Minster Baywatch Ltd - Meadowhall

1505grandad

" I’m disappointed, but not surprised. This case has shown just how weak consumer protections can be when it comes to leasing firms and UNREGULATED private parking enforcement."

Yes it is disappointing, and thanks for your extensive efforts  -  fixed the above btw.

Coupon-mad

Stefano123 said:

Just posting an update on my case in case it helps others dealing with lease companies and private PCNs.

To recap: Volkswagen Financial Services (VWFS) received a PCN from Minster Baywatch and, despite my clear written request, refused to transfer liability to me so I could appeal. Instead, they cited “data protection” (wrongly), paid the charge themselves, and then tried to recharge me.

I complained. They eventually refunded the £165 — but only as a “gesture of goodwill,” not because they admitted fault. I escalated the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to determine whether VWFS had acted lawfully and fairly.

The Ombudsman has now issued a final decision. They said VWFS should ideally have transferred liability, but it wasn’t “unfair” that they didn’t. They said VWFS had a “choice” whether to pay or transfer liability, and that because the charge was later refunded, I wasn’t materially disadvantaged. Case closed — complaint not upheld.

I obviously disagree.

The law under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 13 is clear: if VWFS wanted to avoid being liable, they had to provide the parking company with a signed hire agreement and a statement of liability within 28 days. That’s not a discretionary "choice" — it’s the legal route to transfer liability. They didn’t. So they remained liable.

By failing to follow that process, VWFS denied me the opportunity to appeal what I believe was an unenforceable charge. That right matters. It’s not a trivial issue.

The Ombudsman’s position — that no harm was done because I got my money back — completely misses the point. I spent days of time writing letters, making calls, submitting formal complaints, and preparing a response to the Ombudsman - so they don't do this to others! I only got back to where I started because I pushed so hard. The underlying issue — that a regulated finance provider denied a customer’s legal appeal rights — has gone completely unchallenged.

The decision effectively tells lease companies: ignore the law, pay the charge, refund it only if pushed, and face no consequences.

I’ve now rejected the decision and requested the case be referred to the FCA. I’m disappointed, but not surprised. This case has shown just how weak consumer protections can be when it comes to leasing firms and private parking enforcement.

Could you add your evidence to the MHCLG's Public Consultation - maybe in answer to the general Question 33?

The Government can change this; albeit the Code only dictates what Parking firms do. But it can be tackled in the Code of Practice.

We are totally with you on it. Lease firms should have an easy way to transfer liability to encourage them to do that.

The Code could mandate a route.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

You have important evidence to upload to the survey. An important point that most will not know to mention.

Stefano123

Just a final update on my VWFS lease car PCN case for anyone else who might run into similar issues.

I’ve had a final response from the ICO — and they’ve confirmed that VWFS will now review their data handling processes and improve staff training. Not much, but at least some acknowledgment that what they did wasn’t right.

Thanks to everyone who engaged and supported along the way. If you’re in a similar boat, shout — I’m happy to share templates or info that might help you avoid the same runaround.

Coupon-mad

Stefano123 said:

Just a final update on my VWFS lease car PCN case for anyone else who might run into similar issues.

I’ve had a final response from the ICO — and they’ve confirmed that VWFS will now review their data handling processes and improve staff training. Not much, but at least some acknowledgment that what they did wasn’t right.

Thanks to everyone who engaged and supported along the way. If you’re in a similar boat, shout — I’m happy to share templates or info that might help you avoid the same runaround.

Interesting. Well done on not letting it lie.

Please could you kindly show us the FOS and ICO decisions please (your data redacted)? We could learn something useful from your stance.