Court next from Gladstones / Minster Baywatch

PenniPinch

Hey

I (registered keeper) not the driver as shown on pic...

Should I just pay this now, not sure I have the stomach for a court case....

This is their latest email below, and a pics of result of information request ....

The driver was 7 minutes overtime after taking son to opticians which were busy.

Made a SAR to Minster as well. Same docs retuned +

1. We have not provided PDT records as this is not our data - this would be data held by the site payment provider.
2. Included at personal data held - we are not required to provide any evidence relied on. In order to meet you SAR we are required to provide any "personal data"
3. We can confirm in respect of the VRM you have quoted, there is only 1 PCN outstanding, details included.

(Removed by Forum Team)

(Removed by Forum Team)	23 May 2023, 11:49 (1 day ago)
to me

Good Morning,

 

Thank you for your correspondence and apologies for the delay in responding.

 

By way of background this charge was incurred on the 13/12/2022 at our clients site Selby Abbey Yard. Issued to the vehicle bearing the registration XXXX XXX, as the parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full, breaching the contractual terms and conditions of the site.

 

Please see attached evidence in support of our position.

 

We note the content of your recent correspondence, however this does not absolve you of liability regarding this charge.

 

Our clients signage is clear in stating the contractual terms and conditions all motorists must adhere to upon entry of our clients site. it is a motorists responsibility to ensure all terms are correctly adhered to at all times. Your vehicle is observed to be in breach of the stated therefore incurring the parking charge.

 

In respect of your position concerning harassment, this is denied on the basis that both our client and we were taking reasonable steps to understand your position as is required of both parties under the pre-action protocol. Further, our client has also taken reasonable steps to recover the debt and those steps cannot be deemed as harassment.  

Our client remains satisfied this charge was correctly issued and you are liable.

 

Should full payment fail to be discharged before the 23rd June 2023, our client reserves the right to issue further legal proceedings against you without further notice.

 

Payment can be made via bank transfer to the account detailed as follows:

(Removed by Forum Team)

Kind Regards,

(Removed by Forum Team)

Legal Assistant 

 

 

Gladstones Solicitors Limited 

Unit B 210 Cygnet Court 

Centre Park 

Warrington 

Cheshire 

WA1 1PP 

w  : www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk  

(Removed by Forum Team)

Boat_to_Bolivia

Hello and welcome. 

Please DO NOT PAY.

These are harmless letters from powerless debt collectors and can be safely be ignored.

Is the  NtK PoFA compliant. 

As you have not named the driver and if it is not compliant, they cannot transfer liability to the Registered Keeper.

PenniPinch

Seems so . The reverse side...

Boat_to_Bolivia

You need to look at the original Notice to Keeper to check if it is PoFA compliant, not the reminder letter.

But no that letter isn't.

B789

That letter certainly isn't PoFA complaint. Why do you think it is? Just because it mentions "In accordance with Schedule 4 of PoFA2012" does not make it so.

Have a read of Schedule 4 and see if it complies:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Umkomaas

Check the on-site signage and take photos of it. If the parking event took place in darkness/half light, take photos in similar light, not using flash.  But you also need ones that show exactly the detail of the signage. 

In many cases the signage states that the site is managed by 'Bransby Wilson', if so, then Minster Baywatch, whilst being a sister organisation of BW, are in no position to issue charges, nor to issue a court claim. So at this stage, signage (the contract with the driver) is everything. Check and record it carefully. 

PenniPinch

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

You need to look at the original Notice to Keeper to check if it is PoFA compliant, not the reminder letter.

But no that letter isn't.

That is the back of the NtK...Front (which has been removed from the OP) says

NOTICE TO KEEPER OR HIRE COMPANY We have obtained your details from the DVLA under a "reasonable cause" request as you  were the registered keeper of the vehicle specified at: A Parking Charge Notice has been issued as your vehicle was involved in breaching the  stated  contractual terms and  conditions of use which were  clearly displayed  via  signage  and agreed to by the driver when your vehicle entered the stated location, specifically: You  are  notified  under The  Protection  of  Freedoms Act  2012,  Schedule  4,  that  you  are  now required to do one of the following: pay the outstanding amount if you were the driver  of the vehicle; if you were not the driver, provide us with the full name of the driver of the  vehicle along with their current address where a notice can be served — you should also  pass this notice to the driver. You  are warned that  if,  after  29  days from the  date  given  (which  is  presumed to  be the  second working day after the Date Issued), the Parking Charge has not been paid in full  and  Minster  Baywatch  Ltd  (the  creditor)  does  not  know  both  the  name  and  current  address  for  service  for  the  driver,  we  have  a  right  to  recover  any  unpaid  part  of  the  Parking  Charge from  you  as the  registered  keeper  of the  vehicle. We may  also  include  additional costs for any debt recovery action. Please  note that  we  will  accept  a  reduced  amount  of if  payment  is made  within  14  days  of  this  letter.  After  this  date,  however,  the  reduced  amount  will  no  longer  be  available.  Should you wish to make an appeal or representation against this Parking Charge Notice,  details are included on the reverse of this notice. Should you choose to ignore this notice, please be aware that Minster Baywatch Ltd may   pursue  this  matter  through  the  county  court  if  necessary.  Should  court  proceedings  be  issued, further costs incurred by Minster Baywatch Ltd may be added. These may include  but not be limited to the cost of issuing the court claim, credit reference agency costs and  our solicitor's costs.

Operating in accordance with the British  Parking Association's Code of Practice.

PenniPinch

B789 said:

That letter certainly isn't PoFA complaint. Why do you think it is? Just because it mentions "In accordance with Schedule 4 of PoFA2012" does not make it so.

Have a read of Schedule 4 and see if it complies:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Its difficult for me to spot anything that they have not complied with, can you point it out please?

B789

Which paragraphs of Schedule 4 are they invoking? Where in Schedule 4 does it mention 29 days for anything? Where does it say they can recover additional costs without specifically breaking down those costs and justifying them?

If this is a NtH, have they included all the required documents that are necessary to invoke PoFA?

Coupon-mad

Don't pay it.  Parking charges can't be issued for less than 10 minutes over.

PenniPinch

B789 said:

Which paragraphs of Schedule 4 are they invoking? Where in Schedule 4 does it mention 29 days for anything? Where does it say they can recover additional costs without specifically breaking down those costs and justifying them?

If this is a NtH, have they included all the required documents that are necessary to invoke PoFA?

I made an information request and they have provided (see OP) - what is missing? 29 days? I agree the additional is a try on, but what would stop the court awarding the original penalty + costs?

What is an NtH?