You can only submit basic text in response to the operators evidence pack. So, I suggest you copy and past the following into the POPLA response webform as your response:QuoteAppellant’s Response to Operator’s Evidence
The operator has failed to adequately rebut the key points raised in my original appeal regarding unclear signage and the ambiguity over who the contractual party is in this matter.
1. Signage Confusion and Ambiguity
The operator has failed to address the fundamental issue of conflicting signage. The prominent signage at the car park entrance states, "Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions." This explicitly indicates that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS) manages the site. In contrast, the tiny, less prominent yellow signage mentions Minster Baywatch. These conflicting signs create significant ambiguity about which party is responsible for the operation of the car park.
It is critical to note that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions and Minster Baywatch are two entirely separate legal entities, each registered at Companies House under distinct company registration numbers. This is an indisputable fact. The operator has not provided any evidence to explain or clarify this dual involvement. No reasonable driver could be expected to identify Minster Baywatch as the contracting party when Bransby Wilson’s name is most prominently displayed on the signage.
As a result, any alleged contract with Minster Baywatch is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), Section 69, which requires ambiguous terms to be interpreted in favour of the consumer.
2. Conflict in Submitted Documents
The operator has included two separate documents in their evidence pack: the "order form" and the "confirmation of authority." The "order form," which contains the substantive contractual elements, is signed exclusively by Bransby Wilson. Minster Baywatch is mentioned only in the secondary "confirmation of authority," which does not establish them as the contractual party forming agreements with drivers at the site.
Given that Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are separate legal entities, it is wholly unclear who is responsible for enforcement, signage, or the management of this car park. This unresolved ambiguity invalidates the alleged contract with Minster Baywatch.
3. Failure to Address CRA 2015, Section 69
The operator has completely failed to address my argument that ambiguous terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer under CRA 2015, Section 69. The conflicting signage and the unclear roles of Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch create a situation where a reasonable driver cannot identify the party with whom they are allegedly contracting. The operator’s failure to respond to this point further reinforces my position that the alleged contract is void.
4. Failure to Prove Payment Obligation
The operator has failed to provide evidence that a valid contract existed between the driver and Minster Baywatch. Without clear signage identifying Minster Baywatch as the operator, there is no legal basis to demand payment. Furthermore, the operator’s reliance on ANPR and payment logs does not override the fundamental requirement for clear, unambiguous contractual terms.
5. ANPR and Payment Records
The operator’s evidence focuses on the ANPR log and payment records but fails to acknowledge that I have already highlighted the confusion regarding the registration entry. The payment made for a similar registration demonstrates no intent to evade payment. This further undermines the rationale for issuing the Parking Charge Notice and highlights the lack of any financial loss suffered by the operator.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to rebut the critical points of my appeal:
• The conflicting signage does not establish Minster Baywatch as the contractual party.
• Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are entirely separate legal entities, each with a distinct company registration number. The operator has not explained how Minster Baywatch has authority to issue parking charges when Bransby Wilson is the party responsible under the contract.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 invalidates the alleged contract due to ambiguity.
For these reasons, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal.
Appellant’s Response to Operator’s Evidence
The operator has failed to adequately rebut the key points raised in my original appeal regarding unclear signage and the ambiguity over who the contractual party is in this matter.
1. Signage Confusion and Ambiguity
The operator has failed to address the fundamental issue of conflicting signage. The prominent signage at the car park entrance states, "Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions." This explicitly indicates that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS) manages the site. In contrast, the tiny, less prominent yellow signage mentions Minster Baywatch. These conflicting signs create significant ambiguity about which party is responsible for the operation of the car park.
It is critical to note that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions and Minster Baywatch are two entirely separate legal entities, each registered at Companies House under distinct company registration numbers. This is an indisputable fact. The operator has not provided any evidence to explain or clarify this dual involvement. No reasonable driver could be expected to identify Minster Baywatch as the contracting party when Bransby Wilson’s name is most prominently displayed on the signage.
As a result, any alleged contract with Minster Baywatch is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), Section 69, which requires ambiguous terms to be interpreted in favour of the consumer.
2. Conflict in Submitted Documents
The operator has included two separate documents in their evidence pack: the "order form" and the "confirmation of authority." The "order form," which contains the substantive contractual elements, is signed exclusively by Bransby Wilson. Minster Baywatch is mentioned only in the secondary "confirmation of authority," which does not establish them as the contractual party forming agreements with drivers at the site.
Given that Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are separate legal entities, it is wholly unclear who is responsible for enforcement, signage, or the management of this car park. This unresolved ambiguity invalidates the alleged contract with Minster Baywatch.
3. Failure to Address CRA 2015, Section 69
The operator has completely failed to address my argument that ambiguous terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer under CRA 2015, Section 69. The conflicting signage and the unclear roles of Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch create a situation where a reasonable driver cannot identify the party with whom they are allegedly contracting. The operator’s failure to respond to this point further reinforces my position that the alleged contract is void.
4. Failure to Prove Payment Obligation
The operator has failed to provide evidence that a valid contract existed between the driver and Minster Baywatch. Without clear signage identifying Minster Baywatch as the operator, there is no legal basis to demand payment. Furthermore, the operator’s reliance on ANPR and payment logs does not override the fundamental requirement for clear, unambiguous contractual terms.
5. ANPR and Payment Records
The operator’s evidence focuses on the ANPR log and payment records but fails to acknowledge that I have already highlighted the confusion regarding the registration entry. The payment made for a similar registration demonstrates no intent to evade payment. This further undermines the rationale for issuing the Parking Charge Notice and highlights the lack of any financial loss suffered by the operator.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to rebut the critical points of my appeal:
• The conflicting signage does not establish Minster Baywatch as the contractual party.
• Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are entirely separate legal entities, each with a distinct company registration number. The operator has not explained how Minster Baywatch has authority to issue parking charges when Bransby Wilson is the party responsible under the contract.
• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 invalidates the alleged contract due to ambiguity.
For these reasons, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal.
We know it says 28 days but in reality, it is 28 days from service and we now that the code will work up to day 33.
It's not a massive **** up but we would ave preferred to see what you intended to submit so that we could make sure that you covered all the necessary points correctly. If POPLA do not uphold your appeal, it is no big deal because their decision is not binding on you.
Let's wait and see what the operator submits as their evidence and whether they rebut all the points you raised.
In my opinion you can get to the same end but after setting out exactly what the sign(s) say(as far as is even-handed and relevant to the argument), and then by a process of examination show what it is you're setting out to establish.
Perhaps:
As can be seen, the prominent sign states:
Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions
Please note that this car park is privately owned
Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd and the owners of this site accept no [general disclaimer]
BPA Member of the British Parking Association
On a lower yellow panel there are the following:
Minster Baywatch Ltd is authorised by the landowner to ***(operate??) this car park on their behalf.
The car park conditions are set out within this notice..
..and thereafter the writing is indistinct.
BPA Approved Operator logo.
From the BPA's website:
BPA Member: Bransby Wilson
BPA Approved Operator: Minster Baywatch.
From the Single Code of Practice(which applies in accordance with its published timetable):
Parking Operator ...a person who...is entitled to recover a parking charge from the driver. The creditor.
From PoFA
"parking charge”—
(a)
in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge
From the Notice to Keeper (issued on Minster Baywatch headed paper):
Minster Baywatch Ltd(the creditor).
Then I suggest you draw this together, possibly along these lines:
The prominent sign clearly implies(any reasonable person would say states) that BWPS manage the site on behalf of the landowner - the contrary cannot reasonably be argued given BWPS attachment to the disclaimer for loss/damage etc.
However, BWPS are not Approved Operators of any Accredited Trade Association and therefore not permitted to access DVLA data.
BWPS is the only name attached to the prominent sign therefore they are deemed to offer the contract terms on behalf of the unnamed landowner.
The SCoP makes it clear that only the Parking Operator is entitled to recover a Parking Charge and is therefore the 'creditor'.
However, the NTK clearly states that MBL are the 'creditor' without any reference, by way of a statement either explicit or implicit, that another party is the 'creditor' in law as regards the Parking Charge.
I suggest that it must be clear to the assessor what is happening. BWPS secure a contract to manage the site and offer parking terms on behalf of the landowner. However, by virtue of not being a BPA Approved Operator they are unable to access DVLA data in order to identify the keeper. They have therefore contracted a third party who is a legal stranger to the contract to issue parking charges. But instead of this company, BWL, identifying themselves as an agent of the principal, BWPS, they are claiming to be the creditor in their own right.
I respectfully submit that this is contrary to the requirements of the SCoP and therefore recovery of the Parking Charge by BWL cannot be endorsed by POPLA and my appeal must be allowed.
By way of a parallel example, the assessor is probably aware that in the public sector contracting out of penalty charge enforcement by Enforcement Authorities(councils) is commonplace. However, at all times the penalty is payable to the Enforcement Authority and not the contractor. I could also add that consideration of formal representations is a function restricted by law to Enforcement Authorities. Similarly with the SCoP which requires Parking Operators to consider appeals in a manner commensurate with their Approved Operator status and not, as here, to contract out to a third party - (OP I did ask you for the full reply but you only posted what you considered to be the gist of it. Pl post all 4 corners of their reply )
It would be useful to see in detail what the yellow panel says because this would probably give rise to a separate strand of analysis along the lines of 'even if it was accepted that the wording of the lower panel in some way authorised BWL to act on BWPS's behalf such that they could be considered to be the creditor, this could not be considered to have been conveyed to the driver by virtue of the sign's lack of prominence and its minute font size etc. etc.
And then you have other arguments. But IMO set out the facts upon which you want to rely and then analyse, compare, contrast and conclude.
BPA Website: From the BPA website:It's not clear what your point is here.
BPA Member: Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions.
BPA Approved Operator: Minster Baywatch.
There is nothing else that needs considering.Perhaps, but I can see little downside to pointing out other issues with Minster's case. That said, I'd lead with the signage.
?
We have also included the sites payment log having
searched the incorrect vehicle registration mentioned in your appeal which you used to make payment
on 22/11/2024 and which matches the evidence you provided and confirms that no payment was made
for 23/11/2024. The ANPR log has also been included confirming the vehicle in question was on site on
22/11/2024 and exited on 22/11/2024 and returned on the contravening date of 23/11/2024 - a separate
visit to 22/11/2024. We have also included the payment log for both the contravening vehicle
registration and for the incorrect vehicle registration mentioned in your appeal.
So if the only car involved on 22nd and 23rd was VRM 123 and they say that only one VRM is attached to the parking rights, namely VRM 567, then why didn't they issue 2 PCNs, one for 22 and another for 23rd?
Are you positive that the 'wrong' VRM was entered on 22nd?
A couple of points as we explore what may be salvageable:
- b789's points that were not included in the appeal to the operator can still be raised at POPLA
- Have they offered a £20 major keying error discount? If not, you could raise their failure to do so as a breach of the SCoP
- The use of the term "pay & stay" could be argued to mean that one must stay after paying (i.e. not leave and come back). However, the other terms state "any session must cover the entire duration any vehicle is on site", which, one could argue your payment did. Here you're essentially arguing that the terms are ambiguous regarding whether returns are permitted.
So you didn't bother to use the provided appeal. Why ask for advice then?
Do not for a moment imagine that you are dealing with an organisation that has any culture of customer service. These companies all originated from ex-clampers who found out that it is more respectable to scam motorists without having to get their hands dirty, thanks to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
They are single-mindedly interested in only one thing, how easy it is to scam money from all the "mugs" out there who have little to no idea about their rights and the law when it comes to parking tickets. This is legalised scamming.
These unregulated private parking companies issue over 41,000 PCNs a day. Yes... a day! Combined, they are a multi billion pound business that pays no VAT and is hugely profitable.
They rely on the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who have little to no idea about how this all works and they can easily scare most victims into at least paying them the "mugs discount" rate and for the rest, they use Debt Recovery Agents (DRAs) to scare the rest into paying the inflated fee as huge numbers of their victims ignorantly believe that these DRAs can send round bailiffs and issue CCJs. They can't but that doesn't stop huge numbers of "mugs" feeding their greed.
So, you can try and appeal to their good nature, which we know doesn't work or you can play them at their own game and outmanoeuvre them on the legal battlefield. The choice is yours. The experience is ours.
why would they not accept an appealBecause they don't make money from accepting appeals
Here is a suitable appeal to Mister Baywatch:QuoteAppeal against Parking Charge Notice – Reference [Insert PCN Number]
Date: [Insert Date]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration Number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing as the Keeper of the vehicle to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above. I dispute the validity of this PCN for the following reasons:
1. Signage Discrepancy and Breach of the Single Code of Practice (SCoP)
The BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets clear standards for signage at parking sites to ensure clarity and fairness for motorists. Relevant sections include:• Clause 3.1.3(c): Signs within controlled land must clearly display the identity of the parking operator and their contact details. In this case, the prominent signage is branded with "Bransby Wilson," with no clear indication that Minster Baywatch is the operator responsible for enforcement.
• Clause 3.1.3(i): Signage must be clear and unambiguous. The conflicting signage creates confusion about which company is responsible for enforcement, violating this requirement.
• Clause 3.1.3(j): Signs must clearly display the parking charge for breaches of terms and conditions. The inconsistency between the signage undermines the clarity required under this clause.
The failure to meet these requirements results in misleading information and an unenforceable contract.
2. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015)
The lack of clarity and conflicting signage also breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly:• Section 62: A term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. The unclear signage creates such an imbalance, as drivers cannot reasonably determine which company they are contracting with.
• Section 68: Written terms must be transparent, meaning they must be legible and understandable. The conflicting operator identities on the signage at this location fail to meet this standard.
As a result, no valid contract exists between the driver and Minster Baywatch.
3. Ambiguity in Contract Formation
A valid contract requires clarity regarding the parties involved. The prominent signage branded with "Bransby Wilson" leads a reasonable driver to believe that Bransby Wilson is the operator managing the car park. The secondary, much smaller Minster Baywatch signage does not provide sufficient clarity to override this perception, rendering the purported contract void.
4. Authority to Issue Parking Charges
To ensure compliance with the Single Code of Practice, I request that Minster Baywatch provide evidence of their authority to enforce parking charges at this site. Specifically:• A copy of the contract with the landowner granting Minster Baywatch the authority to issue PCNs.
• Confirmation that the signage complies with the requirements of Clause 3.1.3 of the SCoP, including operator identification and clarity.
5. Request for Cancellation
Given the breaches of the Single Code of Practice, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the lack of clear contractual terms, I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.
Should you reject this appeal, I formally request:• A detailed response addressing all points raised in this appeal.
• A copy of the evidence requested above, including the contract with the landowner and proof of signage compliance.
• A POPLA code to allow me to escalate this matter to the independent adjudicator.
This appeal is submitted in good faith as the registered Keeper of the vehicle. Please direct all correspondence regarding this matter to me.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details]
Appeal against Parking Charge Notice – Reference [Insert PCN Number]
Date: [Insert Date]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration Number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing as the Keeper of the vehicle to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above. I dispute the validity of this PCN for the following reasons:
1. Signage Discrepancy and Breach of the Single Code of Practice (SCoP)
The BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets clear standards for signage at parking sites to ensure clarity and fairness for motorists. Relevant sections include:• Clause 3.1.3(c): Signs within controlled land must clearly display the identity of the parking operator and their contact details. In this case, the prominent signage is branded with "Bransby Wilson," with no clear indication that Minster Baywatch is the operator responsible for enforcement.
• Clause 3.1.3(i): Signage must be clear and unambiguous. The conflicting signage creates confusion about which company is responsible for enforcement, violating this requirement.
• Clause 3.1.3(j): Signs must clearly display the parking charge for breaches of terms and conditions. The inconsistency between the signage undermines the clarity required under this clause.
The failure to meet these requirements results in misleading information and an unenforceable contract.
2. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015)
The lack of clarity and conflicting signage also breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly:• Section 62: A term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. The unclear signage creates such an imbalance, as drivers cannot reasonably determine which company they are contracting with.
• Section 68: Written terms must be transparent, meaning they must be legible and understandable. The conflicting operator identities on the signage at this location fail to meet this standard.
As a result, no valid contract exists between the driver and Minster Baywatch.
3. Ambiguity in Contract Formation
A valid contract requires clarity regarding the parties involved. The prominent signage branded with "Bransby Wilson" leads a reasonable driver to believe that Bransby Wilson is the operator managing the car park. The secondary, much smaller Minster Baywatch signage does not provide sufficient clarity to override this perception, rendering the purported contract void.
4. Authority to Issue Parking Charges
To ensure compliance with the Single Code of Practice, I request that Minster Baywatch provide evidence of their authority to enforce parking charges at this site. Specifically:• A copy of the contract with the landowner granting Minster Baywatch the authority to issue PCNs.
• Confirmation that the signage complies with the requirements of Clause 3.1.3 of the SCoP, including operator identification and clarity.
5. Request for Cancellation
Given the breaches of the Single Code of Practice, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the lack of clear contractual terms, I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.
Should you reject this appeal, I formally request:• A detailed response addressing all points raised in this appeal.
• A copy of the evidence requested above, including the contract with the landowner and proof of signage compliance.
• A POPLA code to allow me to escalate this matter to the independent adjudicator.
This appeal is submitted in good faith as the registered Keeper of the vehicle. Please direct all correspondence regarding this matter to me.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details]
I obviously need to visit doe savers as I can only see Minster Baywatch mentioned
where?
Before we get onto other matters, paying for parking but entering an entirely wrong VRM is considered a 'major keying error' in the Sector Single Code of Practice. If this error is pointed out, a reduced charge of £20 should be offered.
If you would rather pay nothing and are up for a fight, read on...
You should confirm if that signage is still there now.
This is common with Minster Baywatch cases. The parking charge notice says that Minster Baywatch Ltd are the creditor, but the contractual signage at the site bears the name Branby Wilson - therefore any contract that was formed was formed between the driver and Branby Wilson, not Minster Baywatch. Have a search for Branby Wilson and Minster Baywatch cases on the MSE parking forum and you'll see many examples of this.
Do you have photos of the signage at the site? If not, are you able to easily acquire some?