Minster Baywatch used incorrect images in Popla Appeal

yorksblue1

Hi

We pay to use a private car park next to our house

Up to December, this worked by using a permit that was displayed in the windscreen - we had one allocated space and two vehicles registered with the car park so we swapped the pass around depending on which vehicle was parked there.  (only ever one at a time)

This worked fine (had it for nearly 9 years)

In December, the car park owners sent us a letter saying they were switching to a new online permit system (Zat Permit) and it was no longer required to show a physical  permits in the vehicle

Our assumption was that so long as we only had one vehicle using the car park at a time then there was nothing else that you needed to do as the ticket wardens would be able to scan to see if a vehicle was registered on the system (which both were)

In February, after 6 weeks of using the new system, with no issue, we were suprised to get a ticket in the post. It turned out that buried in the FAQ's of the new system which the letter didn't say were essential to read (seperate document), that you had to log in to the website everytime you wanted to change the active vehicle (total faff and not practical)

So we contacted them and said fair enough, misunderstanding - we have legitamatly paid for one parking space and used only one (we actually had CCTV of the cark park showing our other vehicle parked on the public road)

The appeals department at Minster Baywatch rejected our appeal

Submitted a Popla appeal

Minster Baywatch submitted an evidence pack in which they said

'Minster Baywatch refers to signage at the site, images of which are provided with this pack, which states that any vehicle not displaying a valid permit or on an appropriate authorised users list will be issued with a charge.

Popla rejected the appeal based on the statement and the images supplied

They said

'Within the operator’s case file, Minster Baywatch has provided evidence of the signage present on site. From reviewing this, it confirms that vehicles need to be authorised in order to park.'

This is where something was niggling me.. I looked a while after we had submitted our response to Popla and realised that the signs that Minster Baywatch had submitted as evidence were not the signs that were present in the car park, they were ones from many years ago that had long  since been replaced - I had to request the evidence pack from Popla under the freedom of information act and finally got it several weeks later

I can't post links as a new member I think but if you add the missing .co.uk in there, you can see them!

devsite4 /evidence1.jpg

devsite4 /evidence2.jpg

devsite4 /evidence3.jpg

Tthere are crucial differences in the wording of the signs that they pictured - the signs that are actually there do not say 'must be on an authorised users list' that the signs they supplied do say.

I did appeal to POPLA but they just said - one chance of appeal etc not interested

Another point of contention is that the PCN says that the 'offence' is 'failure to display a valid permit'  - again we were told that we no longer needed to display them - the ticket guy included lots of pictures of the dash showing no permit. 

Do you think our case is strong enough to win in court should it go that far, especially with the incorrect images used in the Popla appeal?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Lodge a complaint using MB's complaints policy and tell them you will report them to the BPA if they don't cancel, due to false images being supplied to POPLA.

yorksblue1

Coupon-mad said:

Lodge a complaint using MB's complaints policy and tell them you will report them to the BPA if they don't cancel, due to false images being supplied to POPLA.

Thank you! Will look at that

Umkomaas

On the actual signs shown to POPLA, is BransbyWilson shown as the car park operator?  It's often the case that signs say BW, yet the PCN is issued by MB. 

Sorry, but I won't attempt to open the links you've provided - I don't recognise 'devsite4'. Can you place them on Dropbox as regulars trust that as a hosting source.

yorksblue1

Yes Bransby Wilson operate the carpark and it's patrolled by MB. It was Bransby Wilson who sent us the letter to say there were changing to an online system

totally understand re photos - it's one of my development portals (web designer)

I've put them in a Google photos album (just remove the spaces)

photos.app.goo.gl  /KJXYQkKcmwVNeSqz9

Umkomaas

Yes Bransby Wilson operate the carpark and it's patrolled by MB

That was your winning POPLA appeal point!  You can't agree a contract with one organisation, but sued by a quite different organisation. But, water under that bridge for now. If they make a court claim against you, that will be a major point of defence. 

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNxIkXPQc1MXlyU6YDMDv6Grm84TDIHHlt2mqGHEGQVN0FL3zkrPbxa8lbcWC1Kvg?key=aGhjREhueVRnYUd1UWVJZmNXWFVvX0dmNkZuT1FR

Appalling signs - solid black background, tiny, tiny print.

Beyond following @Coupon-mad's advice above, if you should receive a Letter Of/Before Claim from the PPC's solicitors, or a County Court Claim via the Northampton CNBC, come back to this thread for further advice. 

yorksblue1

Thank you so much, that's really helpful.  I wish I'd found the forum sooner,

I'll write to their complaints department then leave it up to them, more than happy to go to court over this with the extra points mentioned, the false signs and the fact that we had paid a fee for one space which is what we used.

yorksblue1

Just to update on this, the MB complaints department replied

They said that they accept that the wrong images were sent to Popla.. however because they also sent images of the offending vehicle as part of their evidence pack which show the correct signs in the background, then the ticket still stands. 

To read the wording on these signs in the image that they are referring to, the Popla assessor would have had to have zoomed in significantly on the image. They are not going to have done that when MB sent them close-up incorrect images of signs that were supposedly in the car park.

Thoughts on this?

Umkomaas

I'd send a complaint to the Lead Adjudicator of POPLA that MB supplied false images to POPLA and in view of their full admission, the case should be re-adjudicated. They probably won't agree to that, but your complaint will add to the 'audit trail' should it go further. 

In addition, now that you've followed process and had an unresolved complaint to MB, you can now complain to the BPA. Make sure you attach a copy of the MB admission, ask BPA to resolve the issue, to issue sanction points to MB, and inform them that their response will form part of your submission to the Press and your MP. 

Keep ramping up the heat!

yorksblue1

Thank you! I've sent my complaint off - see what happens next!