MINSTER PCN postal

azz007

appealed to MB directly writing up my own letter as keeper about parking on the so called loading bay 'vehicle was parked longer than the maximum peroid '(maximun parking 30mins only) and disputed this fact of no observation/issue time and today they have cancelled the charge.

Now need to appeal the 2nd one , 'user was not authorised to use the car park' where the driver parked on the black tarmac bit in front the loading bay. do you think i can appeal using the same ground above although the PCN has a diffretne reason. do you think i should chance this and state with 'precedence' PCN 123456 which got cancelled

d just clearly shows they are issuing tickets like blind monkeys.

Coupon-mad

Yes, use the same wording - they are likely to be stupid enough to cancel it anyway without checking.

azz007

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, use the same wording - they are likely to be stupid enough to cancel it anyway without checking.

so should i or should i not mention the pcn that got canceled

azz007

should i state the PCN number that got cancelled on the other appeal, need to submit tomorrow

azz007

This is a ridiculous outcome - i pirchased land registrey docs and it showed they dont have authority on the land where the vehicle was parked. . and still MB denied the appeal. what is this... this is defo a big joke. the BPA dont care tooo, i emailed them showing the land docs and they said cant force MB to overturn their decsions and its upto me to take it further.

Also , on the NTK. there was no specified perioiod of parking - so this is no compliant. POPLA dont care and still denied the appeal.

The Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 PARA 9, states:
2 - The notice must!!!8212;
(a) Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

so 2 clear points were failed , not parked on relevant land, and no period of parking. yet i still lost. how is that even possible.

i have uploaded both versions of site plans and marked X where vehicle parked. MB version (clearly they have falsely outined their own verion in red. and land reg version i puchared is vastly different

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1loegyr9yyedz5u/AAAHzAhzxg_nVJXO4G8u30qra?dl=0

---

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor Name
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator!!!8217;s case is that the appellant parked without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant!!!8217;s case is that the parking charge is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has stated the operator should allow a grace period at this site. The appellant has questioned if the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has declined to name the driver on the date of the contravention. I must therefore consider whether the conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 were met as the operator is pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper. As the operator has not identified the driver of the vehicle, the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will need to comply with the regulations set out in section 9 of PoFA, 2012. From the evidence, I am satisfied the operator transferred liability correctly and in line with the provisions set out in PoFA (2012). The operator has issued the parking charge as the appellant parked without authorisation. The terms and conditions of this site state, !!!8220;parking for Mecca Bingo customers & permit holders only!!!8221;. Within their grounds of appeal, the appellant has questioned if the operator has the authority to operate on the land in question. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out: !!!8220;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). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.!!!8221; The operator has provided POPLA with a contract dated. This contract confirms it was in place for an initial period of three months. The contract would then run indefinitely until either party cancelled the contract. The operator!!!8217;s signs are still in place at this car park. I am therefore satisfied that it has a valid contract to issue parking charges on this land. The appellant has said that the operator should allow a grace period. Section 13.2 of The BPA Code of Practice that states: !!!8220;You should allow the driver a reasonable !!!8216;grace period!!!8217; in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action!!!8221;. The operator provided photographic evidence of the vehicle. The operator took the first photograph of the vehicle at 09:20 and further photographs at 09:59. I can see from these images that the appellant remained on site for at least 39 minutes without authorisation. I consider 39 minutes in excess of a reasonable time for the appellant to decide whether to park or leave. On this occasion, I can see no evidence that the driver was authorised to park in this car park. As such, I can only conclude the operator issued the parking charge correctly. I therefore refuse this appeal.

nosferatu1001

SO you provided POPLA with the land reg documents showing that the contract was not with the landowner? Yes or No

Complain to the BPA that the operator does not have the required contract in place.

azz007

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

SO you provided POPLA with the land reg documents showing that the contract was not with the landowner? Yes or No

Yes - i provide land reg docs in the popla comments and it showed they dont have authorty on the part of the land where the vehicle was parked. if you look at the dropbox link thye provided a fradulent copy compared to the offical land reg one

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Complain to the BPA that the operator does not have the required contract in place.

i did, steve clark didnt do nothing and just said he cant force the operator to overturn their decision.

Coupon-mad

If you are saying the PPC falsified evidence, send a copy of your evidence to:

- your MP
- local councillors (several)
- Trading Standards

azz007

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If you are saying the PPC falsified evidence, send a copy of your evidence to:

- your MP
- local councillors (several)
- Trading Standards

How would i go about starting my own court proceedings against minster baywatch.what steps and procedures do i need to take. would lve to see this go infront of a judge

KeithP

azz007 wrote: »

How would i go about starting my own court proceedings against minster baywatch.what steps and procedures do i need to take. would lve to see this go infront of a judge

You could do worse than read MSE's Small Claims Court guide.

Alternatively stick MCOL into google for more guidance.