Notice to Keeper (Minster Baywatch, ANPR)

Coupon-mad

The photos they've used are clearly old as some of the signs they show are no longer there (I have a recent photo to show this).

Good - if that photo was in your original POPLA appeal - but you can't add extra evidence now so don't try, it will turn POPLA against you. Don't try a PDF, nothing long at this stage.

Try to stick to the 2000 character limit this time, just comments. I would be attacking the signs saying the above, that the pictures they have shown are old and out of date with signs that are not there any more. And attacking the redacted contract saying 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/

Say that 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. Unacceptable.

Be brief and on point with your comments. Not repeating your appeal at all but not adducing new evidence either, just picking apart theirs.

BindiBahji

Thanks, have drafted the following:

Photos on p40-42 are clearly old and out of date: 3 out of 5 yellow signs shown are no longer there (compare my photos p9-10)

Contract p45: impossible to conclude that contract complies with para 7 of the BPA CoP and whether it is still current (signed Oct 2012). 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 (www.bransbywilson.co.uk) and have the same director. Bransby Wilson are not the landowner and this contract is not acceptable as evidence: the company connection means this is like a contract signed by Minster Baywatch themselves.

ANPR testing: mere assertion of regular testing is insufficient: no evidence supplied here.

"[Drivers] ... have the opportunity to pull up across from the site and read the signs without any risk or danger": this appears to confirm that signage is not BPA compliant.

Coupon-mad

Yes that looks fine as comments. See if anyone else adds anything tomorrow before submitting.

BindiBahji

Received the POPLA decision: appeal unsuccessful :mad:

I think I got a newbie assessor as s/he doesn't seem to have looked at the evidence in any detail. I'm bloody furious that s/he has accepted that non-contract between Minster Baywatch and Bransby Wilson as permission to act from the landowner, and that s/he believed that the signage was BPA compliant despite me pointing out clearly why/how it is not.

Obviously I don't intend to pay, but would appreciate some advice on what (if anything) to do next...

Many thanks to everyone who has helped me so far.

Umkomaas

BindiBahji wrote: »

Received the POPLA decision: appeal unsuccessful :mad:

I think I got a newbie assessor as s/he doesn't seem to have looked at the evidence in any detail. I'm bloody furious that s/he has accepted that non-contract between Minster Baywatch and Bransby Wilson as permission to act from the landowner, and that s/he believed that the signage was BPA compliant despite me pointing out clearly why/how it is not.

Obviously I don't intend to pay, but would appreciate some advice on what (if anything) to do next...

Many thanks to everyone who has helped me so far.

I've responded to your post on the POPLA Decisions sticky, but I'd go on the warpath on the Bransby Wilson (aka Minster Baywatch) contract and get a complaint in to John Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator, the BPA and the DVLA that POPLA has been hoodwinked by some 'creative accountancy' (let's not call it fraud just yet) in the submission of this 'contract' as 'evidence'.

But you do need to get all your ducks in a row and do plenty of Sherlock Holmes first, before sticking your chin out.

Coupon-mad

What the heck are they doing twisting this valid point of appeal about adding unlawful extras on top of £100:

The amount being requested £100 exceeds the ‘appropriate amount’. The BPA Code of practice states in section 19.5 “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance”. As such, as a surcharge is not part of the parking charge, it is a handling fee for payment using specific means, the operator can justify this and thus, it is not a breach of the BPA Code of practice.

Not that the above is in fact the main thing...it is just madness to say that ''the operator can justify this'' (but they cannot, because it is not allowed under various consumer laws, to add blanket surcharges for payment by card). And even if they could, where is the evidence that they justified it in advice to the BPA?

Ridiculous - complain that the Assessor used old evidence of signs that are not there and preferred them over your own recent current photos. Why?

And accepted a landowner contract signed by the parking operator themselves.

In a complaint to complaints@popla.co.uk you must address it to the Lead Adjudicator and you need to show that your evidence 'was overlooked' (particularly the recent photos if they prove that some alleged signs are just not there) .

Not a general rant. They will only look at evidence that was missed, so push those words.

Apart from that, people lose at POPLA every so often and some decisions (like this one) are terrible.

It doesn't mean you have to pay, you are merely back to square one as if you had never tried POPLA, and can defend the matter if MB try a small claim, which it has to be said they probably will.

BindiBahji

Umkomaas wrote: »

But you do need to get all your ducks in a row and do plenty of Sherlock Holmes first, before sticking your chin out.

You mean specifically finding out from the Land Registry who owns the land? Cos I'm 99.9% certain it ain't Bransby Wilson.

Coupon-mad

Yep - that will cost you about £3 and is well worth it in readiness for a defence.

BindiBahji

As expected, I've had what looks to be a generic automated 'POPLA declined your appeal; now pay us by date X or we'll pass it on to a debt recovery company' letter.

Can anyone see any drawback if I send a standard 'no debt acknowledged, whole amount disputed and denied, I won't correspond with third party debt collectors' response?

System

Bransby Wilson are the stated occupiers. If you contact York Council they will tell you who pays the non-domestic rates. That's the main check.

Who owns it is immaterial if someone else is the occupier and I'll eat my internet hat if it is not BW.