Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - EdG

Pages: [1]
1
Just a quick follow up to say the appeal was successful based on the grounds of inadequate signage. Minster Baywatch also emailed with the happy news. I replied to their email thusly:

"hahahahahahahahahahaha"

2
Quote
MB did reject the initial appeal, I can't understand why - it's almost like they're financially incentivised to reject appeals or something.
Who'd have thunk it?  ;) They do have to pay a small fee if it goes to POPLA but not enough to discourage them too much.

Do let us know how you get on - if you're able to link to your MSE thread that could be useful reading for anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation in future.



I've just had a reply from POPLA with the evidence bundle:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1McjWmaXAu73Y6IzPhYpHkLJajMFW-EvY/view?usp=sharing

My initial reactions to it are:

  • Their photos show even better than mine that the car next to mine was blocking their one sign from the driver's view! (Also as below, how can they prove there wasn't an even bigger vehicle there when the driver first parked?)
  • I also wondered how could they prove that a big van wasn't parked right up to and covering that sign as the driver entered the car park?
  • The parking areas they've drawn at the end are completely arbitrary; there's no indication on site that the zones are demarcated in that way
  • They claim an entrance sign would be impractical, that seems a complete fabrication as there's a big blank wall at the entrance to which a sign could be attached?! Also the site clearly does permit general parking because without clear demarcation between the two 'sites' (as they've drawn it) then one has to assume there is only one site.


Obviously have posted this on MSE thread too, but would value greatly opinions from the kind people on this forum no less than on there!


Also here's the link to the MSE thread as asked: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6507676/malton-minster-baywatch-permit-parking-inadequate-misleading-signage


3
Hi all, apologies for not replying until now I thought I had switched on notifications to this thread but clearly I hadn't.

Thanks to everyone for the comments and advice.

MB did reject the initial appeal, I can't understand why - it's almost like they're financially incentivised to reject appeals or something.

I've now made a POPLA appeal as well - the main focus was the absence of entrance signage, and the conflicting signs (permit/free parking) in the area with no clear demarcation between the two. Also of note was that in their full size evidence photo (sent with their appeal rejection) you can clearly see that the vehicle parked next to mine would directly block the driver's view of their sign.

As b789 noted I did also post on MSE but I will update here as well with the POPLA reply. Thanks again to all

4
I received the below PCN from Minster Baywatch:

https://ibb.co/C5hf2cj

Date of alleged contravention was 03/02 and date of issue was 09/02

I've taken pictures of the car park & signs to show the signs in relation to where the car was:

https://ibb.co/fDwtC9Q
https://ibb.co/pPNM482
https://ibb.co/DQL1Fbp
https://ibb.co/qjvvhbf

I feel like it wasn't clear which space(s) the permit parking sign or free parking sign referred to. Also there was no sign at the entrance to the car park indicating  that I was entering an area with permit parking.

I think my "discount" period ends tomorrow - is it worth fighting this one or should I cough up?

Thanks in advance for any and all help

(Apologies for the links; I'm trying to embed the images but it doesn't seem to be working)

Pages: [1]