UPDATE: I won at small claims court - At DQ stage with Gladstones on Behalf of Minster Baywatch

antwilliams

Backstory:
I received PCN from Minster Baywatch for allegedly not paying the £1 charhe for evening parking in a private car park in Loughborough. The name of the company did not ring any bells, so I assumed it was a scam and ignored.

Then I got a letter before claim from Gladstones. 

I've recently been back to Loughborough (not a place I visit often) to see if I could find the car park they referred to as I could not recall it.
I've found it and the signage all refers to Bransby Wilson. Therefore I don't believe there ever was a contract with Minster Baywatch, which was my initial defence (received by the court 1st March 2023)
I've now seen that a DQ has been issued on 18th April.

I can see that I need to reject mediation and request a date in my local court where I will argue that Minster Baywatch have no authority to bring this to court.

Has anyone else successfully done this and what advice would you give?
I (retrospecively) read the newbies thread (I was so angry I just did the rest myself!) but I want to have my day in court, at the very least to inconvenience the sharks that run private parking.

B789

We are assuming that you did your AoS and have since filed a Defence on time. Did you use the template defence linked at the top of this forum? Did you file your Defence as an attachment by email or did you use the MCOL form?

You should do a search as yours is not the first time this location and the dual identities have come up.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/search?query=minster%20baywatch&sort=-dateInserted&scope=site&Search=minster%20baywatch&source=community

antwilliams

I did an AoS and filed a defence but I didn't use the template as I wasn't aware of it at that point. Thanks for the link!

Grizebeck

The day in court many people want is not what they end up getting

antwilliams

Grizebeck said:

The day in court many people want is not what they end up getting

What do you mean?

B789

antwilliams said:
What do you mean?

antwilliams said:

I (retrospecively) read the newbies thread (I was so angry I just did the rest myself!) but I want to have my day in court, at the very least to inconvenience the sharks that run private parking.

It is all going to depend on what you put in and how you filed your Defence.

You say you "retrospectively" [sic] read the Newbies thread, so you must now realise whether you have "robustly" defended your case using all the resources of the Newbies/FAQ  and the Template defence threads.

Whether your case ever gets to court for you to have your day in it, will depend on more than just your "desire" for it to be so. There are many variables that will dictate how this progresses.

Coupon-mad

Please show us your exact defence, verbatim.

antwilliams

The defence to this claim is very simple. There is, nor has there ever been a contract between the claimant and the defendant. After some considerable research, I have been able to establish which car park this relates to and can categorically state that signs displayed were not conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand, showing that a contract was being formed with Minster Baywatch Ltd. I could not find evidence to support the claim that Minster Baywatch were the operators of this site and therefore this entity has no contract with the defendant.

This is not the first case of its kind. The car park operator’s own regulator has ruled against Minster Baywatch previously (see below) for failing to follow British Parking Association Code of Practice. 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”.

The site has signage which states Bransby Wilson Ltd is the operator, and therefore if there were to be a breach of contract, it would be with this company, not Minster Baywatch Ltd.

Therefore, unless the claimant can supply sufficient evidence that on the 16th of July 2022 there were signs in place that were conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand, indicating a contract was being made with Minster Baywatch Ltd, then I cannot see how one has been made.

Please see the following from POPLA:

 

POPLA assessment and decision
18/07/2017

Verification Code
4111647007

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name
Esther Sargeant

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the motorist did not pay the parking fee in full.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, including; no evidence that the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue and pursue parking charges. The appellant states there is no keeper or driver liability. The appellant states the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is no notification of the parking charge sum. The appellant states there is no contract between the motorist and the operator. 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.

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 to vehicle registration FG05 NNF 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.

Coupon-mad

Ah, so that all went in as your defence? 

Not bad!

antwilliams

Coupon-mad said:

Ah, so that all went in as your defence? 

Not bad!

Phew. I thought I'd messed it up totally

Coupon-mad

No, it raises important and arguable points about the contract and the signs themselves.  Enough to build on in your WS bundle.

I won a case in court in February about the fact that the signs identified 2 different companies, such that it seems that the contract was not offered by the Claimant, who were only an agent with no standing to sue.  They had failed to 'make the contract their own' (Fairlie v Fenton applies).

The Judge liked it so you have every chance with your similar argument.