This is the old sign, the updated terms are likely similar with the new time limit included, they have the same volume of text with the smaller terms on the bottom, I’ll get a photo of that tomorrow so see exactly what it says.
I’m just concerned as the driver is not employed and cannot afford the fine, their employer went into liquidation in December so £60/£100 is a bloody big chunk of money for something they didn’t intent to spend
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
You seem to be fixating on the "Parent & Child" terms. That sign will only be relative to a designated parent & child space. It is irrelevant to this case. The allegation is that the vehicle exceeded maximum 14 hours stay over any one week, Monday to Sunday.
Where are the signs that notice of this restriction? You mentioned it at the beginning but have not answered any questions about where this is notified to drivers. Is there a sign that mentions this restriction?
Please answer the questions and then we will be able to assist. No one who comes here for advice will pay a Minster Baywatch PCN if they follow the advice. However, you are not following any advice because you have not answered the question and keep going on about the parent & child signs which are irrelevant.
Here is the sign, I’ve been back today to get a look. The 14 hours part is stated on this. Thanks again for all your help, there is some panicking but hopefully we can get to the bottom of this.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
where are those signs placed? at the entrance? around the car park or just in one place?
Those ones specifically are around the car park, there’s a different version which states customers should refer to those signs for further details of the terms on the entrances to the car park
Meadowhall is a massive complex with multiple car parks. Please post out on a map exactly where the vehicle parked each time and where the photos of the sign you have shown us is located.
Also, you need a phot of the general view of the signs. Not just close ups. We ned to see how this terms appear in the general layout.
Attached is an overhead shot of Meadowhall, the driver isn't sure exactly where they parked on those days but the red circle indicates the general area it would have been, this would be the upper car park, in a central row of bays, not against any perimeters, the red crosses indicate where the ANPR cameras are and where the vehicle was captured entering/exiting. This is also where the singular warning that the terms have changed sign is placed.
The yellow circle is where I've just been to take the photo of the sign, in the lower car park. I can go back and get some more shots later of the car park where the vehicle was parked, though in the meantime this WeTransfer link:
https://we.tl/t-aOE1KHwDpZ will allow you to download a video which shows later unrelated dashcam footage entering the car park and circling the area where the driver would have parked should you wish to see it. I tried to host it on Imgur but it's over 60 seconds long. That is generally the route the driver would have taken to enter the car park, and the rough area the car would have been parked in. The Driver would then have entered Meadowhall through the doors visible.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
So the signs you have just shown us are from the Blue car park but the actual location that the vehicle is alleged to have parked in the Pink car park. When you get a chance, we need to see the signs in the Pink car park. Close up and also general view to see how readable they are from more than 6 feet away.
https://imgur.com/a/8wC0OLjJust been, same car park and approximate area the driver would have parked in. The signs are identical to the ones in the blue/green car park as previously pictured but I’ve included some photos just walking from vehicle to the centre and back.
The signs are incapable of forming a contract because the actual terms are almost unreadable in tiny font.
Also, we don't know what the material changes are. In such a massive series of car parks, they have not complied with PPSCoP section 3.4 where it says in the notes:
...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.
So, for now, you appeal as the Keeper of the vehicle with the following:
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).
They will, of course, reject the initial appeal. However, they are obliged to them give you a POPLA code and you can basically use the content as the basis of your POPLA appeal.
Outstanding, thank you! If there is such a way to purchase a beer/soft drink for yourself then please let me know how.
I'll send that off and await the outcome.
As expected, appeal rejected. Will re write it for Popla I suppose.
Show us a draft before submitting anything - one key change to make from the original appeal is the audience - you are addressing the POPLA assessor rather than Minster Baywatch, so any references to 'you' etc. will need changing.
You should also bear in mind that unlike Minster Baywatch, the POPLA assessor has no prior knowledge of the case, so you may need to explain things more explicitly.
Good points, I’ll share it before I submit. I’m thinking of including the dashcam footage from a previous visit which shows the notice of material change signs are missing from one of the car park entrances, would this be worth including? It’s a separate car park to the one the driver used at the time however there’s nothing in the NtK which indicates which car park the driver was caught entering/exiting, it’s just date/time stamped. This backs up evidence that the BCA rules and such aren’t being followed correctly.
I've been busy liquidating one business and trying to organise the other so I've only just had time to write the appeal. Here's what i've drafted so far:
Minster Baywatch have issued a Parking charge Notice to my vehicle for allegedly overstaying a maximum permitted combined stay of 14 hours over any one week period at a Meadowhall car park. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and am appealing the Parking Charge Notice issued by Minster Baywatch for the following reasons:
1. Failure to Highlight Material Changes
The operator has included the “14-hour maximum combined stay over a one-week period” rule among six rules displayed on signage at the site. However, this new rule is presented in the same small font size, colour, and style as the existing rules, with no indication that it is a recent addition.
This contravenes Section 3.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to take proactive steps to notify users of material changes. The code explicitly states that operators must:
• Clearly signal that a change has been made at the entrance and throughout the site.
• Ensure the nature of the change is clearly displayed using temporary notices or other prominent means, such as bold text, bright colours, or highlighted sections, for a reasonable period (at least four months).
By failing to differentiate the new rule from the existing ones, the operator has not met the required standards of clarity and transparency. Regular users, such as the driver in this case, would not reasonably be aware of this new rule, particularly when it has been buried within existing terms without any effort to highlight its significance.
Furthermore, this failure violates the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as it imposes an unfair and opaque obligation on motorists who are not given adequate notice of the new condition. The lack of clear and prominent notification renders the enforcement of this new rule unreasonable and unenforceable.
2. Inadequate Notification of Material Changes
The new “14-hour maximum combined stay over a one-week period” rule has likely been very recently introduced, no clarification as to when exactly this rule was brought in has been made but it is assumed to be at some point in December 2024, yet there is a distinct lack of signage within the premises to highlight this significant change, nor any warning that new terms are imposed from any effective date. Section 3.4 of the PPSCoP states that for material changes to parking terms:
“Operators must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change to ensure regular visitors do not inadvertently incur parking charges.”
Meadowhall has several multi-storey car parks with approximately 12,000 spaces, the sheer scale alone suggests that a singular temporary notice at site entrances would be woefully inadequate. Upon visiting the site myself, I was able to enter a car park without being notified that there are updated terms, Dashcam footage from my vehicle confirms this, showing no signage at the car park entrances to alert users of changes. The absence of these required notices demonstrates non-compliance with the PPSCoP and further supports my argument that the alleged breach is unenforceable. Included are dated and time stamped screenshots from two visits to the location on two separate occasions which clearly shows customers are able to enter a car park without being alerted to any material changes. The full video footage is also provided.
3. Unfair and Impractical Contractual Terms
The requirement to track a “14-hour maximum combined stay over a one-week period” is unfair, impractical, and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). This term places an unreasonable burden on motorists to:
• Track and calculate their combined parking durations across multiple visits over a week.
• Share and coordinate this information with any additional named drivers using the vehicle.
No tools or systems are provided to facilitate this tracking, nor does the operator make any effort to provide a transparent mechanism for verifying or disputing parking durations. This creates a significant imbalance in favour of the operator, rendering the term unfair and unenforceable under the CRA. How exactly is a Meadowhall customer supposed to track their precise duration each week at a site which offers a Cinema, Bowling, Mini-golf, other leisure activities, dining and shopping facilities open 11 hours per day? Especially when the vehicle has shared use; are customers now expected to formally liaise with their friends and family regarding their vehicle use and time spent at Meadowhall? If so, this is completely unreasonable. Additionally, it is unreasonable to expect customers to track cumulative parking durations over multiple years as in this case, with one visit captured in 2024 and one in 2025.
4. Reference to ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
Minster Baywatch’s rejection of my appeal references ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, a case that ruled a parking charge was enforceable due to clear signage and fair terms. However, the circumstances in this case differ significantly:
• The signage in the Beavis case was clear, prominent, and unambiguous. In this case, the terms are not only new, but buried in small print and lack prominence.
• The Beavis charge was a deterrent for overstaying a fixed time limit that is easy for a customer to monitor, not a convoluted weekly limit that is impractical to track.
The Beavis ruling emphasised the importance of transparency and fairness, which the operator has failed to demonstrate here. Had the driver been made aware of the “14-hour maximum combined stay over a one-week period” rule, they would not have parked at the site at all or would have made every effort to ensure they complied with the terms. However, the rule was not clearly highlighted or distinguished from the existing conditions, and as such, the driver had no reasonable way of knowing about this specific time limit and so the argument that it is a satisfactory deterrent is invalid.
The failure to highlight this rule, particularly with an easily understandable format or prominent notices, meant that the driver inadvertently breached a term that they were not adequately notified of. This lack of clarity and transparency leads to an unjust charge, as the driver acted in good faith, unaware of any new restrictions.
5. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012
The operator has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to transfer liability to the registered keeper. Specifically:
• The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 8th January but not delivered until 22nd January, beyond the statutory 14-day limit required for keeper liability under POFA.
• The NtK was sent using untracked postage, meaning the presumed delivery timeline is not guaranteed.
As such, liability for the parking charge cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to demonstrate that the parking charge is lawful, enforceable, and compliant with the relevant standards. The lack of adequate signage, failure to highlight material changes, and the unfair and impractical terms make this charge unenforceable.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs Minster Baywatch to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Agree x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List