Ridiculous Sting. Another unscrupulous Parking Company.

KeithP

There's no need for you to 'kill' links - as your penultimate post shows.

You have been here long enough and have enough posts to post live links.
Please edit your latest post accordingly.

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No need for details like dates/times as the PPC has them and POPLA will see the evidence.

I apologise for pestering you Coupon, but would you mind casting a reviewing eye over my POPLA appeal and its points.

Any advice, especially on anything I may have accidentally omitted, or written wrongly would be greatly appreciated.

I'm at the point where it needs to be sent to POPLA, I'd hoped to get some valuable opinion on it first, before sending.

Thanks again.

MistyZ

I'd want C_m's opinion too! But there are other great people here who hopefully will find time to take a look.

Meanwhile, I've managed your grace periods section so far & like the way it bangs on & on! It hammers home the message and I haven't found anything to criticise. Except there's no point sending links to POPLA, they won't follow them, so if they contain something important you need to quote instead.

I'll try to read more tomorrow if you haven't had more experienced eyes on it by then. When is the deadline for submission?

DorianWolf

MistyZ wrote: »

I'd want C_m's opinion too! But there are other great people here who hopefully will find time to take a look.

You're right up there too Misty with your useful help, and taking the time to read some of my appeal.

I did reach out to CouponMad, as she pointed out a silver bullet argument to me last year. But I do trust the judgement of many other knowledgable forum members obviously, yourself included.

I think I have a week for my POPLA deadline submission, but I'm heartened already by your encouragement, thank you.

I'll get rid of those links!

Any information or help is most gratefully received.

Coupon-mad

I think it's far too long and the point to nail is none of the above, it's this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5664886/minster-baywatch-parking-fine

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 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 ...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.

Here's the sign from that car park in that decision:

https://ibb.co/h0VE3Q

Put it next to an embedded image of your sign - snap!

Don't give POPLA links, give them pretty pictures in the actual appeal, like a story book.

That will be your first point.

Then just 'no landowner authority', then 'insufficient grace period'.

I wouldn't bother with the rest. And no showing any signs with MB on them...

Show us what you come up with on the re-write, and actually quote that entire POPLA appeal within the body of your own.

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Show us what you come up with on the re-write, and actually quote that entire POPLA appeal within the body of your own.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/smi9g6wpsnr6ifh/POPLA%20APPEAL%20V1.5xx.pdf?dl=0

Here's my much shorter and more concise edit #2. I do feel that it's an easier read, but with six less photographs and their relevant arguments.

Although, the points in my first appeal on 'inadequately placed entrance signage' and 'lack of up to date advertising consent' were the ones I had initially thought were strongest, and had taken the most time to put together, I have now edited them out.

Do you feel that I should have enough confidence in the weight of these remaining three points?

Coupon-mad

Yes. The first one should win it but it needs a clearer heading. It's not that the sign is 'not clear'. The heading of your first point should say something simple like:

No contract offered by Minster Baywatch - different company on the sign

Then make this clear, Googling for the company numbers at Companies House:

On the sign, I see nothing at all about Minster Baywatch Ltd (company no. xxxxxxx) and therefore the driver cannot possibly have entered into a contract with them. The company 'managing' the car park is shown as a completely different legal entity, Bransby Wilson Ltd (company No xxxxxx) and yet no PCN has been sent by them.

Even if the operator replies with evidence that the companies are in some way 'associated', the fact remains that these are different Ltd companies, different legal entities and one firm cannot offer a contract on a sign, only for a completely different company to post a PCN.

Indeed there is even a question of data abuse, since at no point does a driver agree to a contract with (or even know about) Minster Baywatch Ltd, and yet they have obtained the DVLA data. They cannot obtain this on behalf of Bransby Wilson Ltd, and nor can Bransby Wilson Ltd have got the data for Minster Baywatch Ltd, because only the latter are BPA AOS members. This appears to be a case of data sharing abuse and a DVLA KADOE breach, as well as a breach of the BPA rules, whereby AOS members must not use their electronic DVLA link to obtain data for non-AOS members, and they are forbidden from sharing or selling data to third parties (except debt collectors and solicitors).

However, given that POPLA do not consider data/KADOE issues, I will concentrate on the clear contract law issue that will win this case - namely that it is not conspicuous or clear which company operates the site. It is impossible to guess which company the motorist entered into a contract with (if not Bransby Wilson Ltd) or which signage and terms were viewed, when the main sign states: “This car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions”.

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Then make this clear, Googling for the company numbers at Companies House:

Thank you so much Coupon-mad, hopefully you may be able to give this last edit the okay, before I post the appeal to POPLA.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/od0v5gzq71smy5a/POPLA%20APPEAL%202.0.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

You won't be posting it to POPLA. You upload it as a PDF under 'OTHER' only on the POPLA website, then you use the password then emailed to you, to monitor progress.

I would say just sort out the grammatical aberration of ''I'' followed by a comma, near the start. It makes my stomach turn when I see people copy that intro, split infinitive and all!

And maybe change this which talks about MB signs (as they're not MB signs and neither is the one you have shown, elevated very high):

The lengthiness and elevation of Minster Baywatch’s signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in small print, in barely legible font.

to this:

The misleading signage - especially the pictured one beside the machine where any transaction would take place - is in another company's name and provides for no possibility of a contract with, or parking charge from, Minster Baywatch, and is wordy, cluttered and has no white space for ease of reading any terms.

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You won't be posting it to POPLA. You upload it as a PDF under 'OTHER' only on the POPLA website, then you use the password then emailed to you, to monitor progress.

All polished up, edit #4. Time to upload to POPLA?



https://www.dropbox.com/s/eukge90m5vo9kf6/POPLA%20APPEAL%20V2.5.pdf?dl=0