-
#45 Reply
Posted by
b789
on 02 Mar, 2025 00:38
-
You will have to argue whether the signs “adequately” serve their purpose. They don’t.
-
-
#46 Reply
Posted by
Dave65
on 02 Mar, 2025 13:54
-
Was there a copy of the back of the PPN posted stating who to pay the charge to?
-
-
#47 Reply
Posted by
gme
on 03 Mar, 2025 14:16
-
Yes it’s Minster Baywatch with their registered address which is a PO Box in York
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
-
-
#48 Reply
Posted by
gme
on 04 Mar, 2025 17:02
-
Here's my final draft of my comments as part of the POPLA appeal, in response to Minster Baywatch's comments. I'm not sure if it looks too much like a copy and past of my original appeal so any feedback welcome.
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
I am submitting my comments on Minster Baywatch’s evidence in relation to my appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I maintain that the charge is unfair, unenforceable, and should be cancelled based on the following legal and procedural grounds:
1. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice
Minster Baywatch states that their signage meets BPA standards, yet they have not demonstrated compliance with Section 19.10 of the BPA Code of Practice, which requires operators to use temporary signage when significant changes occur.
• Minster Baywatch has not provided sufficient photos of temporary notices or large, prominent signs at the entrance specifically informing visitors of the new maximum stay rules.
• Close-up photos of the car park terms provided by Minster Baywatch are difficult to read due to small font, indicating they are not displayed prominently enough.
• As a regular visitor for at least 9 years, the driver had a legitimate expectation that the parking terms remained unchanged. The operator should have provided temporary notices at entry points and inside Meadowhall to ensure existing customers were fully aware.
• The dashcam footage I provided shows it is possible to enter multiple Meadowhall car parks without any clear warning of the new terms, meaning regular visitors—especially those using different car parks—are not adequately informed of the 14-day combined visit restriction.
A failure to follow BPA signage guidelines means this charge should be deemed unenforceable under the POPLA principle of fairness.
2. Failure to Provide Adequate Notice of Material Changes
Minster Baywatch claims that new parking restrictions were introduced, but they have not provided sufficient evidence that these changes were clearly communicated to motorists, particularly regular visitors. Under consumer protection laws and industry standards, material changes must be prominently displayed to ensure all users are aware of the updated terms.
• Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) – Under Section 62, contract terms (including parking restrictions) must be fair and transparent. A sudden change in parking terms without clear, advance notification to regular customers is likely unfair and unenforceable.
• Case Law – Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] – A motorist cannot be bound by unexpected terms unless they had a reasonable opportunity to be aware of them before parking. Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence that motorists were given adequate notice of the changes before forming a contract.
Additionally, Minster Baywatch’s own photos of the Pink Car Park entrance clearly show no additional temporary signage warning motorists of new material changes—further violating the consumer laws and BPA Code of Practice mentioned above.
Minster Baywatch also states:
“If a driver does not agree with a term noted on signage, the driver is able to reject the terms by promptly leaving the site.”
However, regular customers are not adequately warned of these new terms to be fairly given a chance to accept or reject them.
3. Landowner Authority – Lack of Valid Contract
Minster Baywatch has provided a contract variation agreement dated April 2024, signed between themselves and British Land (Meadowhall GP Limited). However, this document does not prove they had the authority to issue PCNs at the time of the alleged contravention in January 2025 for the following reasons:
• British Land sold its 50% stake in Meadowhall to Norges Bank Investment Management in July 2024. This means British Land was no longer a legal owner of the land at the time of the alleged contravention.
• The contract variation agreement provided by Minster Baywatch was signed before British Land exited its ownership role, and there is no evidence that the new owner (Norges Bank Investment Management) agreed to continue this contract.
• It is well established in parking appeals and under BPA Code Section 7 that a parking operator must have a valid and current contract with the landowner at the time of issuing PCNs. The evidence submitted does not prove that Norges Bank Investment Management authorised Minster Baywatch to operate on the site after British Land’s sale.
I request that Minster Baywatch provide an unredacted contract between them and Norges Bank Investment Management (the rightful landowner from July 2024 onwards) proving they had authorisation to enforce parking terms at the time of the alleged contravention.
If they cannot provide such evidence, then they had no legal standing to issue this PCN, and it must be cancelled.
4. Non-Compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012
Minster Baywatch claims the PCN was POFA-compliant, but the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not delivered in accordance with POFA timelines:
• The PCN was issued on 8th January 2025, but was not received until 22nd January 2025. POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) states that for liability to transfer to the keeper, the NTK must be delivered within 14 days.
• Minster Baywatch admits they do not send letters tracked, making it impossible to verify compliance with POFA deadlines. As the burden of proof is on the operator, the charge cannot be enforced against the keeper.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this Parking Charge Notice. The charge is unfair due to:
• A lack of proper notice of material changes
• Failure to comply with BPA Code requirements
• Uncertainty over landowner authority
• Non-compliance with POFA 2012
I appreciate your time in reviewing this appeal.
-
-
-
Personally I think you've got the focus wrong.
POPLA always start with whether a PCN has been issued correctly, so IMO start there.
The creditor's modus operandi is unlawful. Contract terms can only bind an individual driver on each single occasion that they enter and remain on a site. This is a a relatively simple matter to ascertain when a penalty charge arises as a result of a single visit.
But this is not the case here.
Instead this creditor believes that they may issue a PCN when a VRM has accumulated more than 14 hours on site within any 7-day rolling week. Such an approach requires them to KNOW, not suspect or guess but KNOW, that each and every entry by a specified vehicle must have been made by the same driver. This is impossible for them to know.
By issuing a PCN based solely upon cumulative uses of the site by a vehicle the creditor is forcing the last driver to be aware of what other drivers might have done and for how long.
This is a preposterous concept.
If the BPA and POPLA endorse such sharp practice then they bring themselves and the industry into disrepute.
-
-
-
I can't edit my last post...
..but the thought that a 'relevant contract' could have been entered into by tail-end-charlie is, frankly, laughable.
“relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—
(a)
the owner or occupier of the land; or
(b)
authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;
“relevant land” has the meaning given by paragraph 3;
“relevant obligation” means—
(a)
an obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract; or
(b)
an obligation arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land;
-
-
#51 Reply
Posted by
DWMB2
on 05 Mar, 2025 09:28
-
I agree - I think leading with the unreasonable terms is wise. The other points are valid, and sensible to include as additional reasons no money is owed, but I'd be minded to start with the nature of the alleged contract and the impossibility of performance.
I'd also throw in something about this that I mentioned further back in the thread:
The parties to a parking contract are the driver and the parking operator. Whilst Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act provides a mechanism to recover unpaid charges from the keeper, that does not alter the parties between whom the contract was formed.
In light of this, I'm not sure what evidence Minster Baywatch could produce to show that the driver was the same on each occasion, and that any driver has exceeded the 14 hours per week limit.
The signage is silent as to whether the 14 hours applies to the driver or the vehicle, which brings to mind the following from the Consumer Rights Act:
69 Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1)If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
[/i]
[/i]
-
-
#52 Reply
Posted by
gme
on 06 Mar, 2025 14:23
-
Thanks all for some solid advice, I’ve taken this onboard and drafted up these revised comments, though I’m not sure if I’m including points missed in the original appeal (i.e. specifically differentiating between two drivers, I don’t think I mentioned that outright), I know POPLA state they won’t consider new evidence so I’m not sure if this counts as evidence or is simply a comment in response to Minster’s evidence pack.
What an absolute minefield to have to navigate all for the crime of being a regular customer for the past ~20 years. Safe to say neither me nor the driver(s) will ever go back while these rules are in force, I used to personally spend ~£2-3k there every year as I do my weekly food shop, buy all toiletries, dine out, and visit a handful of high street & independent shops they have but if they want to swap all of that for a one off £100 instead, more fool them.
Dear POPLA Adjudicator,
I am submitting my comments on Minster Baywatch’s evidence in relation to my appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I maintain that the charge is unfair, unenforceable, and should be cancelled based on the following legal and procedural grounds:
⸻
1. The Terms of the Alleged Contract are Unreasonable, Ambiguous, and Impossible to Enforce
Minster Baywatch alleges that the vehicle exceeded a 14-hour total parking limit within a rolling 7-day period. However, this restriction is fundamentally flawed and unenforceable for the following reasons:
• A parking contract exists only between the driver and the parking operator at the time of parking. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) allows for liability to be transferred to the keeper, but it does not alter the fact that a contract can only be formed with the driver at the time of each visit.
• Minster Baywatch cannot prove that the same driver was responsible for each visit. This means they are attempting to enforce a contractual term against a driver who may not have been aware of prior visits.
• The signage does not specify whether the restriction applies to the driver or the vehicle. Under Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, if a contractual term can have multiple meanings, the interpretation most favorable to the consumer must apply. The most favorable interpretation here is that the restriction applies to a single continuous stay rather than cumulative visits.
• This restriction requires motorists to track all visits made by their vehicle over a rolling week and to know how long any previous driver has stayed. This is an unreasonable and impractical burden, making compliance impossible and the contract unenforceable.
It is entirely preposterous to suggest that a later driver of the vehicle is somehow responsible for cumulative time accrued by previous drivers. If POPLA upholds such an illogical enforcement mechanism, it risks undermining consumer protections and fair industry practices.
⸻
2. Failure to Provide Adequate Notice of Material Changes
Minster Baywatch claims that new parking restrictions were introduced, but they have not provided sufficient evidence that these changes were clearly communicated to motorists, particularly regular visitors. Under consumer protection laws and industry standards, material changes must be prominently displayed to ensure all users are aware of the updated terms.
• BPA Code of Practice Section 19.10 – This requires temporary signage to be used when significant changes occur. Minster Baywatch has not provided evidence of clear, prominent temporary notices.
• Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) – Section 62 states that contract terms (including parking restrictions) must be fair and transparent. A sudden change in parking terms without clear, advance notification to regular customers is likely unfair and unenforceable.
• Case Law: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] – A motorist cannot be bound by unexpected terms unless they had a reasonable opportunity to be aware of them before parking. Minster Baywatch has not proven that regular motorists had such an opportunity.
• Dashcam footage provided in my original appeal shows that a motorist can enter several of Meadowhall’s large multi-storey car parks without encountering any clear warnings about new restrictions. This means a regular visitor, particularly one who may use different car parks, is not adequately informed.
Minster Baywatch also claims:
“If a driver does not agree with a term noted on signage, the driver is able to reject the terms by promptly leaving the site.”
This argument is invalid if drivers are not sufficiently informed of the new terms in the first place.
⸻
3. Landowner Authority – Lack of a Valid Contract at the Time of the Alleged Contravention
Minster Baywatch has provided a contract variation agreement dated April 2024 between themselves and British Land (Meadowhall GP Limited). However, this does not prove they had the authority to issue PCNs at the time of the alleged contravention in January 2025, for the following reasons:
• British Land sold its 50% stake in Meadowhall to Norges Bank Investment Management in July 2024. This means British Land was no longer a legal owner of the land at the time of the alleged contravention.
• The contract variation agreement provided by Minster Baywatch was signed before British Land exited its ownership role, and there is no evidence that the new owner (Norges Bank) agreed to continue this contract.
• BPA Code of Practice Section 7 requires that an operator must have a valid and current contract with the landowner at the time of issuing PCNs. Minster Baywatch has not provided a valid contract with Norges Bank, the rightful landowner in January 2025.
Unless Minster Baywatch can provide an unredacted contract proving that Norges Bank Investment Management explicitly authorised them to enforce parking at the time of the alleged contravention, then they had no legal standing to issue this PCN.
⸻
4. Non-Compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012
Minster Baywatch claims the PCN was POFA-compliant, but the Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not delivered in accordance with POFA timelines:
• The PCN was issued on 8th January 2025 but was not received until 22nd January 2025. POFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) states that for liability to transfer to the keeper, the NTK must be delivered within 14 days.
• Minster Baywatch admits they do not send letters tracked, making it impossible to verify compliance with POFA deadlines. The burden of proof is on the operator, and they have failed to demonstrate that the NTK was delivered on time.
Since POFA requirements have not been met, keeper liability cannot be established.
⸻
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this Parking Charge Notice. The charge is unenforceable due to:
1. The unreasonable and impractical nature of the alleged contract, which requires an impossible burden on drivers.
2. Failure to provide proper notice of material changes, in violation of BPA Code of Practice and consumer law.
3. Unproven landowner authority, as British Land sold Meadowhall before the alleged contravention and Minster Baywatch has not provided proof of a contract with the new owners.
4. Non-compliance with POFA 2012, meaning keeper liability does not apply.
This charge is fundamentally flawed, unreasonable, and unenforceable. I trust that POPLA will uphold fair consumer practices and allow this appeal.
-
-
#53 Reply
Posted by
gme
on 15 May, 2025 15:26
-
Just like to add that I’ve received a POPLA decision and won! The comments from the reviewer basically state that there was insufficient signage to notify users of material changes, Minster Baywatch provided evidence of the actual parking terms but never stated how many signs were introduced warning visitors of new rules being imposed. I provided evidence that there was only one sign at the entrance of some of the car parks, which is insufficient for a destination with multiple car parks and 12,000 spaces.
The rest of the argument regarding the landowner and other issues was disregarded as the above evidence was sufficient enough to win the appeal.
Thanks for all the support and help!
-
-
#54 Reply
Posted by
DWMB2
on 15 May, 2025 15:44
-
Great news - could you please provide us with a copy of the assessment comments?
Well done!
-
-
#55 Reply
Posted by
gme
on 15 May, 2025 15:55
-
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle exceeded 14 hours maximum combined stay over any one week (Monday to Sunday) period.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: 1. Failure to highlight a material change in terms. 2. Lack of adequate signage to notify regular users of new restrictions. 3. Unfair and impractical contract terms. 4. Lack of landholder authority. 5. Failure to comply with POFA 2012. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. The appellant included photographic evidence of their lack of signage in the car park to prove the change in the terms and conditions were adequately communicated (times nine) in support of their appeal. I have considered this in my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I have allowed this appeal for the following reason: In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. The burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the vehicle exceeded 14 hours maximum combined stay over any one week (Monday to Sunday) period. After very careful consideration of the appellant's grounds of appeal, photographic evidence and the operator's evidence pack I can see the signage in the car park only shows one sign telling motorists of the change to the terms and conditions in the car park. Section 3.4 of the Code says that when there is a material change to pre-existing terms of a car park, then additional temporary signs must be placed at the entrance to the car park for a period of no less than four months from the date of the change to make that clear. I can see from the evidence pack, the operator states that ‘multiple’ temporary new terms and conditions signs have gone up around the car park, however, only photographic evidence of one such sign was provided and no actual number of how many signs in the evidence pack to back up that claim. I would at least expect the parking operator to list the amount of new temporary signs that were erected around the car park entrances to advise of the change to the terms and conditions of the car park. However, proof of this would be preferred to adequately rebut the appellant's main ground of appeal. Especially as it is such a large site with around 12000 parking spaces and what would be a number of entrances to the car park for the many regular users of the site. It is within the operator's gift to ensure their evidence pack has sufficient information and photographic evidence to adequately rebut the appellant's grounds of appeal about the change in the terms and conditions, but in this case their rebuttal is not sufficient. Therefore, I do not feel the operator has issued the PCN correctly and must allow this appeal. In conclusion, I can see that the appellant has referenced other points within their appeal to POPLA, but I do not feel that these need to be reviewed based on the outcome reached.
-
-
#56 Reply
Posted by
DWMB2
on 15 May, 2025 16:12
-
Good result.
I'm speculating here, of course, but this seems like a classic example of an assessor choosing the least controversial ground to uphold, to avoid having to assess on the other points. If they allow the appeal on the basis of no signage about the changed terms, it means they don't have to address the much more fundamental issue of the bizarre alleged contract. If they'd had to rule on that, they'd have been stuck between trying to come up with an explanation as to why it was a reasonable term, or upholding your appeal and essentially saying that the entire set-up is entirely unenforceable.
-
-
#57 Reply
Posted by
gme
on 15 May, 2025 19:10
-
I was kind of hoping for more of a response regarding the other points, so I could then take it to Meadowhall and request they do change the stupid terms and provide an explanation as to who exactly the landowner is. Oh well, they’ve lost me as a regular customer, I have since switched to a different M&S for my weekly groceries and no long spend money on bits and bobs there, shopping was a leisure but I go elsewhere now, I know I won’t make much of a dent to their funds but it’s the principle!
-
Agree x 1
View List
Winner x 2
View List