POPLA Appeal - Paid for Incorrect Private Parking Location

Rendering3892

Hi there,

I recently received a NTK from Minster Baywatch in Sheffield for:

'Parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full'

I assumed it was because the car was in the car park for over 3 hours (by 2 minutes) when only 3 hours parking was paid for (camera pictures supplied). However parking was covered beyond the exit time (by 7 minutes) as there was a period once in the car park of waiting for a spot before parking and then making the payment.

This was explained in the appeal to Minster Baywatch as the keeper and the parking ticket, paid for on RingGo was included, showing the car was covered. I realize now that finding this thread may have been useful.

The appeal however was rejected because no record for found for paying to park on that site and stating that, in fact, the payment made covered the car park next door, whose code is one digit different. I had not realized this mistake had been made, as the car park that was parked in is listed as an 'Overflow' car park of the other car park on the Museum's website which those in the car were visiting.

I now have the opportunity to appeal to POPLA. I've tried my best to scour the forum for the same situation but cannot find it exactly. Does anyone have any advice?

Rendering3892

As some additional context, in addition to the museum listing this car park as one of their car parks, the entrance to the car park states the name of the museum and on RingGo, when paying the other car park was the first listed as nearby car parks when making payment.

I have also spoken to Bransby Wilson on the phone. They say they manage both car parks and Minster Baywatch enforce them.

Any support appreciated. Thank you

James_Poisson

You don't need the same situation for POPLA the mitigating circumstances won't be considered they will only consider appeals based on process, contracts, signage, landowner authority etc.

If the landowner is the same, the car park is an overflow and a payment covering the period of parking was made, the one digit difference in the location seems to be a technicality that the cynic in me looks to be a trap by the PPC.

There is no real appeal system it's all a sham, the real adjudication comes at court stage if it gets there, where a proper judge will give a better fairer judgement. 

Gr1pr

Whose name is on the signs  ?  Bransby Wilson or Minster Baywatch   ?

If the contract was with BW then MB are a stranger to the parking contract,  so is one popla point to make 

The pcn doesn't say that no payment was made,  but a full payment was made,  they had their money,  so de minimis 

The minimum grace period of 10 minutes is another point 

Dont be distracted by their interpretations about names or facts, they do twist things

Stick to pointing out their flaws, errors and weaknesses,  plus what was said about overflow car parking 

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for

Bransby Wilson POPLA appeal

..if their name is on the signs. Get photos.

Rendering3892

Thank you all, I will follow up with your points. 

In the appeal rejection Minster Baywatch included a photo showing the payment station which says 'Payment Solution brought by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions', however the sign also says that Parking Enforcement is in place in the car park and to see the signage around the car park for details. Getting back to the car park is not easy in the upcoming period so don't want to use a tactic that I may shoot myself in the foot with.

So far I was considering writing something along these lines (after checking the forum for Bransby Wilson). Feedback welcome!

--------

The driver was visiting a museum with family and a second car and upon entering the car park, labelled 'X Museum' waited for an available spot and to confirm this was the correct car park with the secondary car, parking and paying for 3 hours within the minimum grace period of 10 minutes of entering (starting at hh:mm and finishing at hh:mm - receipt provided). The vehicle exited the car park before this pay period expired at hh:mm.

When paying, the driver made, what now appears, a minor keying error by making payment for the X Museum Car Park (location code xxxx1) instead of the Y Car Park (code xxxx2). There were multiple reasons for this where it is reasonable to see why such an 'error' was made.

1. The entrance to the car park misleadingly states it as 'X Museum' - photo is supplied
2. The website to the X Museum, which was used to research the trip - labels this car park as an overflow car park to the museum within it's plan your visit section, making it assumed that this is part of the X Museum Car Park. There is no mention of a car park called Y Car Park on the site (link here)
3. When accessing the RingGo app to pay, it was the 'X Museum Car Park' that came up as the first listed nearby car park to pay for.

In this case, the driver has made a reasonable effort and in fact made a full payment for parking for the museum for the period of their visit, and it feels unreasonable to receive a penalty when it is clear that they were not trying to avoid paying for parking. Also, being aware that both car parks are managed by Bransby Wilson and enforced by Minster Baywatch on behalf of the museum, it feels like an egregious technicality on which to make an attempt to levy a fine in this instance when the suitable sum of money was received for this period.

James_Poisson

Rendering3892 said:

Thank you all, I will follow up with your points. 

In the appeal rejection Minster Baywatch included a photo showing the payment station which says 'Payment Solution brought by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions', however the sign also says that Parking Enforcement is in place in the car park and to see the signage around the car park for details. Getting back to the car park is not easy in the upcoming period so don't want to use a tactic that I may shoot myself in the foot with.

So far I was considering writing something along these lines (after checking the forum for Bransby Wilson). Feedback welcome!

--------

The driver was visiting a museum with family and a second car and upon entering the car park, labelled 'X Museum' waited for an available spot and to confirm this was the correct car park with the secondary car, parking and paying for 3 hours within the minimum grace period of 10 minutes of entering (starting at hh:mm and finishing at hh:mm - receipt provided). The vehicle exited the car park before this pay period expired at hh:mm.

When paying, the driver made, what now appears, a minor keying error by making payment for the X Museum Car Park (location code xxxx1) instead of the Y Car Park (code xxxx2). There were multiple reasons for this where it is reasonable to see why such an 'error' was made.

1. The entrance to the car park misleadingly states it as 'X Museum' - photo is supplied
2. The website to the X Museum, which was used to research the trip - labels this car park as an overflow car park to the museum within it's plan your visit section, making it assumed that this is part of the X Museum Car Park. There is no mention of a car park called Y Car Park on the site (link here)
3. When accessing the RingGo app to pay, it was the 'X Museum Car Park' that came up as the first listed nearby car park to pay for.

In this case, the driver has made a reasonable effort and in fact made a full payment for parking for the museum for the period of their visit, and it feels unreasonable to receive a penalty when it is clear that they were not trying to avoid paying for parking. Also, being aware that both car parks are managed by Bransby Wilson and enforced by Minster Baywatch on behalf of the museum, it feels like an egregious technicality on which to make an attempt to levy a fine in this instance when the suitable sum of money was received for this period.

That is not a POPLA appeal too much about what happened.

There is no "fine" or "penalty".

This is not what is classed as a "minor keying error" that relates to a VRN which is completely different to a location code, in this instance the two codes happen to be next door to each other they could be in two different towns.

Your important point about Bransby Wilson/ Minster Baywatch looks buried as an after thought and is not well pleaded at all. As I see it the point is that if Bransby have the contract to manage the car park, Minster Baywatch as a third party acting for Bransby do not.

From The joint COP:

14.1

Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before
a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the
parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:
a) the identity of the landowner(s)..........

In other words Minster would need a direct contract with the landowner, not Bransby, which they would need to produced to show they are duly authorised to operate on the land as required by the ATA COP.

Coupon-mad

I don't want to use a tactic that I may shoot myself in the foot with.

No! You DO!

It is your winning point and you've buried it and you've incorrectly called it a 'fine' and you added: "and enforced by Minster Baywatch on behalf of the museum" which ruins the winning point.

When I said search for Bransby Wilson POPLA appeal I meant literally copy one word for word (except, change the location and small details). Not write your own.

Nobody here has to write a POPLA appeal from scratch. The usual appeal points are already done and posted in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread anyway. Your job is to add the usual Bransby Wilson argument and say the contract (if any) was with them.

Rendering3892

Hi all, thanks for this feedback and help, much appreciated and in no way trying to be difficult or stupid, just learning on the go. I had drafted that before having been through the templates, just to get thoughts out when I was time poor. I have looked up the templates from the NEWBIES threads and searched for Bransby Wilson POPLA appeal. 

I'm struggling to find in the thread an example of a successful appeal at the POPLA stage for Bransby Wilson where the car park paid for was the 'incorrect' car park (despite shared management by the same company and to serve the same museum or institution). I understand I'm getting caught up in the whole process but it feels as if this is the most frustrating point, with the correct amount being paid to park in a car park for the correct institution, and to not feature this prominently feels counterintuitive. 

It just makes me really angry to feel people are wasting resources doing things like this when the money required has been paid to the right people, and now they are wasting mine and other good people's time.

I am less confident about the 'Entrance Sign Point...' or the 'Landowner Authority' as there is plenty of signage. I've attached some examples after visiting today.

I have tried complaining to the museum and they has expressed frustration themselves with the new setup but are unwilling to do anything at this stage.

Signage at Entrance to Car Park and external wall

This is misleading as states the museum and that it's a car park associated with the museum

Payment Signage with Bransby Wilson mentioned:

This according to prior cases could be useful as there is no mention of Minster Baywatch

Minster Baywatch Signage (there is more as well), stating management of car park:

However there is a lot of this, stating there managment

This is clearly positioned on exit of the car park

Sign stating 'Notice of Change':

This feels as if they are quite aware of what they have done and are covering their backs.

More than happy to go onto working from a template and working through the process just welcoming any more direct pointers or similar cases if anyone knows of them.

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

You aren't supposed to be looking for MB examples in the NEWBIES thread.

Just search the forum and read MB threads.