Two Parking Charge Notices

Loopy65

Below is the draft appeal.  
Couple of questions. 
1. I have omitted the mitigating circumstances surrounding both PCNs because I read somewhere that POPLA do not take this into consideration.  Am I correct in doing this as the case then boils down to misleading signage alone.
2. Is the Verification Code referenced in the POPLA assessment for DorianWolf the same number as the case POPLA code?

Loopy65

Draft v1 - sorry the formatting has been lost.

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXX Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX

I am acting on behalf of my wife, XXXXXXX, due to her ill health.

My Wife is the registered keeper of this vehicle, she received a letter from Minster Baywatch, dated XX/XX/XXXX acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator, was submitted and acknowledged by Minster Baywatch Ltd. XX/XX/XXXX and rejected dated XX/XX/XXXX.

I contend that, as the vehicle keeper, my wife is not liable for the alleged parking charge and she wishes to appeal against it on the grounds that:

No contract was offered by Minster Baywatch.

The signage at the site in question, Lakeside Car Park, is unclear and very misleading. 

The primary sign by the entrance states this car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Ltd (company no. 04707572). This sign includes the name of the car park and the logo of the landowner.

The sign is further misleading it displays the BPA logo when in fact they are not listed as a member.

There is a second sign in the same car park which states parking is enforced by Minster Baywatch Ltd (company no. 07517434).

The “contract to park notice” is stated on the sign using Bransby Wilson Ltd and not the Minster Baywatch sign.  The driver cannot have entered into a contract with Minster Baywatch who is the issuer of the PCN as the car park is not managed by that company.

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 company cannot offer a contract on a sign, only for a completely different company to issue a PCN.

Indeed, there is even a question of personal 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 - namely that it is not conspicuous or clear which company manages 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”.

Therefore, I must bring to your attention the following POPLA assessment and decision, dated XX/XX/XXXX.

POPLA Verification Code : XXXXXXXXXX

Assessor Name : Ashlea Forshaw

Decision: Appeal Allowed

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.

------

  

Figure 1: Sign from Blossom Street car park in the successful case above.

Figure 2: Lakeside Car Park sign, also stating that the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson

 

It is therefore suggested that Figures 1 and 2 serve to reinforce the point made regarding non- compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically:

“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

I believe that there is no contract between the driver and the operator. I am using this platform to argue that the notice does not state anything about a contract with Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, though they are shown as site managing agent of the car park.

Therefore, bringing to your attention that it is neither obvious, nor clear which company operates this site. So it is unclear which company the driver allegedly entered into a contract with, because of the confused signage and terms, as explain above.

These points in this case demonstrate significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator.

 

KeithP

Loopy65 said:

I am acting on behalf of my wife, XXXXXXX, due to her ill health. 

Of course you can act on your wife's behalf but at this stage there is no need to tell anyone you are doing that.

Just send the PoPLA appeal in an email as if it is your wife that has written it and it is coming from your wife.

Anything else will surely either:
a) lead to a protracted dialogue where they seek proof that you have your wife's authority to act on her behalf, or
b) they reject the appeal as coming from an unknown person.

I.e. it might be a good idea to set up a throwaway gmail email address using your wife's name.

nosferatu1001

Surely you also include landowner authority?

Fruitcake

You need a list of numbered headings followed by each numbered point.
Like this: -

1 Not the Landowner
2 No standing to issue charges in their own name
3 Inadequate signage
4 BPA CoP failures

1 Not the Landowner
MB are not the landowner and ...

2 No standing to issue charges
MB do not have a contract with the landowner to scam. Another separate companhy, BW has authority to manage the site ...

3 Inadequate Signage
Etcetera

4 BPA CoP failures
Etcetera

Look at other appeals and their format in the PoPLA Decisions sticky thread, especially where landowner authority is concerned.
Your appeal should be a lot longer that what you have posted.

I see you have touched on the two different companies registered at Companies House so make that part of your No Landowner Authority point. Including the company numbers is a good idea.

What document are you referring to when you say it is signed by both companies?

Loopy65

Thanks for your collective input and guidance above.  
I have assumed the key points for appeal are two, namely; "landowner authority" and "signage not clear".  I'm not sure if "BPA CoP" and "No standing to issue charges in their own name" should be additional separate points? If so, are there examples I can be pointed towards?
Below is my second draft so I have followed a convention that the text numbering follows the numbered grounds for appeal.  As per Fruitcake's comment. 
If my points seem trivial I apologise but I have zero experience producing such documents.

KeithP

Why not look at some of the example PoPLA appeals linked from the third post of the NEWBIES thread?

There some quite lengthy, fully illustrated examples there which will surely give you inspiration.

Loopy65

Draft 2 is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ek0uy8z6jzcqb5/POPLA Draft 2.docx?dl=0

KeithP

No pictures in that PoPLA appeal?

You won't find a PoPLA assessor following links all over the internet. Make it easy for the assessor to see your point of view. Imbed pictures directly into your pdf document.

While talking about links - have you clicked on any of them?
At least one of them, the ebay link, doesn't work properly.

Coupon-mad

When you look at the example POPLA appeals in the NEWBIES thread, they are illustrated like picture books!