Unaurthorized use of bus and taxi dropoff/pick up - Minster Baywatch!!!

StarSaver

But the driver did not even stop, so this is not a car parking issue but an accidental travel into an unaurthorized area. the driver drove into the wrong entrance by accident.
How can they fine me using the same method used for unauthorized parking

Ralph-y

They can not!

please stop using the 'F' word it makes it look like you do not understand what you/we are talking about.

PPC's ...... the clue here is the parking company bit ...... have decided that they are not screwing enough £££ from car parking scams and so have moved onto traffic enforcment and other such nonsense.

The favorite one at the min is airports like the 'not so welcoming' JLA (Liverpool) we never hear of a parking issue only stopping......

So please keep reading up and help us help you and get some of this nonsense stopped.

So as well as doing the appeals .... start to complain to every one you can think of ..... MP, papers local/national, DVLA and any others that you can think of

Ralph:cool:

Half_way

If they are claiming keeper liability under POFA then it could be potentialy fraudulant, complain to the university sd they are liable for the actions of their agents. And tell them that you expect them to cancel this charge, give you reassurances that this will never happen again, and to put in place refunds paid for by the university for anyone who had been charged. Also tell the university that unless they call off their agents you may be holding the university liable for your costs

StarSaver

Complaint Letters prepared for Minster Baywatch, DVLA and York University, Anyone know who I should complain to at York University - been searching for a while and not getting anywhere

Folkiedave

http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/estates/transport/parking/
Directorate of Estate and Campus Services

StarSaver

Hi all again!
First of all I must apologise (and have done in emails) to York University. This incident happened at YORK COLLEGE and not York University as previously stated


I appealed to MINSTER BAYWATCH and had that appeal rejected (of course) with a POPLA code provided


More interestingly I have written to York College to head of Estates a 'Geoff Wroe' (yes that is spelt correctly) twice and spoken to him twice! He was not interested in the slightest in helping me.


I then complained to his boss 'Louise Lawrence Crockford' deputy principle resources. who basically told me she would do nothing to help.
I explained to her that the college was responsible for the company that they employed to manage their parking control, I then explained that the company that they employed had obtained my details from the DVLA for something other than a parking offence, I told her that she should look into the actions of this company.
She was not interested


I now shall complain to the DVLA and appeal to POPLA
My concern is; CAN popla HELP ME AS THIS WAS NO PARKING ISSUE. The vehicle did not even stop! it only entered a lane for taxis and buses only!!

bod1467

It doesn't matter - you have a POPLA code, use it. Just use the usual culprits (no standing, not a GPEoL) and beef up the POFA non-compliance point with the fact this was not a Parking event therefore there cannot be any keeper liability as POFA only applies for parking events.

Ralph-y

If you have time then please search for some of the airport threads .......

its the same type thing......

do not let me put you off complaining to the DVLA ..... I amongst many others are doing such!
However the DVLA will fob you off ......

As pointed out in numerous places the DVLA are on a 'kick back' for every PPC search and as such have no interest ...........

perhaps in time all the complaints...

might just add up

good luck

Ralph:cool:

Half_way

complain again, and tell them at the college that you will ( or may be) be seeking to reclaim your costs from them as a direct result of the actions of their agents.
Beware of the expiry of the POPLA code, as this should be your priority

StarSaver

this was slightly different as the car did not even stop never mind enter a car park!!
I used an airport template
please could some of you check this over and let me know if ok to send to POPLA
thanks


Dear POPLA

Re verification code XXXXXXXXX

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the
following grounds:

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) The alleged contravention was not a parking issue
3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge
drivers
4) No Contract with driver
5) Misleading and unclear signage
6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera' not date stamped, at this location, which is not
a car park

1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of
loss.
The vehicle accidently entered a lane that is allegedly only for taxis and busses ;signs were not visible to the driver, the vehicle did not stop, the driver thought it safer to continue and exit at the other end as turning around was deemed unsafe ; the alleged contravention lasted seconds, Minster Baywatch are demanding payment of £60 (discounted to £30 if paid within 14 days).


The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss
and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer
Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business
costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took
place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a
penalty for allegedly stopping and is not a genuine pre-estimate of
loss. As Minster Baywatch are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is
a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of
Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable. I would also like to
see a breakdown of the cost calculations relating to this charge; given
all of the costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged
breach at the time.

' POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing ‘Vehicle Control Services' (VCS)
latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around
POPLA - that:

''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is
commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher
courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made
clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant
purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from
breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v
Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bank
of Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures &
Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be
struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances
be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its
dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be
compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the
parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been
performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow
clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature
of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved
away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine
pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations
an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it
remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather
than punitive.''
2) The alleged contravention did not take place
The notice issued states ‘You are notified under Paragraph 9 (2) (b) of
Schedule 4 Of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 that the
driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge
Notice in full.

The relevant part of the POFA states –(The notice must) inform the
keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of
the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not
been paid in full.

This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is
‘Unauthorized use of Bus and Taxi drop off/Pick up’. The Parking
Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having
entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any
specified period of parking where parking charges apply.

The photographs on the parking charge notice clearly show the car
driving on a road and not in a car park. There was no parking
contravention at all. Minster Baywatch are not able to refer to a regulation that
applies to driving on an unauthorized road. No contravention applicable to POFA
actually took place.



3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge
drivers
As Minster Baywatch are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a
contract with the driver, I wish Minster Baywatch to provide me with a full
un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them
to form such a contract. A witness statement as to the existence of
such a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with
the landowner that gives Minster Baywatch the legal standing to levy these charges
nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. This was
shown to be the case by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson,
Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as
regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of
landowner contracts, Minster Baywatch have breached the BPA Code of Practice section
7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this
charge unenforceable.


4) No contract with driver.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be
able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions (see
'misleading and unclear signage' below). A driver could not stop in
order to read the signs as they enter the road as they by doing so they
would block the junction. In any case, as Minster Baywatch are only an agent working
for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract. VCS
-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers
this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of
business model. In this instance, there was no contract formed
whatsoever, no consideration was capable of being offered. to the
driver, who was simply queuing on a road in traffic and saw no
pertinent signs nor accepted these terms whilst driving.

5) Misleading and unclear signage.
The alleged contravention is 'Unaurthorized use of Bus and Taxi Pick up/ Drop off'.
If Minster Baywatch intend this apparently private road to treated
by drivers as a road for taxis and busses only then the signs and terms used must be
compliant with the TRSGD2002 or they will be misleading and confusing
to drivers. The signs at this location do not comply with road traffic
regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading.
Only 2 signs at the entry point are present, these are only visible to traffic turning left at the last possible second and are not visible at all to traffic turning right into the road. There are no repeater signs. There are no signs on the public highway to indicate this is a restricted road. There is certainly no time to read them without stopping, therefore they do not comply with the BPA code of practice. Minster Baywatch are required to show evidence to the contrary.

I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'Unauthorized use of taxi and bus drop off/ pick up'
section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly
marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be
of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to
look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking
restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather
than parallel to it.''


6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera ' system at this location which
is not a car park
The BPA code of practice contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce
parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable,
consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell
drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must
carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors
and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of
the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good
working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is
accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that
you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance
team or our agents.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and
process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on
the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal
data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, the secret camera does not operate in a
reasonable, consistent and transparent manner and I contend that Minster Baywatch
have failed to meet the requirements of all of the above points in the
BPA Code of Practice. They will need to show evidence to the contrary
on every point, and explain how this hidden camera can be compliant
when this is not a car park, it is a road, and there is no opportunity
for drivers in moving traffic to be informed that this technology is in
use and what Minster Baywatch will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. Minster Baywatch have breached the BPA Code of Practice as regards the use of a
non-compliant ANPR system being merely a hidden
camera, without a date stamp, used on land which is not a 'car park' and neither
'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking'.


Yours sincerely,