Advice needed - multiple parking charges by Minster Baywatch for parking in electric vehicle bay

nosferatu1001

..but probably not in a court case against you, because a court is unlikely to care if MB followed their contract with the DVLA or not. 
Just because there was a charging point it does not mean you must charge

nej123

blackdog2220 said:

as the charging equipment was there , and not scattered around the car park in every bay it seems that you failed to work out that this bay was for CHARGING vehicles , 
I would suggest that you attemt to mitigate your losses by contacting the DVLA and asking if the Parking co asked for your info 3 seperate times 
this s a condition of the bpa/ipc and DVLA that the parking co HAS to apply for your info on EACH seperate occassion 

so in order to issue 3 tickets they needed to apply to the DVLA 3 seperate times and pay 3 x £2.50 

failure to do this (apply 3 times) c ould cause minster baywatch problems 

I will look into that thank you.  My real argument though is how they can issue 3 charges for the same breach (if it were a breach) as the signs mention £100 charge but does not state this is time or duration specific.  The ANPR will show that I only entered once and therefore should only be one 'contract' and one breach ..

blackdog2220

nej123 said:

I now have a Court Claim against me from Minster Bay Watch via Gladstones totaling £402.54.  I have started the MCOL process to defend the claim and have drafted the following. Please let me know if this is a good response or if there's anything I need to go further with.  Thank you

I parked at Peel Street Car Park on the morning of 5 August 2020 at approximately 10.25 and left my car there whilst staying in York.  At approximately 12 midday on 8 August, I returned to my car and paid the £43.50 parking fee calculated by the machine using number plate recognition for the duration of my stay from the 5 to 8 August.   I then received via the post three separate parking charge notices from Minster Bay Watch (MBW) for breaching their stated contractual T & C’s with the reason being ‘Vehicle was not charging’.  I had not realised that I had used a bay that was meant for electric vehicle charging only.  The PCN’s were issued as follows:

PCN 1087421     Charge £100    Issued 11/08/20      Date of Contravention 06/08/20 

PCN 1087424     Charge £100    Issued 11/08/20      Date of Contravention 07/08/20

PCN 1086726     Charge £100    Issued 12/08/20      Date of Contravention 08/08/20

I appealed on all three charges to MBY stating that I had not realised that the bay was for electric vehicle charging only and that I felt they should not be able to duplicate the charge three times. 

The three appeals were each rejected on 27/08/20 by MBW. In the interim, between receiving the original PCN’s and appealing, I had tried to speak to someone at MBW, but they would not discuss the matter via phone and said I must use their appeal process.  I also spoke with both the landowner, Bransby Wilson, and also the person who deals with parking on the adjacent church land to try to resolve the matter and due to concern over the way in which MBW were operating enforcement of charges but again was told there was nothing they could do.  

Following the rejection of the appeals, on 28/08/20 I wrote to MBW stating ‘Thank you for the attached.  Looking at the information on the sign, it does not state that the penalty applies when incorrectly using an electric vehicle bay.  Using this bay was a genuine error on my part and being fined £300 for one parking contravention seems to be highly unfair - there is no mention on the sign (the 'contract') that fines are payable on a daily basis and therefore I would assume they should apply to the contravention itself which in my case would be one contravention and one fine since I only entered and parked once and that applying the same fine over and over is unjust on your part and appears to be a deliberate way for you to unfairly penalise customers.  I would be grateful for your response to this’. The response I received was that they would not reconsider these charges.

Feeling I had no choice, I paid PCN number 1087421 on 10/09/20, leaving the duplicate charges on PCN’s 1087424 and 1086726 and totaling £200 as unpaid.  These two unpaid charges were then increased by £55 each on 01/10/20 to include an additional ‘internal collections team charge’ by MBW – these figures, incidentally, are contrary to the information provided by the claimant on the Claim Form.  It is these amounts, plus interest, which have brought about this claim.

In paying the first PCN 1087421 charge of £100, I believe that I behaved in an appropriate way to settle any charge which may have been due on my part for breaching the T & C’s and that any further PCN’s issued for this same breach were issued incorrectly by MBW as the £100 parking charge stipulated in their T & C’s was not time specific or dependent on duration of parking and they are therefore duplicates of the same parking charge.

 

your chances of sucsess with the landowner were doomed from day one 
Bransdon wilson ARE minster baywatch 
I remembered the name from a few yrs ago and it rung a bell 
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07517434/officers
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04707572/officers

nosferatu1001

Because the signs probably state per day or part thereof. 

nej123

nosferatu1001 said:

Because the signs probably state per day or part thereof. 

There is no mention of £100 charge applying to any specific duration on any sign

nosferatu1001

Show us the sign
I bet otherwise

D_P_Dance

There is no mention of £100 charge applying to any specific duration on any sign

Are you sure, not even in tiny font?

nej123

nosferatu1001 said:

Show us the sign
I bet otherwise

             

D_P_Dance

I am confused by above post, is something missing?

nej123

D_P_Dance said:

There is no mention of £100 charge applying to any specific duration on any sign

Are you sure, not even in tiny font?

No there isn't - I've checked and double checked