Minster Baywatch - No windscreen PCN, No postal notice - straight to payment demand? residents spot

Mr_Stroopwafel

Hi all,

Back again - an odd situation with Minster Baywatch in a resident's car park. The driver was a visitor and the tenant pays for spot in their lease - purely for visitors as they don't own car.

A complete farce as no-one else was unable to park as a result of this and you can't even enter/exit the park without a keyfob.

Driver never had a windscreen PCN which is odd as they usually do this here.

They say they've recently written to me before about this charge - not sure how they got my details and made the connection that I am the keeper?

I definitely haven't had anything else about this notice...could they be making it up? Surely not a legit bunch like MBW?? :P

I have 22 days between the "date of contravention" and "date of issue".

Can anyone advise on what's the best course of action? Am I too late to go through the POPLA route now?

Fully prepared to fight this all the way.

Thank you in anticipation

Umkomaas

I have 22 days between the "date of contravention" and "date of issue".

If it was a camera capture of the vehicle, 22 days means they're too late to invoke Keeper Liability.

If it was a (ghost) windscreen ticket, they've accessed your data too early from the DVLA.

What does their letter to you say about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and/or Keeper Liability?

Can anyone advise on what's the best course of action? Am I too late to go through the POPLA route now?

Appeal to MBW using the initial appeal template from the newbies FAQ sticky, post #1 (there's only one there). Get your POPLA Code via that, in due course.

Mr_Stroopwafel

Umkomaas wrote: »

If it was a camera capture of the vehicle, 22 days means they're too late to invoke Keeper Liability.

If it was a (ghost) windscreen ticket, they've accessed your data too early from the DVLA.

What does their letter to you say about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and/or Keeper Liability?
.

There's photos but it's not ANPR, it's the ticket operative/attendant who's taken them presumably.
I'm assuming you meant ANPR cameras?

It appears to be the ghost windscreen ticket.

There is nothing in the letter about POFA 2012 or keeper liability.
The closest thing to that is saying "You are liable for this charge..." but no mention of POFA.

They are claiming to have written to me about it before, but I have not had anything.

Interestingly their reference number appears to be newer than a more recent ticket a friend has...almost as if this one was made up recently. eg that one is 2*****, this one is 21**** despite the date being older.

Mr_Stroopwafel

Attempted to appeal on their website, says "unable to appeal at this time"

Umkomaas

It will more than likely be a handheld camera, with no windscreen ticket, that the DVLA are accepting as equivalent to ANPR camera capture (makes no sense, as a windscreen ticket could have been attached at the same time) as this allows the PPC to acquire keeper data earlier than if a windscreen ticket was applied. It's crazy, but the whole private parking world is crazy.

It's more than likely too that MBW were not present on site, rather it was some nosey neighbour (the local Norris Cole) who took the photos and uploaded to MBW website. That might account for MBW not issuing the NtK within 15 days for Keeper Liability, Norris nosing elsewhere and forgetting to immediately upload to MBW (all speculation on my part, but this stuff happens....!).

You will win this at POPLA (no Keeper Liability) provided the driver's identity is never revealed, you use the initial template (no additions/edits - use as is), then come back when you get your POPLA Code.

You should also drop a SAR-bomb on MBW asking for all and every bit of information they hold on you, who supplied it, when it was supplied. You also want to know whether the person taking and providing the photos was a direct employee of MBW, if not, on what basis was he/she contracted (self-employed, incentive-based, casual, or what) and what training had been provided to them by MBW on the contents of the BPA Code of Practice (dates of when the training took place, and what updating has been provided given the iterations of the CoP). That will be enough for them to get on with - make them understand that you're not going to lie down and take their crap on the chin. You're an awkward one, perhaps best left alone.

Here is a new thread from a couple of days ago, discussing how forum policy will be quickly developing to exploit the new opportunities provided by the recent GDPR introduction. In it there is a good draft of a SAR, which is likely to be part of a developing forum SAR template. Use it to suit.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5849784

Mr_Stroopwafel

That is fantastic, thank you for reply.

One thing, I'm getting the message unable to appeal on the MBW website, normally you enter the PCN number and reg and you go to the online form.

Umkomaas

Mr_Stroopwafel wrote: »

That is fantastic, thank you for reply.

One thing, I'm getting the message unable to appeal on the MBW website, normally you enter the PCN number and reg and you go to the online form.

Take a dated screenshot, and try again tomorrow (and the day after.....) with a dated screenshot every time it bombs you out. You may need to complain to the BPA in due course. Do MBW offer any other route for the initial appeal?

Mr_Stroopwafel

Umkomaas wrote: »

Take a dated screenshot, and try again tomorrow (and the day after.....) with a dated screenshot every time it bombs you out. You may need to complain to the BPA in due course. Do MBW offer any other route for the initial appeal?

Will do, I think they may do email.

In the meantime SAR will be sent.

I was in touch with Management Agency last time but since it got cancelled at POPLA I didn't take it any further, do you think it's worth contacting them again? They basically washed their hands of it.

I have wasted hours on this and previous charges already and getting fed up.

The_Deep

I have wasted hours on this and previous charges already and getting fed up.

In that case make life as difficult as you can for them, and your managing agents.

Complain to your MP, read about unreasonable behaviour costs, primacy of contract, right to quiet enjoyment, Data Protection Act rights to privacy. if they take you to court put in a counter claim. Lobby other residents, deface their signs.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Mr_Stroopwafel

Letter sent to Management Agent and MP sent.

MA are not getting off the hook this time!

Guys_Dad

Mr_Stroopwafel wrote: »

Hi all,

Back again - an odd situation with Minster Baywatch in a resident's car park. The driver was a visitor and the tenant pays for spot in their lease - purely for visitors as they don't own car.

Is it your car? If not, do nothing for now.

If you were neither driver nor keeper, you can't be liable for anything. Let them waste months with threatening letters and debt collectors and wait until the case is over 3 months old. By that time, they can't even chase the keeper !!!