DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 89201--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: b789
Date: September 9, 2025, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's only POPLA. Just send it and when the operator submits
their evidence, you will have an opportunity to see if they've
rebutted your appeal points and respond accordingly.
#Post#: 89202--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 9, 2025, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Great, thank you.
#Post#: 89517--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 11, 2025, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
*update*
I have received Minster Baywatch's evidence in response to my
POPLA appeal. Redacted version shared here: Redacted Evidence
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NXEVHZYtL21Xy_gut_9b8_RvWcYauZDu/view?usp=sharing
I don't think they have effectively rebutted any of the points
of appeal. My reasoning is as follows.
1. That a valid ticket was purchased for the vehicle from
Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions
They have showed that there was a major keying error but
confirmed that a ticket was purchased (and said they would have
offered the £20 rate had I raised this with them, presumably to
cover that grounds of rejection by POPLA).
2. that 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
They have provided lots of pictures of signs and a copy of an
agreement between themselves and Bransby Wilson, but in doing so
have confirmed that some signs (those near the pay machine)
don't say Minster Baywatch. I think this shows ambiguity and, as
you have told me, Under CRA 2015 Section 69 any ambiguity must
be resolved in favour of the consumer. The agreement between the
companies seems irrelevant - how can the driver have contracted
with them on the basis of information they are only now
supplying?
3. that the Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with
ALL the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
2012.
They don't seem to have engaged with this at all (and instead
make an irrelevant point about timescales). However, the
non-cropped pictures they have now supplied confirm that those
in the NtK were cropped which demonstrates that the NtK is not
POFA compliant. The point that the Ntk doesn't invite the keeper
to pay the charge stands uncontested.
I plan to respond along these lines before the 7 day deadline.
Any other advice or suggestions anyone can offer are very much
appreciated.
#Post#: 89555--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: b789
Date: September 11, 2025, 2:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can just copy and paste the following into he response
webform, It is well within the 10,000 character limit:
--- Quote ---
> This response to the operator’s evidence pack refers to my
three pleaded grounds and shows what has not been rebutted.
>
> Valid ticket was purchased (operator now concedes “major
keying error”)
>
> The operator’s own evidence accepts there was a paid session
and says they would have offered the £20 keying-error outcome.
That is a concession that payment existed.
>
> Their original allegation “not authorised to use the car park”
is therefore incorrect on its face. A paid, mis-keyed VRM is not
“no authorisation”. Nothing in their bundle justifies pursuing a
full PCN on that false premise.
>
> Their photos confirm mixed branding: the tariff boards and pay
machine identify Bransby Wilson; payment on the bank statement
is to Bransby Wilson. That is who the consumer reasonably
believes they are contracting with.
>
> The redacted, inconsistent “licence agreement” produced after
the fact does not cure the ambiguity presented to the motorist
at the point of contract and does not show a clear, current
mandate for this site on the material date.
>
> Under CRA 2015 s.68–69, any ambiguity about the contracting
party is resolved in the consumer’s favour. The operator has not
rebutted this; if anything their own material entrenches it.
>
> NtK non-compliance with PoFA and evidence integrity issues
remain unaddressed
>
> The operator’s comments about “timescales” do not engage with
the pleaded PoFA defects. The NtK failed to include the
mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking
charges (PoFA Sch.4 para 9(2)(e)(i)).
>
> That omission is dispositive: keeper liability cannot arise
when any one of the para 9(2) requirements is missing.
>
> Additionally, the NtK relied on cropped ANPR stills with times
typed beneath rather than embedded. That breaches the PPSCoP
v1.1:
>
> - Clause 7.3(b): images used as the basis for a charge must
“bear an accurate time and date stamp.”
>
> - Clause 7.4: photographic evidence must not be digitally
altered except to blur faces/other VRMs, or to enhance the VRM
for clarity (not to change characters). Producing
uncropped/stamped images later does not repair the defect in the
NtK actually served.
>
> Also, the NtK still does not specify a “period of parking” as
required by PoFA para 9(2)(a); ANPR entry/exit instants are not
the same as a period parked. None of these PoFA points has been
answered by the operator.
>
> Standing not proved; CRA 2015 s.69 applies due to
consumer-facing ambiguity
>
> The exhibited “Licence Agreement” is not proof of standing. It
is a muddled, redacted collage that fails to show a live,
site-specific mandate in Minster Baywatch’s own name on the
material date. It invites ridicule rather than confidence for
the following plain reasons.
>
> The parties are not even identified coherently. The recital
says the agreement is made between “Bransby Wilson Ltd (the
Client)” and “Minster Baywatch Ltd (the Company)”, yet clause 4
suddenly switches to “Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd” as
the entity supposedly confirming authority and instructing
Minster Baywatch. If the drafter cannot keep the principal’s
legal name straight within the same two-page instrument, the
document is not reliable evidence of who authorised what.
>
> The dates do not withstand scrutiny. It purports to be “made
on 1 April 2011” but the only signatures are dated 28 October
2012. There is no visible clause granting retroactive effect. On
its face it is either sloppily back-dated or compiled. In either
case, the operator still had to prove subsisting authority for
this specific site on 12 July 2025. They have not.
>
> Clause 1 makes the weakness worse, not better. It grants an
initial three-month term and says continuation is only if both
parties agree, thereafter terminable on one month’s notice. The
operator has provided no evidence of any continuing agreement,
no proof that no termination was served, and no unredacted
correspondence bridging the gap to 2025. The clause that should
save them simply highlights what is missing.
>
> Redactions gut the chain of authority. The client’s identity
and address are concealed; most of the site schedule is blacked
out. POPLA cannot verify who the principal is, what was
authorised, or whether “Sheffield, G Casino, S2 4BG” was within
scope and remained so on the material date. A contract that
hides its principal and scope is unworthy of reliance.
>
> Document integrity is compromised. After clauses 1–4, the
header “LICENCE AGREEMENT” bizarrely reappears and a different
clause 4 follows. There are no page numbers or initials. That
looks like pages from different versions spliced together. POPLA
cannot be expected to guess which version, if any, governed this
site.
>
> Even on its own wording, Minster Baywatch is only acting “on
behalf of” Bransby Wilson. There is no clear, unredacted grant
of the right to issue and recover charges in Minster Baywatch’s
own name. Meanwhile, the consumer-facing materials and the card
merchant descriptor identify Bransby Wilson as the creditor. If
Minster Baywatch wishes to contradict the face of the consumer
contract, it must produce a crystal-clear, current mandate. This
is anything but.
>
> In short: a confusing recital, inconsistent party names,
execution long after the stated “made” date, a three-month
initial term with no proof of continuation, heavy redactions
that conceal the principal and scope, and a spliced clause
structure. This is a risible attempt to dress up a lack of
standing as a contract. POPLA should give it negligible weight
and allow the appeal on standing alone.
>
> Conclusion
>
> On the appellant’s three pleaded grounds, the operator either
concedes the point (payment) or fails to answer it (standing;
PoFA content). The appeal should be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 89698--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: September 12, 2025, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for such a full response - fantastic of you.
#Post#: 96913--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: tellyaddicts
Date: November 5, 2025, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA appeal results are in - unsuccessful (pasted below). I
guess I now sit tight and wait for Minster Baywatch to start
chasing?
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Paul Garrity
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to
the vehicle was not authorised to use the car park.
Assessor summary of your case
Assessor summary of appellant case The appellant has raised the
following points from their grounds of appeal. For the purposes
of my decision, I have summarised these below. • A valid ticket
was purchased from Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions and
displayed in the vehicle window. • Minster Baywatch has not
demonstrated it is authorised to enforce parking at a site
operated by Bransby Wilson. • The Notice to Keeper does not
fully comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. On
reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on
their initial grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the
appellant has provided an image of the parking ticket a bank
statement photo of signage a copy of the notice to hire company
and the operator’s response to their appeal. The above evidence
has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park displayed on the signs located within the car park.
Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out these
signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and
complying with these. The Minster Baywatch signs on this site
confirm all vehicles must either have a valid pay and stay
session valid pay by phone session or be included on the
authorised suer list and failure to comply will result in the
issue of a £100 PCN. I note the Bransby Wilson signage on this
site provided by the appellant confirms a parking charge will be
issued by the designated enforcement company to any unauthorised
vehicles remaining on the car park and failing to comply with
the terms and conditions. The operator has provided photographic
evidence the vehicle remained on site for two hours and eight
minutes. The operator has also provided evidence from its online
payment report which confirms no payment was made against the
full and correct vehicle registration number. POPLA is an
evidence-based service, and I can only base my decision on the
evidence presented at the time of the appeal. The appellant has
not admitted to being the driver. I will therefore be
considering their responsibility as keeper of the vehicle. In
order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the
operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the
evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between
the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not
provided a current name and address for service for the driver.
Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions.
I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer
liability. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to
determine if they make a material difference to the validity of
the parking charge notice. The appellant has provided an image
of the parking ticket and a bank statement confirming when
making payment, only one character of the vehicle registration
was entered, E. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators
need to comply with. The Appeals Charter is a statement within
the code on how certain circumstances should be handled by the
parking operator. This details when a parking charge should be
cancelled, and when a parking charge should be reduced when an
appeal is based on an error or mitigating circumstances. Section
F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking
operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate
evidence being provided. Such as if a driver has paid the tariff
or registered their vehicle but they have swapped characters,
have digits missing or have entered the wrong registration
completely. On reviewing the appellants initial appeal to the
operator, the appellant did not advise the driver was a
legitimate user of the car park or that a payment was made nor
did they provide evidence of the parking ticket. Therefore, as
no appropriate evidence was provided at the first appeal stage,
the operator was not required to meet the requirement of F.3 of
the code. While it is not disputed that a payment was made, by
failing to enter the full correct vehicle registration, this
ticket is not valid for the vehicle to remain on site. The
operator has provided a copy of the contract with the landowner,
Bransby Wilson. This contract confirms that Minster Baywatch has
been appointed by Bransby Wilson to enforce paring on this site
on its behalf. This is confirmed on the Bransby Wilson signage
that enforcement is carried out by the designated enforcement
company. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled
land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written
confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be
issued On reviewing this contract and as the appellant has not
provided any evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I am satisfied
that Minster Baywatch has been appointed by Bransby Wilson to
enforce parking on this site. A valid ticket was purchased from
Bransby Wilson Paring Solutions and displayed in the vehicle
window. The Notice to Keeper was issued within the relevant
period and clearly advises if the keeper was not the driver,
they should provide the operator the full name of the driver and
full address where a notice can be service and to pass the
notice onto them. The notice also advises that if the charge has
not been paid and the operator does not know the name and
current address of the driver, it has the right to recover any
unpaid charge from the registered keeper. Within its case file,
the operator also provided clear and larger copies of the images
of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. These images
clearly show the time and date stamped are included directly on
these images. Therefore, while it is noted the actual images on
the notice are smaller, the times provided match the time stamps
on the larger images. As such, I am satisfied that the notice
fully meets the requirements of POFA. On reviewing the
operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their initial
grounds of appeal. As I have considered these above, I will not
comment further. The appellant has also provided the operators
response to their appeal. As I have reviewed this within the
case file, I will not comment further. POPLA’s role is to assess
if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the
conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the
car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has
issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused
#Post#: 96960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Minster Baywatch NTK at Grosvenor casino Sheffield despite
ticket being bought
DIR By: b789
Date: November 5, 2025, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The POPLA decision is not binding on you and you DO NOT pay. For
now, email the following formal complaint about this assessors
utter incompetence to POPLA:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal complaint – material errors, QA failure, and
concerns about independence (POPLA ref: [REF], Assessor: Paul
Garrity, Site: Sheffield Grosvenor Casino, Decision date:
[DATE])
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Please register this as a formal complaint about the above
decision. I am not asking for a reassessment; I know POPLA does
not rehear cases. I am asking for a lead-assessor review of the
reasoning, a written explanation addressing each point below,
and confirmation of what corrective action will be taken. This
complaint will be copied to my MP and used to question POPLA’s
independence and competence.
>
> Executive summary – the most obvious flaws
>
> 1. Paid session conceded; “not authorised” upheld
> The operator admits a paid session existed (their own words: a
major keying error) and says the £20 charter outcome would have
applied. Upholding a full PCN on a “not authorised” premise in
the face of an admitted paid session is irrational and rewards
poor operator practice.
>
> 2. Landowner status mischaracterised
> The decision describes Bransby Wilson as “the landowner”. The
exhibit says Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd is a managing
agent and that authority applies where the land is not owned by
BWPSL. A redacted, internally inconsistent paper naming an agent
does not prove landowner authority. POPLA should have required
an unredacted, continuous chain from the actual landholder to
the operator, current on the material date and covering this
site.
>
> 3. PoFA keeper liability reduced to postage dates
>
> The decision looks at timing but ignores pleaded content
defects that are dispositive:
> [indent]• PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(e)(i): the NtK text invites
payment only if the recipient was the driver, rather than
inviting the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
> • PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(a): no specified period of parking;
ANPR entry/exit instants are not a parking period.[/indent]
>
> Strict compliance is required; none of this was analysed.
>
> 4. Consideration and grace periods ignored
> Entry around 14:02 and ticket around 14:07 meets the
consideration period. A two-hour ticket to ~16:07 with exit at
~16:09 sits within the end-of-stay grace. The operator even
asserts a 30-minute site grace. The decision does not engage
with this at all.
>
> 5. “Authority” document lacks integrity and probative value
> The paper is “made” 01/04/2011 but signed 28/10/2012, uses
“Bransby Wilson Ltd” in the recital but “Bransby Wilson Parking
Solutions Ltd” in clause 4, repeats the “LICENCE AGREEMENT”
header mid-document with a second clause 4, and redacts the
client identity and most of the site schedule. Clause 1 grants
only an initial three-month term with continuation by agreement
and terminable on one month’s notice. There is no unredacted
evidence of a subsisting, site-specific mandate on the material
date. Accepting this collage as proof of standing was
unreasonable.
>
> 6. Retrofitting the NtK with later photos
> The decision leans on larger, later images in the bundle to
justify the NtK instead of assessing the NtK as served. A
defective or incomplete NtK is not cured by evidence produced
later.
>
> 7.Reliance on rhetoric
> The operator’s “generic template” slur is repeated but never
evidenced. It does not rebut any pleaded defect and should not
feature in a reasoned decision.
>
> Why this matters
> These are not marginal judgement calls. They are basic legal
and evidential errors: conflating agent with landowner; ignoring
an admitted paid session; substituting PoFA timing for PoFA
content; overlooking grace; and treating a spliced, redacted
document as authority. This undermines confidence in POPLA’s
competence and independence.
>
> Requested actions
> [indent]1. Lead-assessor review of this decision’s reasoning
and a written response addressing points 1–7 above for the
record.
> 2. Confirmation that this decision has been marked as a QA
failure and what corrective guidance will be issued to assessors
on:
> [indent]• PoFA content (9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(a));
> • Distinguishing landowner, managing agent, and operator and
requiring an unredacted, continuous chain of authority;
> • Handling admitted keying-error cases under the Appeals
Charter;
> • Correct application of consideration and grace periods;
> • Assessing the NtK as served rather than back-filled by later
exhibits.[/indent]
> 3. Confirmation of what process changes POPLA will implement
to prevent recurrence.[/indent]
>
> Further action and context
> I have no confidence in this outcome or in POPLA’s
independence. I will send a copy of this complaint to my MP to
raise the question of oversight and independence in Parliament,
given POPLA operates with ATA permission while routinely
accepting redacted, incoherent “authority” papers and
overlooking statutory requirements.
>
> When the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is
finally enforced, bodies that cannot meet basic standards thanks
to incompetence or poor training, should have no role. In the
meantime, I expect a full written explanation for the record.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page