Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi everyone,

Behold, my third PCN in as many months...

Basically I paid for parking but used my previous reg (got a new car a few months ago) instead of my current car.

I have receipt for paying for the parking, as well as older receipts with my old reg at the same carpark.

Can I appeal on the basis on this being a genuine mistake?

(I know it's highly doubtful, but I'm bored of these @^&#^!@#^& fines now)

Thanks!

NTK here: https://imgur.com/a/wGuFrZw

Do you have photos of the signage at the site? If not, are you able to easily acquire some?

Yes, this is from 2022

https://woldsweekly.co.uk/dww/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/msh2242x283-1024x682.jpg

Hi, the signage is indeed still Branby Wilson, latest image here: https://imgur.com/a/Bol1Hrh

How should I proceed from here? Thanks a lot!

Before we get onto other matters, paying for parking but entering an entirely wrong VRM is considered a 'major keying error' in the Sector Single Code of Practice. If this error is pointed out, a reduced charge of £20 should be offered.

If you would rather pay nothing and are up for a fight, read on...

You should confirm if that signage is still there now.

This is common with Minster Baywatch cases. The parking charge notice says that Minster Baywatch Ltd are the creditor, but the contractual signage at the site bears the name Branby Wilson - therefore any contract that was formed was formed between the driver and Branby Wilson, not Minster Baywatch. Have a search for Branby Wilson and Minster Baywatch cases on the MSE parking forum and you'll see many examples of this.

where?

I obviously need to visit doe savers as I can only see Minster Baywatch mentioned

ah ok (btw no idea where "doe" savers came from)
confusing signage

Thank you for this, as always!!! Much, much appreciated.

I was just wondering though, why would they not accept an appeal based on the fact that it was a genuine mistake of entering the wrong reg, and since payment was made, there was no financial loss?

Here is a suitable appeal to Mister Baywatch:

Quote

Appeal against Parking Charge Notice – Reference [Insert PCN Number]
Date: [Insert Date]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration Number]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as the Keeper of the vehicle to formally appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above. I dispute the validity of this PCN for the following reasons:

1. Signage Discrepancy and Breach of the Single Code of Practice (SCoP)
The BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets clear standards for signage at parking sites to ensure clarity and fairness for motorists. Relevant sections include:

• Clause 3.1.3(c): Signs within controlled land must clearly display the identity of the parking operator and their contact details. In this case, the prominent signage is branded with "Bransby Wilson," with no clear indication that Minster Baywatch is the operator responsible for enforcement.

• Clause 3.1.3(i): Signage must be clear and unambiguous. The conflicting signage creates confusion about which company is responsible for enforcement, violating this requirement.

• Clause 3.1.3(j): Signs must clearly display the parking charge for breaches of terms and conditions. The inconsistency between the signage undermines the clarity required under this clause.

The failure to meet these requirements results in misleading information and an unenforceable contract.

2. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015)

The lack of clarity and conflicting signage also breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly:

• Section 62: A term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. The unclear signage creates such an imbalance, as drivers cannot reasonably determine which company they are contracting with.

• Section 68: Written terms must be transparent, meaning they must be legible and understandable. The conflicting operator identities on the signage at this location fail to meet this standard.

As a result, no valid contract exists between the driver and Minster Baywatch.

3. Ambiguity in Contract Formation

A valid contract requires clarity regarding the parties involved. The prominent signage branded with "Bransby Wilson" leads a reasonable driver to believe that Bransby Wilson is the operator managing the car park. The secondary, much smaller Minster Baywatch signage does not provide sufficient clarity to override this perception, rendering the purported contract void.

4. Authority to Issue Parking Charges

To ensure compliance with the Single Code of Practice, I request that Minster Baywatch provide evidence of their authority to enforce parking charges at this site. Specifically:

• A copy of the contract with the landowner granting Minster Baywatch the authority to issue PCNs.
• Confirmation that the signage complies with the requirements of Clause 3.1.3 of the SCoP, including operator identification and clarity.

5. Request for Cancellation

Given the breaches of the Single Code of Practice, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the lack of clear contractual terms, I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.

Should you reject this appeal, I formally request:

• A detailed response addressing all points raised in this appeal.
• A copy of the evidence requested above, including the contract with the landowner and proof of signage compliance.
• A POPLA code to allow me to escalate this matter to the independent adjudicator.

This appeal is submitted in good faith as the registered Keeper of the vehicle. Please direct all correspondence regarding this matter to me.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Details]

Do not for a moment imagine that you are dealing with an organisation that has any culture of customer service. These companies all originated from ex-clampers who found out that it is more respectable to scam motorists without having to get their hands dirty, thanks to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

They are single-mindedly interested in only one thing, how easy it is to scam money from all the "mugs" out there who have little to no idea about their rights and the law when it comes to parking tickets. This is legalised scamming.

These unregulated private parking companies issue over 41,000 PCNs a day. Yes... a day! Combined, they are a multi billion pound business that pays no VAT and is hugely profitable.

They rely on the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who have little to no idea about how this all works and they can easily scare most victims into at least paying them the "mugs discount" rate and for the rest, they use Debt Recovery Agents (DRAs) to scare the rest into paying the inflated fee as huge numbers of their victims ignorantly believe that these DRAs can send round bailiffs and issue CCJs. They can't but that doesn't stop huge numbers of "mugs" feeding their greed.

So, you can try and appeal to their good nature, which we know doesn't work or you can play them at their own game and outmanoeuvre them on the legal battlefield. The choice is yours. The experience is ours.