will in due course), but if it
were me appealing, I'd be tempted to lead with point #3, then
move on to the other points.
Your technical appeal points around PoFA and Branby Wilson etc.
are all perfectly valid, but the fact that the driver paid for
their stay in full (and left within the applicable grace period)
rebuts the entire basis of the parking charge, which was issued
because they allege the vehicle was not authorised to be there.
#Post#: 88961--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 8, 2025, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good point, I will rejig for the final version.
#Post#: 88992--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: b789
Date: September 8, 2025, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is bolleaux:
--- Quote ---
> I received a letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd on 26th July
2025 (dated 18th July 2025) titled “Notice to Keeper or Hire
Company”. This letter identified me as the owner of a vehicle
--- End Quote ---
Can you point us in the direction to the official “Register of
Owners” where they supposedly identified you as the “owner”?
#Post#: 88996--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 8, 2025, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Got it, keeper. Will edit.
#Post#: 89063--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 9, 2025, 3:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any other comments before I submit tonight gratefully received.
#Post#: 89184--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 9, 2025, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have edited the response to take on the comments above - still
available at the link above. The revised text (without pictures)
is as follows. Still not sure whether to mention the signs that
do say Minster Baywatch as part of my second point.
I plan to submit tonight, but any thoughts and suggestions still
welcome.
Thanks as ever - I really appreciate all the help.
=======================================================================================================================================
Parking Charge Reference: [XXXXXXX]
Operator: Minster Baywatch
Alleged Contravention: Vehicle was not authorised to use the car
park
Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
Background
I received a letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd on 26th July 2025
(dated 18th July 2025) titled “Notice to Keeper or Hire
Company”. This letter identified me as the keeper of a vehicle
that they claimed had breached “stated contractual terms and
conditions of use” of a car park and asked me to identify the
driver. The letter states if I fail to do so, they have a “right
to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge” from me as the
registered keeper. I attach photos of the front and back of
this letter as evidence at Annex 1.
I subsequently appealed to Minster Baywatch on the basis that
this Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with ALL the
requirements of the the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012,
and therefore they are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle
liable for the charge. This appeal was rejected and I was
advised to appeal to POPLA.
Outline of the basis of my appeal
My appeal to you is on three distinct grounds that I would like
you to consider individually and in full:
1. That a valid ticket was purchased for the vehicle from
Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions;
2. that Minster Baywatch Ltd has not demonstrated they are
authorised to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby
Wilson - Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, Section 69; and
3. that the Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with
ALL the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
2012.
Evidence supporting my appeal
This section outlines my points of appeal in more detail and
provides supporting evidence.
1. A valid ticket was purchased for the vehicle from Bransby
Wilson Parking Solutions
The Notice to Keeper states that the “Vehicle was not authorised
to use the car park”. In the response to my initial appeal,
Minster Baywatch Ltd stated ”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”. The full response to my appeal is attached at
Annex 2.
In fact, a ticket was bought for the vehicle and displayed in
the windscreen. Fig 1 shows a picture of that ticket and Fig 2 a
redacted bank statement showing the purchase of the ticket,
reflected on the payer’s account the following day as a payment
to “Bransby Wilson". The signage around the pay machine for the
car park (see fig.3) and the machine itself (see fig. 4) both
display the name “Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions". These signs
do not contain the name “Minster Baywatch Ltd” or similar. These
are distinct companies registered separately at Companies House.
Any contract entered was with Bransby Wilson and not Minster
Baywatch Ltd. This may explain why Minster Baywatch Ltd are not
able to find a relevant transaction - the car park does not
appear to be operated by them and payment was not made to them.
So the basis for the PCN - that a payment for parking was not
made - is false and therefore the PCN is invalid. Note that this
information does not confirm the identification of the driver
and no inference or assumptions can be made.
2. Minster Baywatch Ltd has not demonstrated that they are
authorised to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby
Wilson - Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, Section 69
As shown above, Minster Baywatch Ltd are not named on the signs
at or near the pay machine. These display the name Bransby
Wilson Parking Solutions. In addition, payments made by card at
this car park show as being made to “Bransby Wilson Parking” on
a bank statement. The RingGo app and website both show Bransby
Wilson as the operator of the car park.
Minster Baywatch Ltd and Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions 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 and payment details would lead any reasonable driver
to believe they are contracting with Bransby Wilson Parking
Solutions. No reasonable driver would believe they were entering
a contract with Minster Baywatch Ltd. Minster Baywatch Ltd 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.
3. The Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
The photos that Minster Baywatch Ltd have supplied in the Notice
to Keeper letter do not have timestamps. The time and date is
written-in underneath. This is a breach of the Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 7.3(b) which
states:
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.
The shape of the photographs and lack of a timestamp show that
these photos have been digitally altered, and so PPSCoP section
7.4 also applies:
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.
The Notice to Keeper also fails to comply with PoFA paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) as there is no invitation for the Keeper to pay the
charge.
The Notice to Keeper is, therefore, 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.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient
of the Notice to Keeper) to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
Summary
Taken together this evidence shows that the PCN was not valid in
the first place - a ticket was in fact purchased and any
contract for parking was made with Bransby Wilson and not
Minster Baywatch. Therefore the Notice to Keeper letter from
Minster Baywatch is invalid, but that notice also fails on its
own terms as it is not compliant with relevant law. Therefore I
conclude I am under no obligation to identify the driver and as
the keeper of the vehicle not liable for any charge.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page