Minster Baywatch

ezerscrooge · 4 September at 11:16AM

Copies of debt letter as promised. The £55 is mentioned in very small print at the bottom of the MB sign. Not that she even entered a contract with them. This is an internal dept in MB adding £55, before sending out to externals. Utter scam.

Image: https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/b2/mojtskbx73cb.jpg

Image: https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/et/uz9ytpp1qi5a.jpg

Coupon-mad · 4 September at 12:35PM

ezerscrooge said:
Copies of debt letter as promised. The £55 is mentioned in very small print at the bottom of the MB sign. Not that she even entered a contract with them.

This is an internal dept in MB adding £55, before sending out to externals. Utter scam.

Yep: Totally agree.

That's not a justified DRA fee, that looks like a prime example of what the DLUHC Minister called 'extorting money from motorists' yet the current Government is blind to seeing because they seem to be running scared of this industry.

BPA members used to issue 2 reminders after NTKs, at PCN rate. It was a mandatory clause in the BPA CoP from 2012-2024.

Binned with the advent of the Joint Code in 2024 when they got into bed with the IPC.

BPA firms are going from 0 to £170 within a calendar month in some cases now. UKPC do it on the stroke of the next calendar month because the Joint Code dropped the BPA reminders clause and the 2022 Code omitted it in error:

UKPC letters before: 21 February 2023

UKPC letters now: 28 January

Same as yours: internal profiteering. Just a clear as day punitive (secondary clause) hike that has no legal justification and no 'legitimate interest'. The MHCLG need to see this for what it is, given that the change has happened on their watch.

ezerscrooge · 4 September at 3:29PM

Absolutely shocking CM, I was hoping this cowboy industry would be getting put in a box, but looks like it'll be better than business as usual for them.

ezerscrooge · 3 October at 10:26AM

Just a small update. DVLA still ignoring Subject Access Request despite formal complaint going in, and them further being copied into email to MP. Not heard from MP yet.

Minster Baywatch were sent a formal complaint on 2nd September (email and letter - as they refuse to accept emails!), no acknowledgement within 14 days and no outcome after 28 days in clear breach of BPA CoP, to add to their breaches of the appeal process and not giving a POPLA code.

Formal complaint made to BPA this morning using their complaints web-site. Their website states they don't accept a complaint until a final response is received from the operator. Well, MB is in ignore mode. They've been told and copy of MB complaint letter uploaded.

Let's see what happens.

ezerscrooge · 25 November at 1:24PM

I now have a POPLA code and 'reduced' £60 payment time to 4th Dec. It was like pulling teeth. BPA got involved, MB claimed they'd sent one by email ages ago. Anyway, code obtained and the POPLA appeal is written, I will post up for comment please.

Only concern so far is the the text from a successful case -

I consider that the evidence includes very few of the parking operator’s own signage. The wide-angle photograph of the car park does not appear to show any of the operator’s yellow signage. There is nothing necessarily wrong with one company managing the site and another enforcing upon it. However, to show that the operator in question has entered into the contract with the motorist, rather than Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, the operator needs to evidence that its signage is sufficiently prominent and clear to the level that there could be no mistaking the circumstances, and that stated the difference between the companies.

There is a fair bit of MB signage, but I've majored on who the contract is with (Bransby Wilson). The meeting of minds.

ezerscrooge · 25 November at 1:53PM

Here it is, the long awaited POPLA Appeal. Could the super regulars be so kind as to have a look over it please? Apologies, it is rather lengthy.

On my post above, the BW sign says in small print about 'the designated enforcement company'. Could the above paragraph and the sign text scupper a win?

POPLA Appeal

Date: xxxxxx

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: xxxxx

Being the registered keeper of this vehicle, I received a letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd dated

12th June 2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator was submitted and acknowledged by Minster Baywatch Ltd on 8th July 2025 and ultimately rejected via a letter dated 20th November 2025.

I contend that as the keeper, I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. No contract offered by Minster Baywatch - different company on the sign.

2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

3. No proof the vehicle was parked

4. Non-compliance with PoFA

5. Inadequate signage

1. No contract with Minster Baywatch - different company on the sign.

The signs at the site paypoints are misleading. The Welcome (entrance) sign offers tariffs hence any contract is with Bransby Wilson not Minster Baywatch. I see nothing at all about Minster Baywatch Ltd (company no. 07517434) on this signage and therefore the driver cannot possibly have entered into a contract with them. The tariff board with payment machine, and Minster Baywatch signs, are nowhere near each other. The company clearly making the parking offer is shown as a completely different legal entity, Bransby Wilson Ltd (company no. 04707572) and yet no PCN has been sent by them. It is a clear invitation and offer made without caveat. Even if other signs offer something different, the doctrine of contra proferentem would apply to ambiguous terms and the interpretation that most favours the consumer must prevail (Consumer Rights Act 2015). There is no meeting of minds with Minster Baywatch. The contract to pay is with Bransby Wilson Ltd and the payments go to Bransby Wilson Ltd (see sample receipt below). So any breach is with them, not a secondary company. Minster can't just step in and claim a contractual agreement with them.

Image: https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/uv/06ha6o84dzzr.png

Even if the operator replies with evidence that the companies are in some way 'associated', the fact remains that these are different Limited companies, different legal entities and one firm cannot offer a contract on a sign, only for a completely different company to post a PCN.

Indeed, there is even a question of data abuse, since at no point does a driver agree to a contract with (or even know about) Minster Baywatch Ltd, and yet they have obtained the DVLA data. They cannot obtain this on behalf of Bransby Wilson Ltd, and nor can Bransby Wilson Ltd have got the data for Minster Baywatch Ltd because only the latter are BPA AOS members. This appears to be a case of data sharing abuse and a DVLA KADOE breach, as well as a breach of the BPA rules, whereby AOS members must not use their electronic DVLA link to obtain data for non-AOS members and they are forbidden from sharing or selling data to third parties (except debt collectors and solicitors).

However, given that POPLA do not consider data/KADOE issues, I will concentrate on the clear contract law issue that will win this case - namely that it is not conspicuous or clear which company operates the site. The welcome signage and receipt clearly indicate it to be Bransby Wilson Ltd.

Therefore, I must bring to your attention the following POPLA assessment and decision, dated 18th July, 2017.

“Verification Code : 4111647007 Assessor Name : Esther Sargeant Decision: Successful”

“Assessor supporting rational for decision

Upon review of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified sufficiently. In order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the strict provisions laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Upon review of the PCN, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with PoFA 2012. As such, the keeper is now liable for the charge.

The terms and conditions of the site state: “All users must pay for their parking duration in full… By failing to comply with any of these conditions, you are contractually agreeing to pay the parking charge of £100”. The operator issued the PCN ...because the motorist did not pay the parking fee in full. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. The cameras captured the appellant entering the site at 11:40, exiting at 13:23 on 20 May 2017; the period of stay was one hour and 42 minutes.

The appellant states the notice does not state anything about a contract with Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, though they are shown as the operator on signage.

Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

Though I acknowledge that the operator has provided evidence of a contract with the landowner, the majority of the signage shows Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions as the managing agent of the car park.

I consider that the evidence includes very few of the parking operator’s own signage. The wide-angle photograph of the car park does not appear to show any of the operator’s yellow signage. There is nothing necessarily wrong with one company managing the site and another enforcing upon it. However, to show that the operator in question has entered into the contract with the motorist, rather than Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, the operator needs to evidence that its signage is sufficiently prominent and clear to the level that there could be no mistaking the circumstances, and that stated the difference between the companies.

In this case, the entrance sign states: “managed by Minster Baywatch Ltd on behalf of Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd”. However, other signage states: “This car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions”.

Though I acknowledge the operator’s yellow signage has its logos displayed and advises motorists: “By entering and remaining on this property, you have agreed to these conditions and contracted with Minster Baywatch to be legally bound by them”, this is in fine print on that cannot be determined from the wide-angle shot of the car park. The operator has not provided a site map.

As such, I am unable to determine the spread and prevalence of its yellow signage throughout the site. Though I acknowledge in its case summary, the operator has confirmed who manages and who enforces the site, on all signage both parties have displayed that they manage the site.

Upon review of the evidence, I do not consider that it is conspicuous or clear which company operates the site. As such, I do not consider it is clear which company the motorist entered into a contract with or which signage and terms were viewed. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I acknowledge that the appellant raised additional grounds of appeal. However, as I have already allowed the appeal, it is not necessary for me to consider these.”

Figure 1: Sign from car park in the successful case above.

Figure 2: Grosvenor Casino sign only with Bransby Wilson shown

It is therefore suggested that Figures 1 and 2 serve to reinforce the point made regarding non- compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (18.3), specifically: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

I believe that there is no contract between the driver and Minster Baywatch. I am using this platform to argue that the parking charge notice does not state anything about Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, though it is only they that are badged on the tariff signage where any contract is offered and receipts clearly show payment made to them. I therefore bring to your attention that it is neither obvious, nor clear which company operates this site. It is blatantly unclear which company the driver allegedly entered into a contract with, because of the confused signage and terms, as both entities have signage displayed.

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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. 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 also authorised 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 Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

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

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.

3. There is no proof that the vehicle was parked

The Notice to Keeper only shows images of a vehicle entering and leaving a car park. There is no period of parking mentioned in any correspondence as required by POFA, S4, 9 (2) (a). A photograph of a vehicle in motion along a road and passing in front of a camera cannot by definition be parked. It cannot be assumed that the vehicle actually parked or if it actually visited the site twice that day and drove out without the ANPR capturing the first leaving event or send entry event. ANPR is known to be unreliable and has many well documented flaws.

4. Non-compliance with PoFA

It is a clear requirement that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be received by the Registered Keeper no more than 14 days after the parking event. Although this notice is dated 12th June 2025, it was not received in the post until Saturday 28th June 2025. I find it incredulous that it has taken 16 days for the NtK, purportedly prepared on the 12th June, take so long. Additionally, the date on the NtK is only the date in which the letter was supposedly produced, it is not necessarily the date of posting. I put Minster Baywatch to strict proof of the date of posting.

Given that the NtK was not received until 23 days after the event, then it should be considered to have been served out of time, hence not compliant with PoFA.

5. Inadequate Signage

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs unremarkable, and the signs at which any contract is formed are Bransby Wilson which make no clear mention of any parking terms or additional charges. The wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered in very small font. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, the signs offering the tariffs, hence the contract, do not clearly mention the parking charge which can only be found by hunting out other signs on site. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for other onerous terms

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read all the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

Coupon-mad · 25 November at 10:15PM

Good but old quotes from para 7 of the BPA Code of Practice are no longer current.

ezerscrooge · 26 November at 4:50PM

Doh. Thank you so much CM. Will remove the section referencing Para 7, there seems to be a transition period with the Single Code but I am assuming the operator is following a previous BPA one.

Do you think they could use the argument that "There is nothing necessarily wrong with one company managing the site and another enforcing upon it." with a reference on the BW sign says in small print about 'the designated enforcement company' ?. It's very ambiguous.

ezerscrooge · 26 November at 4:58PM

Post of revised POPLA Appeal following CM comment. References to Para 7 BPA CoP taken out.

Your input is greatly appreciated and more valued than you can ever know.

POPLA Appeal

Date: xxxxxx

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: xxxxx

Being the registered keeper of this vehicle, I received a letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd dated 12th June 2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator was submitted and acknowledged by Minster Baywatch Ltd on 8th July 2025 and ultimately rejected via a letter dated 20th November 2025.

I contend that as the keeper, I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. No contract offered by Minster Baywatch - different company on the sign.

2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

3. No proof the vehicle was parked

4. Non-compliance with PoFA

5. Inadequate signage

1. No contract with Minster Baywatch - different company on the sign.

The signs at the site paypoints are misleading. The Welcome (entrance) sign offers tariffs hence any contract is with Bransby Wilson not Minster Baywatch. I see nothing at all about Minster Baywatch Ltd (company no. 07517434) on this signage and therefore the driver cannot possibly have entered into a contract with them. The tariff board with payment machine, and Minster Baywatch signs, are nowhere near each other. The company clearly making the parking offer is shown as a completely different legal entity, Bransby Wilson Ltd (company no. 04707572) and yet no PCN has been sent by them. It is a clear invitation and offer made without caveat. Even if other signs offer something different, the doctrine of contra proferentem would apply to ambiguous terms and the interpretation that most favours the consumer must prevail (Consumer Rights Act 2015). There is no meeting of minds with Minster Baywatch. The contract to pay is with Bransby Wilson Ltd and the payments go to Bransby Wilson Ltd (see sample receipt below). So any breach is with them, not a secondary company. Minster can't just step in and claim a contractual agreement with them.