Malton - Minster Baywatch - permit parking - inadequate/misleading signage?

_MrBojangles_

I received the below PCN from Minster Baywatch:

https://ibb.co/C5hf2cj

Date of alleged contravention was 03/02 and date of issue was 09/02

I've taken pictures of the car park & signs to show the signs in relation to where the car was:

https://ibb.co/fDwtC9Q
https://ibb.co/pPNM482
https://ibb.co/DQL1Fbp
https://ibb.co/qjvvhbf

I feel like it wasn't clear which space(s) the permit parking sign or free parking sign referred to. Also there was no sign at the entrance to the car park indicating  that I was entering an area with permit parking.

I think my "discount" period ends tomorrow - is it worth fighting this one or should I cough up?

Thanks in advance for any and all help

Fruitcake

Plan A is always a complaint from the keeper to the landowner and the keeper's MP.

The NTK looks PoFA compliant.

The last photo is a good one. It shows the keeper's vehicle and the sign stating two hours parking, but the MB sign is not obvious, let alone readable.

The MB sign is prohibitive and offers nothing for non-permit holders. Without something (of value) being offered, there can be no consideration nor acceptance, therefore no contract can be formed with the motorist.

I think it is definitely worth appealing, so use the template in blue from the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES. If/when it is rejected, make an appeal to PoPLA using all the standard points from the third post of the NEWBIES plus the above points.

Coupon-mad

Not sure why you are looking at the discount period.  The first Q&A in the NEWBIES tells you not to look at that. Irrelevant because you won't be paying a 'scam' PCN.

_MrBojangles_

Thanks both. I have sent the appeal off this morning. I spotted another picture I took of the entrance to the car park and realised there's no signage indicating it's private land, which I believe violates the BPA code of practice? 

https://ibb.co/Tqbb5d1 

Coupon-mad

That would be useful for POPLA stage.

_MrBojangles_

In a stunning break with tradition the appeal was rejected. I'll put together a POPLA appeal now using the templates on the Newbie thread and on other posts. Would I be alright to get some feedback on the appeal here before I send it in?

Funnily enough they appended this photo (along with a closeup of their sign) to their decision; you can literally see the free parking sign in it and it's the same distance from the car as their one! I looked through the BPA code of practice but didn't immediately spot a specific reference to conflicting signs, would it be best to link it to 27.3 Specific parking terms & signage?

Fruitcake said:

The MB sign is prohibitive and offers nothing for non-permit holders. Without something (of value) being offered, there can be no consideration nor acceptance, therefore no contract can be formed with the motorist.

I'm trying to also find a reference in the BPA for this - I'm struggling to understand what I can argue based on what I've read in the code of practice? 

D_P_Dance

WRT PPCs' signage, it is often extremely wordy, (I have counted >700 words on some), written in very small type, and up to 8 feet of the ground.  It is more appropriate to the construction of a nuclear power station than popping Waitrose for a bottle of Blue Nun imo.  I am sure that a lot of judges would agree.

Coupon-mad

_MrBojangles_ said:

In a stunning break with tradition the appeal was rejected. I'll put together a POPLA appeal now using the templates on the Newbie thread and on other posts. Would I be alright to get some feedback on the appeal here before I send it in?

Funnily enough they appended this photo (along with a closeup of their sign) to their decision; you can literally see the free parking sign in it and it's the same distance from the car as their one! I looked through the BPA code of practice but didn't immediately spot a specific reference to conflicting signs, would it be best to link it to 27.3 Specific parking terms & signage?

Fruitcake said:

The MB sign is prohibitive and offers nothing for non-permit holders. Without something (of value) being offered, there can be no consideration nor acceptance, therefore no contract can be formed with the motorist.

I'm trying to also find a reference in the BPA for this - I'm struggling to understand what I can argue based on what I've read in the code of practice? 

Obviously 'prohibitive signs' is just an arguable legal point.  Not trite law.  Not a rule in any CoP.

Conflicting signs (ambiguous terms) are trite law though: Consumer Rights Act 2015.

_MrBojangles_

I've had a go at adapting one of the POPLA appeals I found. I'd be very grateful for any feedback on it. If it's better for me to post it as images or text with attached images do let me know and I'll adjust my post. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nmCxi81c8VnQom_RHPGjn8dUV_XlakxQ/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Under your fig 5 the paragraph talks about Smart Parking Ltd!

And surely your comments about fig 5 should state that the contract is clearly offered by FITZWILLIAM MALTON ESTATE, the landowner themselves, which is in huge letters right above the contract terms (not that they were seen because the blue 'FREE PARKING' sign was the one relied upon).  Minster Baywatch are only in small print at the bottom and are acting as agents.  They are not the entity offering the terms, not by the way the black sign is drafted. 

_MrBojangles_

Coupon-mad said:

Under your fig 5 the paragraph talks about Smart Parking Ltd!

And surely your comments about fig 5 should state that the contract is clearly offered by FITZWILLIAM MALTON ESTATE, the landowner themselves, which is in huge letters right above the contract terms (not that they were seen because the blue 'FREE PARKING' sign was the one relied upon).  Minster Baywatch are only in small print at the bottom and are acting as agents.  They are not the entity offering the terms, not by the way the black sign is drafted. 

Whoops! Good spot, thanks for replying so quickly. I've corrected the first point, and have amended the paragaph thusly:

"Bearing all the evidence above in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Fitzwilliam Malton Estate. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer."

Is the rest of it ok?