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:
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.
