Minster Baywatch POPLA Appeal

oooh_shiny

Windscreen ticket ignored.
NtK received.
Appeal lodged with MB - refused
POPLA code received.

Now I need to write the letter to POPLA but not sure where to start. I may be being ignorant but I can't fin anything on the newbies sticky.

Can anyone direct me to the right place or advise me on what I need to include in this letter please?

Many thanks!

Redx

you wont find any links on the sticky, because people were just copying and pasting blindly without reading, then mixing up parking companies and not proof reading

go to the forum tools and use the forum search and put the header of your thread into it and search

Minster Baywatch POPLA Appeal

then read what pops up, starting with the newest first and stay in 2015 , no "oldies"

oooh_shiny

Marvellous, thank you Redx.

I didn't give away the identity of the driver at initial appeal so does this mean I can use the argument of no keeper liability?

I see from Parking Cowboys the argument relating to NGPEOL so can put that in too.

I also plan to put in the bit about the contract with the landowner as I see this also usually gets results.

I can see from the newbie sticky too about the Beavis case so will stick that in for good measure too.

Does that seem like a reasonable start? I'm just a bit confused by various judgements and quotes from various places as I don't really understand what they mean!

Thanks again

Redx

do more reading then

use every legal argument available


and use


NO CONTRACT

POOR SIGNAGE

NTK DOESNT CONFORM TO POFA 2012

NOT A GPEOL

the Beavis appeal in 3 weeks too

and anything else that is relevant

appeal as keeper, dont give away the drivers details, thats a no-no

oooh_shiny

Reading homework done! Familiarised myself with PoFA and the BPA CoP etc and have drafted my appeal letter. Can anyone offer any feedback as to whether I need to tweak or add anything else to it?

Much obliged!!


Dear POPLA Assessor,
As the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number xxxxxx using POPLA verification code xxxxxxxxxx. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £105 demanded by Minster Baywatch Ltd is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
Minster Baywatch Ltd has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £105 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention. As Minster Baywatch Ltd cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.
Given that Minster Baywatch Ltd charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no regard has been paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a penalty. The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

2. No contract between driver / inadequate signage.
As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication, “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. Minster Baywatch Ltd must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate, extravagant and unconscionable fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.
Due to their position at the entrance of one parking area and the size of the small print, the sign in this car park is very hard to read. In addition to this the sign fails to display the BPA’s AOS logo. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that Minster Baywatch are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they ‘must’ have been seen by the driver who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park and, therefore, I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

3. Flawed contract with landowner / authority to issue PCNs.
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, without their permission, through the courts if necessary.

Minster Baywatch Ltd does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Minster Baywatch Ltd has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Minster Baywatch Ltd to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Minster Baywatch Ltd produce to POPLA the contract between the landowner and the Minster Baywatch Ltd.

4. Unlawful penalty charge.
Minster Baywatch Ltd cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Minster Baywatch Ltd could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.

5. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper.
The Notice to Keeper received from Minster Baywatch Ltd is not compliant with paragraph 8 (2)(a) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The keeper is entitled to know the period the alleged breach was made. Minster Baywatch Ltd has failed to do this and therefore has not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under PoFA to allow it to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

7. Summary.
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Redx

make 1) the second from last point and renumber them

add a small bullet point style menu to the beginning, listing each number and sub header in the menu

plus you havent numbered them in sequence , as 6) is missing

leave SUMMARY as the last point