Show Posts - pepcn2022

The draft so far.  all advice very much welcomed, thanks  I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Minster Baywatch Ltd,. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.  We are the hirer of the above vehicle and are in receipt of the PCN issued by MBL on the 29th April 2026.  I am writing to you and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:1) Minster Baywatch has deliberately chosen not to use Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to supply the additional documents mandated by section 14 (2) (a) of the Act.1. Minster Baywatch has deliberately chosen not to use Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). There is no hirer liability as the notice to hirer is not compliant with Schedule 4 of POFA due to incorrect procedure.The notice to Hirer did not comply with the requirements of the act, namely failure to supply the additional documents mandated by section 14 (2) (a). Therefore Minster Baywatch cannot transfer liability from the driver at the time to me, the hirer.  Minster Baywatch has therefore forfeited any right to hold COMPANY Ltd liable for this PCN and for this reason alone, its claim must be determined as being invalid.2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of PracticeAs this operator does not have a proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly definedb any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operationc any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcementd who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signse the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement3. 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.4. The operator has suffered no financial loss.  Payment was made for 3 hours parking art the time covered by this PCN, but the car park selected in the RingGo app was mistakenly the Beach Road car park 50 years away, not the Pier View Car Park the car was actually parked in.  It should be noted that both car parks are operated by Minster Baywatch Ltd and this £6.50 payment therefore 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.In conclusion:•   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.•   I therefore, on the basis of the above laid out arguments request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.Your Faithfully

I recently parked in a Minster Baywatch Ltd carpark and paid using RingGo, last week I received a PCN as it seems I actually paid to park in another car park 50 yards away, also owned by the same company.  I appealed on this basis, sending them receipts and confirming it was an honest mistake ( I should have checked the car park code!) but they have unsurprisingly dismissed my appeal. I have appealed to POPLA in the past (2022) so I am familiar with the process, but I’m not 100% sure if the rules are the same regarding my chances of success. I’m going to pop there to take photos of the signage tomorrow (if I need to), but the image here shows it https://imgur.com/a/5U0yeUj  I’d like some advice on what info to include in my POPLA letter.  This is the draft so far: