Free Traffic Legal Advice

Here are the important bits from their reply! https://imgur.com/a/sugvsHb

I have about 10 more days to submit my POPLA appeal.

There is nothing else that needs considering.

Perhaps, but I can see little downside to pointing out other issues with Minster's case. That said, I'd lead with the signage.

Thanks everyone for their input!

With the help of AI, I've put this POPLA appeal together. It's a long one. so bear with me..

Appeal Basis: This appeal is based on the principle that unclear signage invalidates any alleged contract formed with Minster Baywatch, as per consumer protection law, and that Minster Baywatch has failed to demonstrate the right to enforce parking terms at this location.

Legal Framework: Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), Section 69 states:
"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."

The ambiguous and conflicting signage present at the site, coupled with the unclear role of Minster Baywatch as opposed to Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS), creates multiple interpretations of who the contractual party is. Consequently, the CRA 2015 requires any ambiguity to be resolved in favour of the consumer. This invalidates any alleged contract with Minster Baywatch.

Signage Observations:

Prominent Signage:
The most prominent signage at the car park entrance states:
"Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions.
Please note that this car park is privately owned.
Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd and the owners of this site accept no [general disclaimer]."
This signage clearly implies that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS) manages the site on behalf of the landowner.
Furthermore, the prominent sign includes the BPA Member logo with the name "Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions", not Minster Baywatch.

Secondary Signage:
A lower, less prominent yellow panel contains the following text:
"Minster Baywatch Ltd is authorised by the landowner to operate this car park on their behalf. The car park conditions are set out within this notice..."
However, this secondary sign is unclear, as the text beyond "...the car park conditions are set out within this notice..." becomes indistinct. This means the terms and conditions are not legible and therefore unenforceable.

BPA Website: From the BPA website:
BPA Member: Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions.
BPA Approved Operator: Minster Baywatch.
This creates further ambiguity about which party is the "Parking Operator" entitled to recover the parking charge as defined by the BPA and the relevant Code of Practice.
Single Code of Practice (SCoP): The SCoP defines a "Parking Operator" as:
"A person who...is entitled to recover a parking charge from the driver. The creditor."

The SCoP makes it clear that only the Parking Operator is entitled to recover a parking charge. The prominent signage suggests BWPS is managing the site, but the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Minster Baywatch states that Minster Baywatch Ltd is the "creditor." There is no explicit or implicit indication that Minster Baywatch is acting as an agent for Bransby Wilson, leading to a contradiction that must be resolved in favour of the consumer under CRA 2015 Section 69.

Contradictions in the Parking Contract:
Prominent Signage: BWPS appears to be the party offering parking terms on behalf of the landowner. However, BWPS is not a BPA Approved Operator and therefore cannot access DVLA data to issue parking charges.
Notice to Keeper (NTK): Minster Baywatch is claiming to be the "creditor" without referencing BWPS as the principal.

This suggests that BWPS has secured the contract to manage the site but has subcontracted Minster Baywatch to issue parking charges. Instead of Minster Baywatch identifying themselves as an agent of BWPS, they claim to be the "creditor" in their own right. This approach violates the SCoP, as the actual contractual party—BWPS—is not an Approved Operator.

Request for Evidence: To clarify the ambiguity:

I request evidence that Minster Baywatch has the contractual right to enforce parking in this car park, given the prominence of BWPS branding.

Evidence that Minster Baywatch is authorised to issue parking charges on behalf of the landowner in this location.

Without such evidence, Minster Baywatch does not have the contractual right to issue PCNs in their own name at this site.

Ambiguity of Terms ("Pay and Stay" and Multiple Visits): The terms and conditions fail to clarify whether "Pay and Stay" permits multiple entries and exits within a 24-hour period. As the terms do not explicitly state otherwise, ambiguity arises. In line with CRA 2015 Section 69, this ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the consumer, allowing for multiple visits within the paid period.

Conclusion:

The unclear and conflicting signage invalidates any alleged contract between Minster Baywatch and the consumer.

The NTK incorrectly identifies Minster Baywatch as the "creditor," contrary to the SCoP requirements.
Minster Baywatch must provide evidence of their authority to enforce parking charges at this site.

The ambiguous "Pay and Stay" terms must be resolved in favour of the consumer, per CRA 2015 Section 69.

Given these points, I respectfully request that this appeal is upheld and the parking charge is cancelled.

In my opinion you can get to the same end but after setting out exactly what the sign(s) say(as far as is even-handed and relevant to the argument), and then by a process of examination show what it is you're setting out to establish.


Perhaps:

As can be seen, the prominent sign states:

Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions

Please note that this car park is privately owned

Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd and the owners of this site accept no [general disclaimer]

BPA Member of the British Parking Association


On a lower yellow panel there are the following:

Minster Baywatch Ltd is authorised by the landowner to ***(operate??) this car park on their behalf.

The car park conditions are set out within this notice..

..and thereafter the writing is indistinct.

BPA Approved Operator logo.

From the BPA's website:
BPA Member: Bransby Wilson
BPA Approved Operator: Minster Baywatch.

From the Single Code of Practice(which applies in accordance with its published timetable):
Parking Operator ...a person who...is entitled to recover a parking charge from the driver. The creditor.

From PoFA
"parking charge”—
(a)
in the case of a relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract, means a sum in the nature of a fee or charge

From the Notice to Keeper (issued on Minster Baywatch headed paper):

Minster Baywatch Ltd(the creditor).

Then I suggest you draw this together, possibly along these lines:
The prominent sign clearly implies(any reasonable person would say states) that BWPS manage the site on behalf of the landowner - the contrary cannot reasonably be argued given BWPS attachment to the disclaimer for loss/damage etc.

However, BWPS are not Approved Operators of any Accredited Trade Association and therefore not permitted to access DVLA data.

BWPS is the only name attached to the prominent sign therefore they are deemed to offer the contract terms on behalf of the unnamed landowner.

The SCoP makes it clear that only the Parking Operator is entitled to recover a Parking Charge and is therefore the 'creditor'.

However, the NTK clearly states that MBL are the 'creditor' without any reference, by way of a statement either explicit or implicit, that another party is the 'creditor' in law as regards the Parking Charge.

I suggest that it must be clear to the assessor what is happening. BWPS secure a contract to manage the site and offer parking terms on behalf of the landowner. However, by virtue of not being a BPA Approved Operator they are unable to access DVLA data in order to identify the keeper. They have therefore contracted a third party who is a legal stranger to the contract to issue parking charges. But instead of this company, BWL, identifying themselves as an agent of the principal, BWPS, they are claiming to be the creditor in their own right.

I respectfully submit that this is contrary to the requirements of the SCoP and therefore recovery of the Parking Charge by BWL cannot be endorsed by POPLA and my appeal must be allowed.

By way of a parallel example, the assessor is probably aware that in the public sector contracting out of penalty charge enforcement by Enforcement Authorities(councils) is commonplace. However, at all times the penalty is payable to the Enforcement Authority and not the contractor. I could also add that consideration of formal representations is a function restricted by law to Enforcement Authorities. Similarly with the SCoP which requires Parking Operators to consider appeals in a manner commensurate with their Approved Operator status and not, as here, to contract out to a third party - (OP I did ask you for the full reply but you only posted what you considered to be the gist of it. Pl post all 4 corners of their reply )

It would be useful to see in detail what the yellow panel says because this would probably give rise to a separate strand of analysis along the lines of 'even if it was accepted that the wording of the lower panel in some way authorised BWL to act on BWPS's behalf such that they could be considered to be the creditor, this could not be considered to have been conveyed to the driver by virtue of the sign's lack of prominence and its minute font size etc. etc.

And then you have other arguments. But IMO set out the facts upon which you want to rely and then analyse, compare, contrast and conclude.

Apologies, please find the full letter from minster baywatch here: https://imgur.com/a/3MmJxlj

Hi everyone,

I have appealed to POPLA with the following (sorry, didn't post it here to be vetted as I realised I only had one day left do so)

"Appeal Basis: This appeal is based on the principle that unclear signage invalidates any alleged contract formed with Minster Baywatch, as per consumer protection law, and that Minster Baywatch has failed to demonstrate the right to enforce parking terms at this location.

Legal Framework: Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), Section 69 states:
"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."

The ambiguous and conflicting signage present at the site, coupled with the unclear role of Minster Baywatch as opposed to Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS), creates multiple interpretations of who the contractual party is. Consequently, the CRA 2015 requires any ambiguity to be resolved in favour of the consumer. This invalidates any alleged contract with Minster Baywatch.

Observations:

1: The most prominent signage at the car park entrance states: "Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions.”

This signage clearly implies that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS) manages the site on behalf of the landowner.

2: A lower, less prominent yellow panel contains the following text: "Minster Baywatch Ltd is authorised by the landowner to operate this car park on their behalf.”

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.

Conclusion:

The unclear and conflicting signage invalidates any alleged contract between Minster Baywatch and the consumer.

I respectfully submit that this is contrary to the requirements of the Single Code of Practice and therefore recovery of the Parking Charge by Minster Baywatch cannot be endorsed by POPLA and my appeal must be allowed."

Minster Baywatch has returned with their reply, and I have 6 more days to submit comments.

Their replies here: https://imgur.com/a/knfy2iF

Thanks so much in advance for any input!

Unfortunately I made a mistake with the dates and the POPLA due date was actually 14 Jan so I had to put something together quickly!

They have also included this information about their contract: https://imgur.com/a/3UFO25D

Also, I did include a photo of the signages!

It stated that I had 28 days from the date of their response to my appeal issued to submit to POPLA

Had I f***ed up badly? Can I remedy this at this stage?

We know it says 28 days but in reality, it is 28 days from service and we now that the code will work up to day 33.

It's not a massive **** up but we would ave preferred to see what you intended to submit so that we could make sure that you covered all the necessary points correctly. If POPLA do not uphold your appeal, it is no big deal because their decision is not binding on you.

Let's wait and see what the operator submits as their evidence and whether they rebut all the points you raised.

Hi yes, they have replied with their evidence: https://imgur.com/a/knfy2iF and the contract here https://imgur.com/a/3UFO25D