Free Traffic Legal Advice

My partner, without my knowledge, went to appeal as the keeper on the basis of entering the wrong reg and provided them with two receipts from the same carpark bearing his old reg (the one which he entered instead of our current car). Of course the appeal got rejected (the long-ass reply attached here:

Or the gist of it here:

"Further to your appeal received on 17/12/2024 regarding the above charge, we note your comments;
however, when this charge was issued this vehicle was in contravention of the agreed terms and
conditions for all users of this site.

Your appeal has been reviewed along with all evidence gathered at the time of the breach of the site
rules.

There is a contract to enter this site, as stipulated by signage located around the car park, which clearly
states a valid payment is required for using the site, a valid fee must cover the duration of parking. Your
vehicle was observed to contravene this condition. After having thoroughly examined the payment
records for the date and times in question, we can find no payment having been made for your vehicle
or a vehicle with a similar registration for the contravention date.

We note your appeal and evidence provided showing a payment made for the day before for a different vehicle registration however as this vehicle was on site on the day before (22/11/2024) and also exited the site on the day before, a payment to cover the date in question (23/11/2024) was required to be made for the vehicle upon returning to the site on this date as any session must cover the entire duration any vehicle is on site.

Please find attached site signage for reference.

We have also included the sites payment log having
searched the incorrect vehicle registration mentioned in your appeal which you used to make payment
on 22/11/2024 and which matches the evidence you provided and confirms that no payment was made
for 23/11/2024. The ANPR log has also been included confirming the vehicle in question was on site on
22/11/2024 and exited on 22/11/2024 and returned on the contravening date of 23/11/2024 - a separate
visit to 22/11/2024. We have also included the payment log for both the contravening vehicle
registration and for the incorrect vehicle registration mentioned in your appeal.

We are therefore unable to cancel the charge as it was issued correctly."

First of all, we paid to park for 24 hours, from 22/11 734pm to 23/11 734pm. However the NTK was for the car's entry on 23/11 at 912am, exiting at 23/11 1035am. This still holds true even if the wrong reg was entered (which of course we didn't know then). I can't really make out what they are saying to be honest. Are they saying that we are not allowed to exit and re-enter within 24 hours despite having paid for it?

I know we've taken the wrong step. Feel free to reprimand me!!! Is this case still salvageable? We're at the POPLA stage now which I know is useless anyway.

A couple of points as we explore what may be salvageable:

• b789's points that were not included in the appeal to the operator can still be raised at POPLA
• Have they offered a £20 major keying error discount? If not, you could raise their failure to do so as a breach of the SCoP
• The use of the term "pay & stay" could be argued to mean that one must stay after paying (i.e. not leave and come back). However, the other terms state "any session must cover the entire duration any vehicle is on site", which, one could argue your payment did. Here you're essentially arguing that the terms are ambiguous regarding whether returns are permitted.
  

A couple of points as we explore what may be salvageable:

• b789's points that were not included in the appeal to the operator can still be raised at POPLA
• Have they offered a £20 major keying error discount? If not, you could raise their failure to do so as a breach of the SCoP
• The use of the term "pay & stay" could be argued to mean that one must stay after paying (i.e. not leave and come back). However, the other terms state "any session must cover the entire duration any vehicle is on site", which, one could argue your payment did. Here you're essentially arguing that the terms are ambiguous regarding whether returns are permitted.

Thank you! No, they didn't offer the 20quid discount. I will raise these at POPLA now.

Hi, would this POPLA letter work? I had help from chat gpt but tweaked it further. Thank you!

1. Failure to Offer the £20 Major Keying Error Discount (Breach of the BPA SCoP)
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (Single Code of Practice) specifies that operators must offer a £20 reduced charge in cases of major keying errors. Despite this, I was not given the opportunity to pay this discounted amount; I have written to Minster Baywatch with proof that I have entered the wrong reg, which is that of my previous car. I have attached proof of having parked in this carpark previously with that of my earlier car reg.
This is a clear violation of the SCoP, which sets out mandatory standards for fair treatment of motorists.
As the BPA Code of Practice has not been adhered to, this Parking Charge Notice should be deemed invalid.

2. Ambiguity in Terms Regarding Returns and Payment Coverage
The signage at this car park is ambiguous regarding the terms of parking, particularly on whether returns to the site are permitted.
The phrase "pay & stay" could be interpreted to mean that drivers must remain on-site after paying, prohibiting leaving and returning.
However, another term on the signage states that "any session must cover the entire duration any vehicle is on site." My payment did cover the full duration my vehicle was present on-site, thereby fulfilling the terms of parking.
This ambiguity in the signage creates uncertainty and unfairness for motorists, and as such, the terms should be interpreted in my favor, as required under consumer law.

3. Signage Discrepancy and Breach of the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP)
The signage at this location fails to comply with several key requirements outlined in the SCoP. Specifically:
Clause 3.1.3(c): Signs must clearly display the identity of the parking operator and their contact details. The prominent signage at this car park is branded with "Bransby Wilson," creating the impression that Bransby Wilson is the operator. There is 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 branding between Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch creates confusion regarding the operator's identity, in violation of this clause.
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 standards results in misleading information and an unenforceable contract.

4. 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 creates a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. The unclear signage creates such an imbalance by leaving motorists unable to determine which company they are contracting with or the applicable terms of parking.
Section 68: Written terms must be transparent, meaning they must be legible and understandable. The conflicting operator identities on the signage fail to meet this standard of transparency.
As a result, no valid contract exists between the driver and Minster Baywatch.

5. 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 much smaller Minster Baywatch signage does not provide sufficient clarity to override this perception. Without clear and consistent signage, no enforceable contract exists between myself and Minster Baywatch.

6. Lack of Authority to Issue Parking Charges
To ensure compliance with the SCoP, 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 at the site complies with the requirements of Clause 3.1.3 of the SCoP, including operator identification and clarity.
If Minster Baywatch is unable to provide such evidence, this Parking Charge Notice must be deemed invalid.

I kindly request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this Parking Charge Notice. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of my case.

 You are compiling an appeal for the purposes of a POPLA hearing. IMO, start at the beginning and don't launch into lecturing the assessor on the law. How could they apply the law anyway when you haven't set out the facts?

I am the owner of car VRM 123. The vehicle was parked at the location on 22 Nov. and parking rights were purchased for 24 hours expiring at 7.34pm 23 Nov. This is confirmed by ** in their letter dated *** rejecting my appeal.

At *** on 22 Nov. VRM 123 left the site and returned at 9.12am on 23 Nov.

..and this is where your account is a little fuzzy...

...when VRM 123 returned to the site on 23rd and for reasons best known to themselves the driver purchased parking rights when none was needed as they intended to leave and did leave before 7.34pm. This seems to be the root of the problem because not only did the driver not need to purchase parking rights, they also had a brain fog and entered VRM 567, a vehicle which they'd previously owned, disposed of months before and which was not on site.

Therefore as matters of fact:
VRM 123 was entitled to park up to 7.34pm on 23 Nov;
VRM 123 entered the site at 9.12am 23 Nov;
Parking rights were purchased for VRM 567 on 23 Nov. when this vehicle wasn't on site.

The creditor's alleged breach is that VRM 123 was on site without the benefit of parking rights. But this is incorrect as parking rights were purchased on 22 Nov. and were still current at 10.35am 23 Nov. when the vehicle left the site.

Is this the factual background??

?

We have also included the sites payment log having
searched the incorrect vehicle registration mentioned in your appeal which you used to make payment
on 22/11/2024 and which matches the evidence you provided and confirms that no payment was made
for 23/11/2024. The ANPR log has also been included confirming the vehicle in question was on site on
22/11/2024 and exited on 22/11/2024 and returned on the contravening date of 23/11/2024 - a separate
visit to 22/11/2024. We have also included the payment log for both the contravening vehicle
registration and for the incorrect vehicle registration mentioned in your appeal.

So if the only car involved on 22nd and 23rd was VRM 123 and they say that only one VRM is attached to the parking rights, namely VRM 567, then why didn't they issue 2 PCNs, one for 22 and another for 23rd?

Are you positive that the 'wrong' VRM was entered on 22nd?

Hope someone can help me with this despite the (unintended) mistake of appealing it with the wrong reasons!