Free Traffic Legal Advice

This situation has been successfully challenged in court in the past. The car park signage prominently displays Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions as the operator, while the PCN is issued by Minster Baywatch.

These are distinct companies registered separately at Companies House. No clear contractual link is shown to justify enforcement by Minster Baywatch. Ambiguity in contract terms must be interpreted in favor of the consumer. Drivers cannot be expected to contract with a party not clearly identified on the signage.

The signage creates confusion about who the contracting party is. No reasonable driver would believe they were entering a contract with Minster Baywatch. Minster Baywatch has not demonstrated they are authorised to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby Wilson.

Under CRA 2015, Section 69, any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the consumer. The PCN is therefore legally unenforceable.

Whilst any initial appeal will fail, there is a possibility that POPLA would uphold the argument but even if it doesn't, it would fail if they ever tried to make claim in court.

There is another point that has succeeded at POPLA... Is there a timestamp on those photos on the Notice to Keeper (NtK)? If not, then they have been cropped or altered, which is a breach of the PPSCoP section 7.3(b) which states:


Also, section 7.4 applies...


The NtK also fails to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) as there is no invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal which will be rejected but will get you the POPLA code. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, 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 (MB)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. MB have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Yes, you can use the fact that a ticket was purchased, but to be honest, don't pin too much hope on POPLA either. If it is successful, great. If it isn't, it's not binding and you don't pay.

My POPLA deadline is Tuesday so I'm going to have to put my appeal together in the next 24 hours. If anyone does have any advice on what to include I would very much appreciate it.

Thanks, that's good to know. Should I put together a POPLA appeal based on:

1. Non-compliance of the NtK (with the reasons you posted above - Confusion over who contract is with (CRA 2015, Section 69); No time stamp on photograph (PPSCoP section 7.3(b)); Cropping the image (section 7.4); No invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge. (PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)).

2. Evidence that a ticket was bought (but mindful not to identify the driver)


Anything else I should include or other things to note when drafting? Should I post that back here for any comments before submitting?

Thanks again for help- It is really appreciated.

They are saying no record of the payment for the registration rather than overstaying - so could be an error on their part or the registration keyed incorrectly - but I agree any overstaying is very minimal.

No, but the question intrigues me!

Thanks for everyone's help on this thread. I know I have a few more days, but keen to get this off my plate.

Here is a link to the appeal I plan to submit, based on the advice above, with personal details redacted. I plan to send in an (unredacted) pdf version of this document once it is finalised - I assume that is a valid way to do my appeal?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XdLd8prR3E9bAEkTRtT4dPSy2sLvzGJaybWA9rIJ4EM/edit?usp=sharing

I also copy the text below without the pictures.

Grateful for anyone's advice on how I can improve this. In particular

1. I have not made reference to the signs that do mention Minister Baywatch in the car park - as it felt like I was making their case for them - but I could include if I want to emphasise the point that it is confusing rather than (as now) anyone reasonable would think they are contracting with Minister Baywatch.

2. Is there anything I'm missing?

3. Is the format ok - I've just tried to structure as logically as possible?


As ever, thanks in advance for any help anyone can offer.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Parking Charge Reference: [XXXXXXX]
Operator: Minster Baywatch
Alleged Contravention: Vehicle was not authorised to use the car park
Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]

Background
I received a letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd on 26th July 2025 (dated 18th July 2025) titled “Notice to Keeper or Hire Company”. This letter identified me as the owner of a vehicle that they claimed had breached “stated contractual terms and conditions of use” of a car park and asked me to identify the driver. The letter states if I fail to do so, they have a “right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge” from me as the registered keeper.  I attach photos of the front and back of this letter as evidence at Annex 1.

I subsequently appealed to Minster Baywatch on the basis that this Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of the the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and therefore they are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. This appeal was rejected and I was advised to appeal to POPLA.

Outline of the basis of my appeal
My appeal to you is on three distinct grounds that I would like you to consider individually and in full:

1. That Minster Baywatch Ltd has not demonstrated they are authorised to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby Wilson - Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, Section 69;
2. that the Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012; and
3. that a valid ticket was purchased for the vehicle. 


Evidence supporting my appeal
This section outlines my points of appeal in more detail and provides supporting evidence.

1. Minster Baywatch Ltd has not demonstrated they are authorised to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby Wilson - Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, Section 69

Minster Baywatch Ltd are not named on the signs at or near the pay machine.
The signs at the pay machine for the car park (see fig.1) and the machine itself (see fig. 2) display the name “Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions". These signs do not contain the name “Minster Baywatch Ltd” or similar. These are distinct companies registered separately at Companies House.

In addition, payments made by card at this car park show as being made to “Bransby Wilson Parking” on the bank statement. The RingGo app and website both show Bransby Wilson as the operator of the car park.

The signage and payment details would lead any reasonable driver to believe they are contracting with Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions. No reasonable driver would believe they were entering a contract with Minster Baywatch Ltd. Minster Baywatch Ltd has not demonstrated they are authorised to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby Wilson. Under CRA 2015, Section 69, any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the consumer. The PCN is therefore legally unenforceable.


2. The Notice to Keeper letter does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012

The photos that Minster Baywatch Ltd have supplied in the Notice to Keeper letter do not have timestamps. The time and date is written-in underneath.  This is a breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 7.3(b) which states:

Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless: the images bear an accurate time and date stamp.

The shape of the photographs and lack of a timestamp show that these photos have been digitally altered, and so PPSCoP section 7.4 also applies:

Parking operators must not digitally or by other means alter images used as photographic evidence other than:
a) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in accordance with their GDPR
obligations; or
b) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter the letters and numbers displayed.

The Notice to Keeper  also fails to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) as there is no invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge.

The Notice to Keeper is, therefore, not compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.


3. A valid ticket was purchased for the vehicle
The Notice to Keeper states that the “Vehicle was not authorised to use the car park”. In the response to my initial appeal, Minster Baywatch Ltd stated ”After having thoroughly examined the payment records and authorised list for the date and time in question, we can find no payment nor authorised listing having been made for your vehicle or a vehicle with a similar registration”. The full response to my appeal is attached at Annex 2.

In fact, a ticket was bought for the vehicle and displayed in the windscreen. Fig 3 shows a picture of that ticket and Fig 4 a redacted bank statement showing the purchase of the ticket, reflected on the account the following day as a payment to “Bransby Wilson".  In line with point 1 above, any contract entered was with Bransby Wilson and not Minster Baywatch Ltd.

So the basis for the PCN - that a payment for parking was not made - is false and therefore the PCN is invalid. Note that this information does not confirm the identification of the driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

Summary
Taken together this evidence shows that the PCN was not valid in the first place - a ticket was in fact purchased - and any contract for parking was made with Bransby Wilson and not Minster Baywatch.  Therefore the Notice to Keeper letter from Minster Baywatch is invalid, but that notice also fails on its own terms as it is not compliant with relevant law. Therefore I conclude I am under no obligation to identify the named driver and as the keeper of the vehicle not liable for any charge.