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

Coupon-mad

Yes but the above draft paragraph misses the point.  It's not just that there wasn't a contract with Fitzwilliam Malton Estate.

The point is what I said!

_MrBojangles_

Coupon-mad said:

Yes but the above draft paragraph misses the point.  It's not just that there wasn't a contract with Fitzwilliam Malton Estate.

The point is what I said!

Sorry for being thick and I really appreciate your time and help, but I don't understand what point I should be making.. is it the disparity between FME offering the contract and MB being the agents? 

Coupon-mad

Yes.  Use my words.

_MrBojangles_

Coupon-mad said:

Yes.  Use my words.

Brilliant, thanks again. Have uploaded the appeal. 



Had to force myself to erase that last sentence!

Coupon-mad

I can't read that but let us know the outcome and do not pay.  People don't just pay after losing at POPLA (but I think yours will win).

Debszzzz2

As mentioned over on FTLA, the images in the NtK appear to be cropped and do not show a timestamp which is another point that should have been used in a POPLA appeal as it is a breach of BPA CoP 21.5a.

The assessor pointed out that the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

_MrBojangles_

Debszzzz2 said:

As mentioned over on FTLA, the images in the NtK appear to be cropped and do not show a timestamp which is another point that should have been used in a POPLA appeal as it is a breach of BPA CoP 21.5a.

The assessor pointed out that the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

 That's a really good point; the full size photos are also unavailable when following the appeal process on their website. If POPLA come back to me for comments on anything else can I add this detail in?

Coupon-mad

Yes do add it as an observation.

_MrBojangles_

They've just replied to POPLA, here's the evidence bundle they sent:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1McjWmaXAu73Y6IzPhYpHkLJajMFW-EvY/view?usp=sharing

My initial reactions to it are:

• Their photos show even better than mine that the car next to mine was blocking their one sign from the driver's view! (Also as below, how can they prove there wasn't an even bigger vehicle there when the driver first parked?)
• I also wondered how could they prove that a big van wasn't parked right up to and covering that sign as the driver entered the car park?
• The parking areas they've drawn at the end are completely arbitrary; there's no indication on site that the zones are demarcated in that way
• They claim an entrance sign would be impractical, that seems a complete fabrication as there's a big blank wall at the entrance to which a sign could be attached?! Also the site clearly does permit general parking because without clear demarcation between the two 'sites' (as they've drawn it) then one has to assume there is only one site. 

Anything else I can sling at them?

Coupon-mad

_MrBojangles_ said:

They've just replied to POPLA, here's the evidence bundle they sent:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1McjWmaXAu73Y6IzPhYpHkLJajMFW-EvY/view?usp=sharing

My initial reactions to it are:

• Their photos show even better than mine that the car next to mine was blocking their one sign from the driver's view! (Also as below, how can they prove there wasn't an even bigger vehicle there when the driver first parked?)
• I also wondered how could they prove that a big van wasn't parked right up to and covering that sign as the driver entered the car park?
• The parking areas they've drawn at the end are completely arbitrary; there's no indication on site that the zones are demarcated in that way
• They claim an entrance sign would be impractical, that seems a complete fabrication as there's a big blank wall at the entrance to which a sign could be attached?! Also the site clearly does permit general parking because without clear demarcation between the two 'sites' (as they've drawn it) then one has to assume there is only one site. 

Anything else I can sling at them?

The above plus what we said before about no timestamp on the NTK photos.