IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Minster baywatch pcn
Options
Comments
-
So Minster have got back to me and rejected the appeal and have given a POPLA code, so looks like im straight onto POPLA.
am i ok using the EXACT same POPLA appeal as my 1st one? It shouldnt matter should it. they both were issued at the same location.0 -
definitely
adapt it where necessary , but if it covers all the point required then use it as your own template, if you had another 10 then use it ten times more too
there is no reason to be starting again, that would be foolish and unnecessary0 -
So its been 14 days since the POPLA appeal has been submitted and is at the 2nd stage 'Operator information and evidence., '
As keeper still haven't submitted the 2nd POPLA - is it a good idea to wait until i hear soemting back - the potential outcome- before submitting the 2nd one?
Or should i just submit the 2nd one now... still have around 20 days to do so?0 -
As long as you don’t miss the 28 day POPLA deadline (you can squeeze an extra couple of days on that, but no more) you can leave it up to the wire to see if you get a positive response to your first appeal, then you can quote it to POPLA as a ‘precedent’.
But be aware, if the first appeal is rejected, you can be sure that MB will do exactly the same.
In terms of MB responding to POPLA with their evidence pack to your first appeal, they have 21 days to do so, you then get 7 days to respond, POPLA will probably take a few more days to reach their decision. So you need to calculate the logistics and work out whether there is any benefit in going early with your second appeal.
I think I’d leave it a bit longer, because even if the result of appeal #1 isn’t known at that stage, it will be known by the time you get to your 7 days to respond to the MB evidence pack #2, where if the decision from #1 is in your favour, you can draw that to POPLA’s attention at that point.
Have you received a copy of MB’s evidence pack? If not, check your email Spam file. You only get 7 days to respond, including the day of receipt, so effectively only 6 days.So its been 14 days since the POPLA appeal has been submitted and is at the 2nd stage 'Operator information and evidence., 'Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
But be aware, if the first appeal is rejected, you can be sure that MB will do exactly the same.
if it is in the lines of rejection i can then adjust the 2nd POPLA accordingly. rejection was on 5th Dec > So 28 days from that till around 02/01/18.Have you received a copy of MB’s evidence pack? If not, check your email Spam file. You only get 7 days to respond, including the day of receipt, so effectively only 6 days.
nothing so far just online tracking say In Progress ' - Operator information and evidence' . Cant click anything or do anything. All i got was the auto email of POPLA appeal submitted which was 29th Nov (this email info@popla.co.uk came through fine). Checked all folders nothing ...etc. what email address does it come from?0 -
I expect that MB will wait the full 21 days before uploading their evidence pack. When they do you should receive an email notification from [EMAIL="info@popla.co.uk"]info@popla.co.uk[/EMAIL].
When you then log back on to the POPLA website, the In Progress status will have changed from "Operator and Evidence" to "Motorist Comments". The evidence pack should be available to download as a PDF - however this sometimes doesn't appear straight away and you might have to leave your cursor hovering for 10-20 seconds before it becomes visible.0 -
So next stage. Minster have sent the evidence pack 52 pages *rofl * - with images of the site, landowner agrrements, site agreemnts etc. sent today as email and also shows in the POPLA Motorist comments section as PDF.
there is a box with 2000 word limit. is that all i get. HeRe is their Point i need to REBUTT - Theyve literlly just argues back what the POPLA appeal said each point. Have 7 days
any good points that usually work that i can add further to the comments to thier so called evidence and what i should look out for to rebutt.
Much appreciated.
1 – Signage
Minster Baywatch refer to the Images section, which evidences the signs on site. As
previously mentioned, these signs are formatted to BPA standard and the lettering is
both large and the signage itself is 22” by 22”. The signs are no more than six feet
off the ground at their highest point so as to be visible above vehicles and four feet
at their lowest point so as to be clearly legible to drivers. The signage at the site is
also numerous and of high contrast. There is also evidence of the entrance signs
into this car park, which are both large and clearly state that the driver is entering
private land. Details of the parking charge amount are detailed in red lettering on all
signage within the car park.
There is a grace period in operation at this site, in accordance with BPA code, which
allows for drivers to observe the signage and leave if they wish to. Mr ABC overstayed
this grace period, as well as the other, higher grace period in operation at this site.
2 – Amount demanded is a penalty
As the main point of Mr ABC argument here is that the signage was allegedly
inadequate, Minster Baywatch refer to their previous comments. The signage
follows the BPA standard, and thus we can be sure that the contract was made
apparent to the driver before the vehicle was parked.
3 – The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact
liable for the charge
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 clearly outlines that the Keeper does not need
to be proven to be the Driver in order to be held liable for the value of the charge. This
was made apparent in the original Notice to Keeper sent on 02/11/17:
“You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is
presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the
Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both
the name and current address of the driver, we have a right to
recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you as the
registered keeper of the vehicle.”
4 – BPA Code of Practice – further non-compliance – photo evidence.
The images on Mr ABC PCN have time and date stamps in the top left corner (please
see Images section for this). These photos also show the vehicle entering and exiting
the site. The ANPR cameras are situated in such a place that they only register
vehicles entering and exiting. The images of the number plates are in fact not cropped
but are taken by an infrared camera at the time of the main photo. It may also be of
note that Mr ABC appeal to POPLA seems to confuse Minster Baywatch with Euro
Car Parks Limited in this paragraph.
5 – Landowner Authority
Minster Baywatch refers to the Other Evidence section in which the license agreement
between the managing agent Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch can be found,
and relatedly, the managing agreement between Bransby Wilson and the site owner,
evidencing full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
6 – ANPR accuracy and compliance
Mr ABC arguments referring to ANPR monitoring is factually incorrect. ANPR is a
valid method of enforcement and our signage clearly states: “this site may be
monitored by camera technology for the purpose of ensuring compliance.”
Please see Images section.
Regarding Mr ABC request for dates and times of camera maintenance, our ANPR
cameras are checked daily and there have been no reported issues at this site
surrounding the date and time of contravention.
Minster Baywatch assert that Mr ABC vehicle far outstayed the BPA required grace
period, as well as the site grace period which is higher.
Minster Baywatch assert that the driver was made aware of the site rules by the
numerous high contrast yellow signs situated around the site. As such, we maintain
that the charge was issued correctly.0 -
the 2000 character limit is not sufficient so would i be able to send my POPLA REBUTTAL via email instead. to info@popla.co.uk and what should i wirtie in the comments box on popla site for them to know and acknowldge my comments for appeal.
i havent responed to their claims about grace periods on Points 1&6 as the POPLA appeal didnt argue that to begin with. Shoul i say something along the lines
I never argued or appealed grace periods.or just ignore
any comments , further advice , critique is welcomed.
1 – Signage
The terms and conditions on all of the signs included in Minster Baywatch evidence is in such a small font it cannot be read unless close proximity as almost all evidence photos have been taken from 1 feet away. This backs up my assertion that the signage in this Car Park does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver. They have also stated there are entrance signs when this is NOT the case. There are NO Entrance signs upon entering the car park from John Street or any details of the parking charge, so no contract with driver has been made. Lastly there is no information as to how the driver is supposed to get on the ‘whitelist’.
Site Entrance Photo (insert here)
2 – Amount demanded is a penalty
As to my first point the signs are not legible on entry to the car park and the parking charge £100 is not clearly visible in the mountain of text for the driver to read from a moving vehicle nor is it safe to do so.
3 – The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
Minster Baywatch have still failed to show that the individual it is pursuing is in fact liable for charge. Further to this I would like to note that page 4, Minster Baywatch points out it ‘does not draw any assumption as to who the driver was’ .
Prior to this MB Contradict by stating, ‘Minster Baywatch assert it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they abide by the rules of this site when parking here. This responsibility includes ensuring one’s car is registered on the authorised user list for the site. This Mr ABC failed to do.’
This is a blatant assumption on the part of MB and should be treated as such which is confirmation they are not using POFA2012 and have therefore failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I was not the driver, so I am not liable for this charge.
4 – BPA Code of Practice – further non-compliance – photo evidence.
The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."
On page 23 there is no time stamp on the actual image, this is on a black marking on the outside edge top left of the image and may have been doctored and edited. The time stamp isn’t anywhere on the actual image shot of the ANPR image. This Just shows a vehicle allegedly entering and exiting with no location to where this is at. There is no confusion here, my appeal is against Minster Baywatch and my supporting images states this fact.
My photo below; shows the ANPR camera high up on a 12ft + pole which cannot be seen by the driver and can easily be mistaken for a street lamp/light. The ANPR camera is not at the site entrance, and more located towards the actual car park.
ANPR Camera Photo (insert here)
5 -Landowner Authority
No evidence has been submitted to confirm that this MINSTER Baywatch have the authority to act on behalf of the landowner, especially with regards to entering into long-term contracts with 3rd party companies and issue Parking charges. Therefore, I once again question Minster Baywatch authority to issue parking tickets at this site. There is no correlation or any agreements to specify that there is an agreement currently present. The evidence provided is redacted which it is impossible to conclude that it complies with para 7 of the BPA CoP and whether it is still current (if signed years ago) and that Bransby Wilson are merely a car park management company and an associate company of Minster Baywatch; both are owned 100% by the Bransby Wilson Group: http://www.bransbywilson.co.uk/ They are NOT the landowner and this contract fails as 'evidence' since the company connection means this is like a contract signed by Minster Baywatch themselves.
Minster Baywatch have still failed to show they have authorisation from the landowner to operate here. Terms are also redacted, and the text is not clear at all. For these reasons it cannot be accepted as valid evidence, and previous POPLA appeals have been upheld on this basis
6 – ANPR accuracy and compliance
Minster Baywatch has provided no proof on of the latest dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised for quality control. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, it is merely in small print as shown on page 37 scrambled in a wall of text.0 -
Edna_Basher wrote: »I expect that MB will wait the full 21 days before uploading their evidence pack. When they do you should receive an email notification from [EMAIL="info@popla.co.uk"]info@popla.co.uk[/EMAIL]. .
can i send my rebutall to this as pdf... see above my rebuttal points0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards