Template question

Gamm

Hi all,

I recently received a PCN from Minster Baywatch for an alleged contravention at Niegh Bridge Car Park. When I was there, I noticed the payment machine wasn’t operational, and I didn’t realize there was an option to pay by phone.

The NTK they sent me lacks a timestamp on the evidence photos, which seems to breach BPA Code of Practice Section 21.5a. Additionally, the signage at the car park only mentions Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions as the management company, with no mention of Minster Baywatch.

My question is whether there's any point in adding these points to the template appeal, or is it that this will only be necessary at the POPLA stage of the process?

Thanks in advance for your help.

LDast

No point adding them to the template appeal but certainly point out their deficiencies in the subsequent POPLA appeal. There are several previous threads with exactly this issue. Try and use the rubbish search option and set to show "Newest".

Comfort yourself in the knowledge that if they do let it go to POPLA, they will have had to fork out c£35 for the privilege and are likely to lose.

Gamm

Thank you for confirming that. It was only due to the search option here that I found out about the intricacies of the BPA Code of Practice; a lot still left to learn.

Gamm

Minster Baywatch rejected my appeal, so here's my first draft of a POPLA appeal:

Vehicle Registration: [XXX]
 POPLA ref: [XXX]
 I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated [XXX] acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Minster Baywatch – was submitted and acknowledged on [XXX] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated [XXX]. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. Minster Baywatch has no Standing or Authority to pursue charges nor form parking contracts

The contract governing the parking terms at Neigh Bridge Car Park is managed by Bransby Wilson, not Minster Baywatch. There is no evidence to show that Minster Baywatch has a valid contract with the landowner or the necessary authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name or pursue those charges in court. As such, Minster Baywatch lacks the necessary standing or authority to enforce parking charges or form parking contracts. A photograph of the sign sent by Minster Baywatch themselves as evidence of their signage at Neigh Bridge Car Park is included here to emphasize the lack of contractual authority [] .

This is a direct violation of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, which stipulates that if an operator does not own the land, they must have written authorisation from the landowner or their appointed agent to issue parking charges and pursue them through legal action.

Key Requirements Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice:

• 7. Written authorisations of the landowner
  

  7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

  7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

  7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

  a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

  b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

  c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

  e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

   

  7.4 Our compliance team are responsible for making sure that you follow the Code. If the team give you reasonable notice, you must allow our appointed manager to inspect the landowner’s written authorisation.

  As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

  The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details  - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

  It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

  Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. 

  Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

  Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance

Without clear evidence of this authorisation, Minster Baywatch cannot legally issue or enforce parking charges at Neigh Bridge Car Park. A commercial agent (such as Bransby Wilson) or a third party does not automatically possess the right to enforce parking charges in their own name unless this authority has been explicitly assigned by the landowner.

Precedent and Judicial Decision

In a case before District Judge Spencer in August 2023, the court ruled that Minster Baywatch lacked standing to pursue parking charges because they failed to produce a valid contract with the landowner. The court determined that the operator must show clear evidence of the landowner’s assignment of rights, including the ability to enforce parking charges and pursue them through the courts.

Minster Baywatch must provide strict proof that:

• They hold a valid, unredacted contract with the landowner.
• The contract explicitly allows them to issue parking charge notices and pursue these in court.
• All terms, including site boundaries, parking conditions, hours of enforcement, and signage responsibilities, are detailed.

A witness statement or redacted contract will not suffice to prove that Minster Baywatch has the legal authority to enforce parking restrictions. The contract must show:

• Signatories: The name, job title, and employer company of those signing the contract, and proof that they were authorized by the landowner to execute the agreement.
• Enforcement Dates/Times: The dates and times during which parking restrictions apply.
• Grace Periods: Any grace periods for drivers, which may exceed the minimum BPA Code of Practice standards.

Minster Baywatch’s failure to produce this documentation would invalidate their authority to issue and enforce the PCN.

---

2: Unclear, Inadequate, and Non-Compliant Signage

The signage at the Neigh Bridge Car Park is not compliant with the BPA CoP, particularly with regard to clarity and visibility. Signs must clearly outline the terms and conditions of parking, including any charges that may apply and must be visible at all times.

In the attached image of the parking sign from Neigh Bridge Car Park, it can be seen that the information regarding parking terms is not prominently displayed or adequately highlighted. Additionally, critical information such as the time limits and conditions under which charges will apply is difficult to read. Signs are positioned at an angle that makes it hard for drivers to notice them upon entering the car park, especially under poor lighting conditions.

As per the BPA CoP, operators must ensure that signage is clearly legible and easy to read, especially regarding the £100 penalty. In this case, the sign fails to meet those standards. Therefore, the PCN issued is invalid as the contract terms were not sufficiently brought to the attention of the driver.

---

3: Inadequate Photographic Evidence – Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice Section 21.5a

Furthermore, the BPA Code of Practice Section 21.5a clearly 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."

The photographs provided on my Notice to Keeper (NTK) fail to comply with these requirements. Neither of the photos attached to the NTK include the mandatory clear date and time stamp, nor are they adequately clear to confirm the alleged parking contravention. The BPA CoP requires that all photographic evidence must be unaltered, clear, and legible, which has not been demonstrated in this case.

Additionally, I attach both photographs from the NTK for your reference:

• []
• []

The operator has therefore failed to provide sufficient evidence that the vehicle was parked in an unauthorised manner on the alleged date. Without clear, unaltered, and date-stamped images, the PCN cannot be upheld, as the burden of proof lies with the operator.

Coupon-mad

Very good. The first point should see it off.

Gamm

Thank you for the feedback Coupon-mad
MB have now replied on POPLA and the points they make are as follows:

Minster Baywatch directs POPLA to the redacted contract with the landowner, which includes the enforcement agreement. They also assert that the enforcement signs (Minster Baywatch signs) clearly indicate in the terms and conditions that ‘By parking, waiting, or otherwise remaining in this car park, you are entering into and are bound by the terms of the Parking Contract.’

The enforcement signs (Minster Baywatch signs) comply with the BPA Code of Practice. The signs at the location measure 600mm x 600mm and are retro-reflective, making them visible to drivers by their vehicle’s headlights during nighttime. Minster Baywatch refers POPLA to the site images and map showing the signage locations.

The ANPR-captured images include timestamped entry and exit times, as the contract pertains to entering and remaining on the site, not the duration the vehicle is stationary. It is noted that all Minster Baywatch ANPR cameras synchronize every 480 seconds with the SNTP server (Public Time Servers) to ensure time and date accuracy across all Minster Baywatch sites.

In addition, MB have uploaded the contract they have with the landowner, which as expected makes no mention of Bransby Wilson, and also some more photos of the signage at the car park. Whilst three of the signs mention Minster Baywatch, they are not the ones near the pay machine, and are slightly obscured by vegetation.

Coupon-mad

Whilst three of the signs mention Minster Baywatch, they are not the ones near the pay machine, and are slightly obscured by vegetation.

Make these observations in brief final comment bullet points to focus the POPLA assessor's mind.

Gamm

I received the verdict from POPLA, and it wasn't good news:
(Image removed by Forum Team)

I did make a note of some other threads where a complaint to POPLA was suggested, and turned out to be worthwhile, and I wonder if this would be true in my case too.

Ridiculous Sting. Another unscrupulous Parking Company. - Page 7 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

imulsion

It seems your real name is visible in the appeal decision - I would delete and upload a redacted version

Gamm

Thank you for pointing that out, here is a redacted version:

Coupon-mad

Please post it in POPLA DECISIONS.  Top of the forum.  Ignore any POPLA loss.