We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Minster Baywatch / Gladstones Letter Before Claim
Options
xdiva99
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi,
I am writing on behalf of a relative who has been receiving communcations from Minster Baywatch, after they entered a car park for about 15 minutes late last year on Blossom Street in York. The car park was poorly lit in the evening so couldn't read any of the signage properly, and exited after deciding to park elsewhere. I don't think this is really relevant, but they didn't actually park up porperly - the engine was always running.
The first letter received claimed that they had ignored a previous letter. This is not the case and they have had no previous issues in regard to missing post. Assuming this to be a scam to instantly claim a higher price, they Googled the company and quickly found a post on another forum in the same timeframe where someone had received a letter claiming they had already gone past the time period in which they could appeal. As they hadn't received any communcation within 14 days of the alleged incident, they were advised to inform Minster Baywatch that they (MB) had failed to comply with Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 and that they were no longer required to reveal the details of the driver. My relative, who was not the driver, did similar and received a response which did not ackowledge the lack of first letter and acted like they had appealed within what should have been the original timeframe and asked for the lower amount they quoted. My relative ignored this and one further letter, and didn't bother with POPLA.
They have now received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones. Could anyone please advise how to respond? Is there any point in referring to the failure to abide by Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 again? My relative took the response from Parking Minster and asking for the originally intended amount, to mean they knew they hadn't sent what should have been the first letter and had been essentially found out. If they had genuinely sent the first letter, why would Parking Minster row back so easily?
Having since looked at signage at the car park online (I did try to link to a photo of it - but it wouldn't let me as a new user), it doesn't clearly state any possible fines as the writing is so small and also isn't lit up so you can't read it properly when it is dark anyway. There is nothing to state that the cark park is patrolled via cameras instead of a parking attendant. But how could my relative refer to anything like that, if they're they were not there and are no disclosing who the driver was?
I have read that many such companies are relucant to take people to court as they are equally likely to lose if contested, yet conversely that Gladstones seem to take everyone to court? Is that right?
Any advise would be much appreciated.
I am writing on behalf of a relative who has been receiving communcations from Minster Baywatch, after they entered a car park for about 15 minutes late last year on Blossom Street in York. The car park was poorly lit in the evening so couldn't read any of the signage properly, and exited after deciding to park elsewhere. I don't think this is really relevant, but they didn't actually park up porperly - the engine was always running.
The first letter received claimed that they had ignored a previous letter. This is not the case and they have had no previous issues in regard to missing post. Assuming this to be a scam to instantly claim a higher price, they Googled the company and quickly found a post on another forum in the same timeframe where someone had received a letter claiming they had already gone past the time period in which they could appeal. As they hadn't received any communcation within 14 days of the alleged incident, they were advised to inform Minster Baywatch that they (MB) had failed to comply with Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 and that they were no longer required to reveal the details of the driver. My relative, who was not the driver, did similar and received a response which did not ackowledge the lack of first letter and acted like they had appealed within what should have been the original timeframe and asked for the lower amount they quoted. My relative ignored this and one further letter, and didn't bother with POPLA.
They have now received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones. Could anyone please advise how to respond? Is there any point in referring to the failure to abide by Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 again? My relative took the response from Parking Minster and asking for the originally intended amount, to mean they knew they hadn't sent what should have been the first letter and had been essentially found out. If they had genuinely sent the first letter, why would Parking Minster row back so easily?
Having since looked at signage at the car park online (I did try to link to a photo of it - but it wouldn't let me as a new user), it doesn't clearly state any possible fines as the writing is so small and also isn't lit up so you can't read it properly when it is dark anyway. There is nothing to state that the cark park is patrolled via cameras instead of a parking attendant. But how could my relative refer to anything like that, if they're they were not there and are no disclosing who the driver was?
I have read that many such companies are relucant to take people to court as they are equally likely to lose if contested, yet conversely that Gladstones seem to take everyone to court? Is that right?
Any advise would be much appreciated.
0
Comments
-
What a shame your relative didn't appeal to PoPLA. That cannot now be helped.
Complain to the BPA and DVLA that no NTK was ever received thus the scammers failed to satisfy the strict requirements of the PoFA. Refer them to the other case you mentioned, pointing out that this seems to be a common theme with this scumpany.
Read the step by step guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES. This takes you right through the process from LBC to the court date.
Respond robustly to the LBC again pointing out to both the scammers and the scamlicitors the lack of NTK and failure to meet the strict requirements of the PoFA.
The scammers will probably produce a copy of the missing NTK stating that it was sent, but probably won't provide any proof of posting.
In addition to the above, complain to your MP about this unregulated scam, pointing out that a new parking bill has just been enacted in an attempt to stop this kind of disgusting behaviour. Also mention the comments in red from post one of the NEWBIES made by other MPs in open parliament.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
How to respond to a LBC is in the NEWBIES thread (a good time to send a SAR).
Search the forum - someone is currently ahead of you writing a defence re that site.Blossom StreetPRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards