Ridiculous Sting. Another unscrupulous Parking Company.

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Answer yes, a new Assessor may make the decision

Thank you, I've replied with a request for another Assessor to look at my appeal, failing that Mr. Gallagher. The PO have decided not to change their original evidence pack so POPLA have now given me until Friday to review my own appeal PDF and send it back.

Do you think that I should amend it in the light of what has occurred since my original appeal was lost, or do you think I should stick with the main points that I raised initially?

Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

TBH I don't know - only you can decide if you missed anything?

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

only you can decide if you missed anything?

I was happy with the appeal we'd put together, it was more whether I should mention anything relating to the missing PDF debacle and subsequent unsuccessful decision?

Coupon-mad

No, if you've done the complaint email stating clearly what the issue was that has been overlooked as regards the company name on the signs, and are happy that the PDF they have is your full PDF appeal, same as we all saw, then leave it at that.

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, if you've done the complaint email stating clearly what the issue was that has been overlooked as regards the company name on the signs, and are happy that the PDF they have is your full PDF appeal, same as we all saw, then leave it at that.

I'd like to take this opportunity to say thank you to everybody that assisted, with constructive information, in order for me to achieve a positive result in my appeal.

But especially, I'd like to offer my sincere thanks to Coupon-Mad for her tireless, knowledgable and endless capacity to provide assistance throughout, I could not have done it without you. :beer:

You are such a credit to the cause and deserve no less than a medal for your effort. Thank you again.

It's been a long slog, but worth every minute spent ultimately winning the appeal on a second POPLA decision. As you may be aware the initial evidence I provided got caught up in their IT system, so I hope that any other future members' appeals do not fall down the same hole.

Assessor Name - Ashlea Forshaw

Assessor summary of operator case - The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for the following reason, ‘parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full’.

Assessor summary of your case - The appellant has provided a document, which outlines his grounds for appeal. The grounds are as follows: • No contract offered by Minister Baywatch – different company on the sign. • No evidence of landowner authority. • Grace period – non compliance of the BPA Code of Practice.

Assessor supporting rational for decision - I am satisfied that the appellant has appealed as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As the driver has not been identified, I will be assessing keepers liability. For the operator to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, it must issue a notice under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and the notice must comply with schedule 4, paragraph 9. Having assessed the notice, I am satisfied that this has met PoFA 2012 and therefore, the keeper can now be held liable for any unpaid parking charges.

Whilst I note that the appellant has provided more than one ground for appeal to POPLA, I will be focusing on the concerns regarding landowner authority and misleading signage at the site.

The appellant has said that the sign at the site is misleading. He states that he did not see any information on the sign regarding ‘Minister Baywatch’ and therefore he cannot have entered into a contract with them. He says that the sign states that the company ‘Bransby Wilson’ is managing the car park however it was not Bransby Wilson who issued the PCN.

I refer to section 18.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice which outlines to operator’s, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle… signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Having looked at the signage on site, I can see that there are two different signs located within the car park.

One of the signs displays the tariffs and states ‘this car park is managed by Bransby Wilson’. I can see that one of those signs displays the ‘Minister Baywatch’ logo in the bottom corner however, it is not very clear to see when driving into the site.

There are other signs displayed which are on a yellow background. Those signs are placed on the brick buildings surrounding the site and whilst they may state ‘Minister Baywatch’ on them, those signs are very small to see and upon close inspection I am not satisfied that they are clear in stating who the car park is operated by.

It appears that Bransby Wilson is the owner of the car park however, they have authorised Minister Baywatch to operate on the site and issue PCN’s to any motorist who parks in breach of the terms in place. Section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … 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.”

Whilst the document is signed by both Bransby Wilson and Minister Baywatch, I do not consider the signage at the site to be clear in stating who is managing the car park. The appellant states that he was not aware Minister Baywatch was operating on site and so, I am satisfied that he did not enter into a contract with Minister Baywatch. The signs must be clear, and they were not.

As such, based on poor signage I will be allowing this appeal and the other grounds raised do not require any further consideration. This appeal is allowed.

And finally, I'd like to thank The Deep!!

The_Deep wrote: »

They have you bang to rights, breach of contract, trespass, ranting, misplaced indignation, ignorance of the law, pay the money.

Your ill advised, incorrect assumptions about my case gave me the extra incentive to win this, with the help of those on the forum who actually have something useful to say. :rotfl:

Umkomaas

Whilst the document is signed by both Bransby Wilson and Minister Baywatch, I do not consider the signage at the site to be clear in stating who is managing the car park. The appellant states that he was not aware Minister Baywatch was operating on site and so, I am satisfied that he did not enter into a contract with Minister Baywatch. The signs must be clear, and they were not.

Well done DW, great win.

This decision is more important than many as it puts to bed the smoke and mirrors as to who is managing the car park, who is the principal of the contract, what the relationship is between MB and BW and under which name he PCN can be pursued.

There have been a number of quite similar cases where the POPLA Assessor has been suckered in by the confusion and found it easier to find against the motorist. This decision can be used in almost all future MB/BW cases.

DorianWolf

Thanks Umkomaas.

I really do hope that something even more positive has come to light as a result of this victory.

So unless MB decide to change all of their signage in all of their carparks, others too can feel confident to win on appeal against this unscrupulous parking operator.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant! You have joined a rare club of people who have got POPLA to reconsider a case base on missed evidence. We can count these on one hand! Very rare. But worth doing.

Glad to have helped.

Can you help the cause by giving us the POPLA code and date of decision so we can quote is in future in MB/Bransby Wilson signage cases?

And please post that POPLA code & date in POPLA DECISIONS with a link to this thread, as more people will see it in the sticky thread and it'll be easier for us to find again there.

DorianWolf

Of course, it's absolutely the very least I can do in return for all your help. :T

Verification Code - 4110049017
POPLA assessment and decision - 14/05/2019

DorianWolf

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Brilliant! You have joined a rare club of people who have got POPLA to reconsider a case base on missed evidence. We can count these on one hand! Very rare. But worth doing.

Glad to have helped.

It's not a particularly important point, but after reviewing all the written communications received from Minster Baywatch, I noticed something that may be an interesting aside.

Even though all their letters are hand signed, none of them state any typed name of who that person whose signature it is.

But I have since realised that the signature of the person, with the official title written underneath as 'Debt Recovery Team', the chief of their internal collections who gleefully sent me numerous threatening red demands, is the same person who, most probably begrudgingly, signed the letter informing me that due to POPLA's appeal decision going in my favour, the PCN had been cancelled and no further action needed.

I realise that their office may be small, but I find it shocking that they can create fictitious departments to send threatening demands in the sole attempt to pressurise innocent drivers into paying their ludicrous charges.

Rant over.