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 number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Minster baywatch parking fine

13»

Comments

  • Operator Name
    Minster Baywatch

    Operator Case Summary
    See evidence attached.

    POPLA assessment and decision
    18/07/2017

    Verification Code
    4111647007

    Decision
    Successful

    Assessor Name
    Esther Sargeant

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the motorist did not pay the parking fee in full.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, including; no evidence that the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue and pursue parking charges. The appellant states there is no keeper or driver liability. The appellant states the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is no notification of the parking charge sum. The appellant states there is no contract between the motorist and the operator. The appellant states the notice does not state anything about a contract with Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, though they are shown as the operator on signage.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    Upon review of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified sufficiently. In order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Upon review of the PCN, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with PoFA 2012. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge. The terms and conditions of the site state: “All users must pay for their parking duration in full… By failing to comply with any of these conditions, you are contractually agreeing to pay the parking charge of £100”. The operator issued the PCN to vehicle registration FG05 NNF because the motorist did not pay the parking fee in full. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. The cameras captured the appellant entering the site at 11:40, exiting at 13:23 on 20 May 2017; the period of stay was one hour and 42 minutes. The appellant states the notice does not state anything about a contract with Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, though they are shown as the operator on signage. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Though I acknowledge that the operator has provided evidence of a contract with the landowner, the majority of the signage shows Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions as the managing agent of the car park. I consider that the evidence includes very few of the parking operator’s own signage. The wide-angle photograph of the car park does not appear to show any of the operator’s yellow signage. There is nothing necessarily wrong with one company managing the site and another enforcing upon it. However, to show that the operator is question has entered into the contract with the motorist, rather than Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, the operator needs to evidence that its signage is sufficiently prominent and clear to the level that there could be no mistaking the circumstances, and that stated the difference between the companies. In this case, the entrance sign states: “managed by Minster Baywatch Ltd on behalf of Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd”. However, other signage states: “This car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions”. Though I acknowledge the operator’s yellow signage has its logos displayed and advises motorists: “By entering and remaining on this property, you have agreed to these conditions and contracted with Minster Baywatch to be legally bound by them”, this is in fine print on that cannot be determined from the wide-angle shot of the car park. The operator has not provided a site map. As such, I am unable to determine the spread and prevalence of its yellow signage throughout the site. Though I acknowledge in its case summary, the operator has confirmed who manages and who enforces the site, on all signage both parties have displayed that they manage the site. Upon review of the evidence, I do not consider that it is conspicuous or clear which company operates the site. As such, I do not consider it is clear which company the motorist entered into a contract with or which signage and terms were viewed. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I acknowledge that the appellant raised additional grounds of appeal. However, as I have already allowed the appeal, it is not necessary for me to consider these.



    THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYONE THAT HELPED ME! It's been a long process and very exhausting but it was so worth it in the end. Minster Baywatch told some awful lies which really didn't help their case! They are scammers, and anyone that comes up against them, CAN WIN!
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 43,493 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Well done f_s, good result.

    f_s 1 v MB 0. GOAAAAL!
    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 Street
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 153,374 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Wow, that one is a different decision, the Assessor has really looked at the signage evidence:
    In this case, the entrance sign states: “managed by Minster Baywatch Ltd on behalf of Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd”. However, other signage states: “This car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions”.

    Though I acknowledge the operator’s yellow signage has its logos displayed and advises motorists: “By entering and remaining on this property, you have agreed to these conditions and contracted with Minster Baywatch to be legally bound by them”, this is in fine print on that cannot be determined from the wide-angle shot of the car park. The operator has not provided a site map.

    As such, I am unable to determine the spread and prevalence of its yellow signage throughout the site.

    Though I acknowledge in its case summary, the operator has confirmed who manages and who enforces the site, on all signage both parties have displayed that they manage the site.

    Upon review of the evidence, I do not consider that it is conspicuous or clear which company operates the site. As such, I do not consider it is clear which company the motorist entered into a contract with or which signage and terms were viewed.

    May well be useful for other Minster Baywatch cases in future.

    football_striker, can you post about this also in 'POPLA Decisions' at the top, with a link to this thread for newbies to read, and state that it was a win v Minster Baywatch (please also state which car park site this was about, it will help others!).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.