Ridiculous Sting. Another unscrupulous Parking Company.

DorianWolf

Hello Everybody.

I have just received a NTK though the post, from Minster Baywatch, who a BPA member. I checked them out on the BPA list.


The driver was in the car park for less than 15 minutes and has been hit with a £100 notice This is completely unfair, in my opinion.

The driver didn't receive a window sticker, obviously, at the time of the, less than 15 minute incident, and had no idea this NTK was due to them.

I have copied the text from the letter received below.

NOTICE TO KEEPER OR HIRE COMPANY

Where applicable, we may have obtained your details from DVLA under a "reasonable cause" request as you were the registered keeper of the vehicle specified at (time) on (date)

A Parking Charge has been issued as your vehicle was involved in breaching the stated terms and conditions of use which which were clearly displayed via signage and agreed to by the driver when your vehicle entered the stated location, specifically: Parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full

You are notified under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, that you are now required to do on of the following; Pay the outstanding amount, if you were the driver of the vehicle, OR; If you were not the driver, provide us with the full name of the driver of the vehicle along with their current address where a notice can be served, please note you are also required to pass this notice to the driver.

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have a right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Please note we will accept a reduced amount of £60 if payment is made within 14 days of this letter. After this date, however, the reduced amount will no longer be available to you.

Should you wish to make an appeal or representation against this Parking Charge, details are on the reverse of this notice.

Should you choose to ignore this notice, please be aware that Minster Baywatch may pursue this matter through the county court if necessary. Should court proceedings be issued, further costs incurred by Minster Baywatch will be added. These will include but not be limited to the cost of issuing the court claim, credit reference agency costs and our solicitor's costs.


I realise that after reading the information on "Postal PCN from a BPA or IPC member", I should appeal the charge using the “ONE SIZE FITS ALL” template. Is this indeed the correct course of action for me to take at this time?

My hope at this stage is that one of your knowledgable contributors may be able to find fault in the text of the letter.

I am slightly nervous of the outcome from here, but I am keen to take a stand and fight another unscrupulous parking company from taking my hard earned money.

Thank you.

KeithP

Yes, same as before.

The keeper sends the blue text template appeal unchanged.

Having done that, compare the letter with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. There's a link to that in the NEWBIES thread.

Guys_Dad

DorianWolf wrote: »

Hello Everybody.

Merry Christmas. Unbelievably I have just received a NTK though the post, from Minster Baywatch, who a BPA member. I checked them out on the BPA list.

The driver pulled into the car park to answer a phone call, the driver did not leave the car.

Thank you.

Aah, then Bill Clinton defence. Not seen that one for a while.

Umkomaas

The driver pulled into the car park to answer a phone call, the driver did not leave the car.

The driver was in the car park for less than 15 minutes and has been hit with a £ three figure fine notice! This is utterly disgraceful, in my opinion.

How could the driver even have bought a ticket or read the signs if they did not leave the car?

I wouldn't dwell on this as the argument. Parking is parking. There is no legal requirement for owners of car parks to provide facilities for motorists to stop on their land without complying with their rules.

Sorry if this sounds harsh - it's not meant to be - but it's the reality that motorists are increasingly having to recognise. Some read the signs and comply, many are caught by the sting. If a child puts their hand naively into a wasps nest, they rarely ever repeat the action in their life thereafter.

But, you might be able to win this at POPLA using the various appeal points provided in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky. But it's for a bit later in the process, for now it's the one size fits all initial appeal template.

DoaM

As above, the driver does not have to leave the vehicle for the vehicle to be parked. (A common misconception).

If/when this gets to POPLA then one of the appeal points will be "grace periods". If the alleged period of parking is 15 minutes then that's within accepted limits for grace periods ... 5 minutes to enter the car park, read the signs and decide whether to accept the terms of contract; 10 minutes to leave the car park.

fisherjim

DorianWolf wrote: »

The driver pulled into the car park to answer a phone call, the driver did not leave the car.

The driver was in the car park for less than 15 minutes and has been hit with a £ three figure fine notice! This is utterly disgraceful, in my opinion.

How could the driver even have bought a ticket or read the signs if they did not leave the car?

.

Finding the author of the "Urban Myth Parking Bible" is to me as desirable as finding Banksy, the thing that makes this more difficult is we haven't found the book yet.


Making up your own parking terms will never work, you are now in "it to win it" or you pay up (not recommended on here).


You were caught by the lazy man's parking scam technology banned for council car parks, but used in abundance by private parking scammers to catch people like you.


You will have to go through all the motions and hoops to kill this, follow the advice on here that has already been offered starting with the newbies thread, come back for more help and clarification.

Edit: but you know this from your other recent encounter with another scammer!

DorianWolf

Thanks for those with constructive assistance so far.

I believe the argument should lean towards the time the driver spent in the car park being less than fifteen minutes, therefore hopefully within an unspecified grace period.

Also Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act will be compared against the NTK received for discrepancies.

In addition, when I visited the car park in question, it is noticeable that it is split into two areas. One half through a gate which is ANPR controlled, the other half not. (no gate, or camera). So if the driver had parked in the non camera area for that short amount of time, then no NTK could have been issued. Perhaps this may be another valid argument?

The blue template will be sent for now, hopefully start getting plenty of relevant points for a case together.

KeithP

I think the fourth sentence in your most recent post would look better starting something like:

In addition, when I visited to the car park in question, I noticed...

As it currently stands, that sentence gives away the driver's identity.

Please edit it asap.

And do away with those quotation marks around the driver. Are you drawing attention to the wrong things.

MistyZ

Agree with KeithP's response above. You can't be too careful. So therefore it is you, the Keeper, who is starting to get a case together.

I don't think the split car park argument is relevant / useful if this gets to POPLA. The car could have been parked somewhere else, but it wasn't so it is what it is. However what was the signage like? It is usually deficient in plenty of ways and that is another section to include.

KeithP

DorianWolf wrote: »

...but the driver will want to start getting plenty of relevant points for a case together.

No he won't.

But the keeper will.

Take care.

RobinofLoxley

In addition, when I visited the car park in question, it is noticeable that it is split into two areas. One half through a gate which is ANPR controlled, the other half not. (no gate, or camera). So if the driver had parked in the non camera area for that short amount of time, then no NTK could have been issued. Perhaps this may be another valid argument?

When you say the car park is spit into two areas, are these areas distinctly different or seperated. Is it possible to drive from one area to the other without eaving the car park.

The vehicle must have 'triggered' the ANPR cameras for the PPC to obtain your details from the DVLA using the VRM.


Does the NTK show seperate time stamped photos of the car, one on entry and one on exit of the car park. How long are they saying the car was in the car park.