The parties to a parking contract are the driver and the parking operator. Whilst Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act provides a mechanism to recover unpaid charges from the keeper, that does not alter the parties between whom the contract was formed.
In light of this, I'm not sure what evidence Minster Baywatch could produce to show that the driver was the same on each occasion, and that any driver has exceeded the 14 hours per week limit.
The signage is silent as to whether the 14 hours applies to the driver or the vehicle, which brings to mind the following from the Consumer Rights Act (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2):69 Contract terms that may have different meanings[/i](1)If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.[/i]
Can you host the operators evidence pack somewhere so we can see it all?DropBox and Google Drive are both good options.
POPLA Appeal – Minster Baywatch Parking Charge Notice
Parking Charge Reference: [XXXXXXX]
Operator: Minster Baywatch
Alleged Contravention: Exceeding a 14-hour combined stay over a one-week period
Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
Minster Baywatch issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to my vehicle for allegedly breaching a recently introduced “14-hour maximum combined stay over any one-week period” rule at a Meadowhall car park. As the registered keeper, I formally appeal this charge on the following grounds:
1. Failure to Highlight Material Changes
Minster Baywatch introduced a new parking restriction—the 14-hour maximum combined stay over a week—without adequately notifying regular visitors. This is a material change to the parking terms, yet the operator has buried it within existing signage in the same small font, colour, and style, making it indistinguishable from prior terms.
This breaches Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to:• Clearly signal material changes at the entrance and throughout the site.
• Use temporary notices, bold text, bright colours, or other prominent means for at least four months to ensure awareness.
Minster Baywatch has failed to implement any of these requirements, making enforcement of this newly introduced rule both unfair and unenforceable.
Additionally, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) requires contract terms to be transparent and prominent. Burying a major new restriction in small print violates Schedule 2 of the CRA, rendering the term unenforceable against consumers.
2. Inadequate Notification of Material Changes
Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence of when the 14-hour combined stay rule was introduced. Based on available information, this change likely took effect in December 2024. Under PPSCoP Section 3.4, the operator was required to:• Place temporary notices at all site entrances for a minimum of four months following the change.
• Ensure existing customers are made explicitly aware of new restrictions to prevent inadvertent breaches.
Meadowhall has multiple multi-storey car parks, accommodating approximately 12,000 vehicles. The sheer scale of the site means that a single temporary notice at one entrance is insufficient.
I personally visited the site, capturing dashcam footage which confirms no signage at car park entrances alerts users to any updated terms. Dated screenshots from two separate visits show that motorists can enter the car park without seeing any notification of the rule change. Full video footage is available for review.
By failing to clearly notify motorists of a material change, Minster Baywatch is non-compliant with the PPSCoP, further undermining the enforceability of this charge.
3. Unfair and Impractical Contractual Terms
The 14-hour combined weekly limit is an unfair and impractical contractual term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) because:• It requires motorists to track cumulative parking durations across multiple visits over seven days, something most visitors do not and cannot reasonably do.
• If the vehicle is used by multiple drivers, compliance is practically impossible unless all users meticulously record each visit.
• Meadowhall is a large shopping and leisure complex, where customers visit for various activities (shopping, cinema, restaurants, and more). Expecting visitors to manually calculate their cumulative parking over a week is unrealistic and disproportionate.
This term creates a significant imbalance between motorists and the parking operator, making it unfair under Schedule 2 of the CRA. A term that cannot be reasonably followed by the average consumer is inherently unenforceable.
Additionally, expecting customers to track cumulative parking durations over multiple calendar years (e.g., one visit in 2024 and one in 2025) is absurd, further proving that this term is both excessive and unreasonable.
4. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence that it has landholder authority to issue and enforce parking charges. The operator is put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder to the operator.
There is no evidence that Minster Baywatch:• Has adhered to the landholder’s definitions, exemptions, grace periods, or hours of operation.
• Has been granted authority to enforce parking charges in its own name, rather than acting as a mere agent.
• Has the right to override landowner decisions regarding complaints and charge cancellations.
Minster Baywatch must provide an unredacted copy of its landholder contract, including any site agreements or manuals defining:• Exemptions (e.g., for genuine customers or residents).
• Boundaries of enforcement and operational start/expiry dates.
• The landowner’s ability to cancel charges.
A witness statement alone is insufficient evidence, as such statements are often pre-signed, generic documents that fail to reference specific site terms. If Minster Baywatch lacks full proprietary rights over the land, then it cannot establish standing to pursue this charge.
5. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012 – Operator Fails to Establish Keeper Liability
Minster Baywatch has failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), meaning keeper liability cannot be established. Specifically:• The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 8th January but not received until 22nd January, well beyond the mandatory 14-day timeframe required under POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5).
• The NtK was sent via untracked post, meaning there is no guaranteed evidence of when it entered the postal system or that it was delivered in accordance with POFA’s strict timeframe.
The PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e), Note 2 states:QuoteTherefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system).
Minster Baywatch is now put to strict proof that the NtK was actually entered into the postal system on the date claimed. They must provide:• A postal log from their mail processor confirming dispatch.
• A Royal Mail or mail consolidator statement proving when the notice was posted.
A certificate of posting by hybrid mail receipt by the bulk mailing consolidator is not evidence of when the notice was actually entered into the postal system and only shows when the notice was sent to the consolidator.
Without strict proof, presumed delivery timelines under POFA do not apply, and Minster Baywatch cannot establish keeper liability. Since POPLA is bound by POFA compliance, this alone is sufficient to cancel the PCN.
Conclusion
This PCN is unenforceable due to Minster Baywatch’s:• Failure to highlight a material change in terms.
• Lack of adequate signage to notify regular users of new restrictions.
• Unfair and impractical contract terms.
• Lack of landholder authority.
• Failure to comply with POFA 2012.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Minster Baywatch to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
POPLA Appeal – Minster Baywatch Parking Charge Notice
Parking Charge Reference: [XXXXXXX]
Operator: Minster Baywatch
Alleged Contravention: Exceeding a 14-hour combined stay over a one-week period
Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
Minster Baywatch issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to my vehicle for allegedly breaching a recently introduced “14-hour maximum combined stay over any one-week period” rule at a Meadowhall car park. As the registered keeper, I formally appeal this charge on the following grounds:
1. Failure to Highlight Material Changes
Minster Baywatch introduced a new parking restriction—the 14-hour maximum combined stay over a week—without adequately notifying regular visitors. This is a material change to the parking terms, yet the operator has buried it within existing signage in the same small font, colour, and style, making it indistinguishable from prior terms.
This breaches Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to:• Clearly signal material changes at the entrance and throughout the site.
• Use temporary notices, bold text, bright colours, or other prominent means for at least four months to ensure awareness.
Minster Baywatch has failed to implement any of these requirements, making enforcement of this newly introduced rule both unfair and unenforceable.
Additionally, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) requires contract terms to be transparent and prominent. Burying a major new restriction in small print violates Schedule 2 of the CRA, rendering the term unenforceable against consumers.
2. Inadequate Notification of Material Changes
Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence of when the 14-hour combined stay rule was introduced. Based on available information, this change likely took effect in December 2024. Under PPSCoP Section 3.4, the operator was required to:• Place temporary notices at all site entrances for a minimum of four months following the change.
• Ensure existing customers are made explicitly aware of new restrictions to prevent inadvertent breaches.
Meadowhall has multiple multi-storey car parks, accommodating approximately 12,000 vehicles. The sheer scale of the site means that a single temporary notice at one entrance is insufficient.
I personally visited the site, capturing dashcam footage which confirms no signage at car park entrances alerts users to any updated terms. Dated screenshots from two separate visits show that motorists can enter the car park without seeing any notification of the rule change. Full video footage is available for review.
By failing to clearly notify motorists of a material change, Minster Baywatch is non-compliant with the PPSCoP, further undermining the enforceability of this charge.
3. Unfair and Impractical Contractual Terms
The 14-hour combined weekly limit is an unfair and impractical contractual term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) because:• It requires motorists to track cumulative parking durations across multiple visits over seven days, something most visitors do not and cannot reasonably do.
• If the vehicle is used by multiple drivers, compliance is practically impossible unless all users meticulously record each visit.
• Meadowhall is a large shopping and leisure complex, where customers visit for various activities (shopping, cinema, restaurants, and more). Expecting visitors to manually calculate their cumulative parking over a week is unrealistic and disproportionate.
This term creates a significant imbalance between motorists and the parking operator, making it unfair under Schedule 2 of the CRA. A term that cannot be reasonably followed by the average consumer is inherently unenforceable.
Additionally, expecting customers to track cumulative parking durations over multiple calendar years (e.g., one visit in 2024 and one in 2025) is absurd, further proving that this term is both excessive and unreasonable.
4. Misapplication of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
Minster Baywatch’s rejection of my initial appeal misapplies ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in an attempt to justify this charge. However, the circumstances are entirely different:• Beavis concerned a single stay with a clear, prominently displayed overstay limit, whereas this case involves a hidden, cumulative weekly limit that is neither obvious nor practical to track.
• In Beavis, signage was deemed prominent and unambiguous. Here, the 14-hour rule lacks clear prominence, failing PPSCoP and CRA transparency standards.
The Beavis ruling only upheld charges where the terms were clear, fair, and properly communicated. The conditions in this case do not meet that threshold, rendering this charge unenforceable.
5. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012 – Operator Fails to Establish Keeper Liability
Minster Baywatch has failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), meaning keeper liability cannot be established. Specifically:• The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 8th January but not received until 22nd January, well beyond the mandatory 14-day timeframe required under POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5).
• The NtK was sent via untracked post, meaning there is no guaranteed evidence of when it entered the postal system or that it was delivered in accordance with POFA’s strict timeframe.
The PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e), Note 2 states:QuoteTherefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system).
Minster Baywatch is now put to strict proof that the NtK was actually entered into the postal system on the date claimed. They must provide:• A postal log from their mail processor confirming dispatch.
• A Royal Mail or mail consolidator statement proving when the notice was posted.
A certificate of posting by hybrid mail receipt by the bulk mailing consolidator is not evidence of when the notice was actually entered into the postal system and only shows when the notice was sent to the consolidator.
Without strict proof, presumed delivery timelines under POFA do not apply, and Minster Baywatch cannot establish keeper liability. Since POPLA is bound by POFA compliance, this alone is sufficient to cancel the PCN.
Conclusion
This PCN is unenforceable due to Minster Baywatch’s:• Failure to highlight a material change in terms.
• Lack of adequate signage to notify regular users of new restrictions.
• Unfair and impractical contract terms.
• Incorrect reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis.
• Failure to comply with POFA 2012.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Minster Baywatch to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
...Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.
I am the keeper of the vehicle, and I dispute your 'parking charge.' I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4. The NtK must include a clear and specific invitation to the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. This requirement ensures that the keeper fully understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
You cannot rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The law explicitly requires an unambiguous invitation, with specific wording such as:• "As the Keeper, you are now invited to pay this parking charge or..."
This is not an implied requirement; it must be explicitly stated. A generic statement such as "payment is required" or "the charge must be paid" does not meet the legal threshold. If the notice fails to include this clear invitation, it cannot transfer liability to the keeper under PoFA.
The purpose of this strict wording is to ensure clarity for the keeper. Any failure to meet this statutory obligation renders your NtK invalid for claiming keeper liability.
Additionally, the signage at the location is woefully inadequate and does not meet the required standards for clarity, legibility, and prominence, as outlined in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). After receiving the PCN, I visited the location of the alleged breach and found the signage to be sparse, poorly positioned, and written in minuscule font that cannot be read from a reasonable distance. This is particularly concerning given the complex terms you are attempting to enforce, such as the alleged contravention of a "14-hour maximum combined stay over any one-week (Monday to Sunday) period."
The lack of any reasonable means to monitor compliance with this term makes it an unfair and unenforceable contractual condition under consumer law. Specifically, the term that limits a vehicle to a "14-hour maximum combined stay over any one-week (Monday to Sunday) period" is entirely impractical to enforce in a fair or transparent manner. Without a payment or ticketing system that records entry and exit times across multiple visits, there is no reliable or transparent mechanism for either the motorist or the operator to calculate the total combined stay. This places an unreasonable burden on the motorist, who would be required to independently track and sum up their parking durations over an extended time period, potentially across several visits, with no tools or assistance provided to facilitate this.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), terms of a contract must be fair, clear, and transparent. A term that requires motorists to calculate their total combined parking time over a one-week period without any support, and with no practical way to confirm or dispute the operator’s calculations, creates a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. This term is designed in such a way that it is difficult, if not impossible, for an ordinary motorist to comply with it. Furthermore, it leaves the operator with unchecked discretion to issue Parking Charge Notices based on potentially flawed data or assumptions, further exacerbating the imbalance.
In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court made it clear that clear and prominent signage, alongside fair and transparent terms, are essential for the enforceability of parking charges. The signage in this case does not meet the required standard, as it buries this convoluted condition in fine print that is neither legible from a reasonable distance nor sufficiently prominent to alert a motorist to its significance. This contrasts sharply with the principles established in Beavis, where the charge was deemed enforceable in part because the terms were clearly communicated and easily understood by motorists.
Additionally, under Schedule 2 of the CRA, terms may be considered unfair if they require a consumer to meet obligations that are unduly burdensome or if they allow the operator to impose penalties arbitrarily. The absence of a clear, functional system to track and verify parking durations over multiple visits makes this term both arbitrary and unenforceable, as motorists cannot reasonably be expected to monitor compliance with such an onerous condition.
Finally, this lack of clarity and enforceability contravenes the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires that terms and conditions must be clearly communicated and fair to motorists. A condition such as this, buried in fine print and dependent on external factors beyond the motorist’s control, fails to meet these standards and cannot form the basis of a valid parking charge.
Further, it appears that there have been material changes to the terms and conditions within the last four months, yet there are no prominent notices in the car park (one of at least four distinct, large, multi-storey car parks at this location) to highlight these changes. This is a breach of Section 3.4 of the PPSCoP, which requires operators to clearly highlight significant updates to terms on signage within the car park. The absence of such notices demonstrates your failure to meet the transparency requirements imposed by your BPA membership and the PPSCoP.
The notes to section 3.4 of the PPSCoP which relates to "material changes notices" specifically states:"...Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises."
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), 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 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, which you have failed to establish.
Additionally, Minster Baywatch has also failed to fully comply with all the requirements of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The lack of prominent signs and the woefully inadequate way the terms are brought to the attention of the driver constitute a clear breach of the PPSCoP and consumer rights legislation. These failures render the charge unenforceable.
Minster Baywatch has no hope of success at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
there is CCTV evidence to back this upPlease share this evidence with us (happy for faces to be redacted of course).
NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.
3.4. Material changes – notices
Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.
NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.