Parking Charge Notice - Minister Baywatch

vagon

Hey guys

Just received a Parking Charge Notice from Minister Baywatch. I was not the driver, but I'm the registered keeper. I know who driver was though. 

Is there a way to get them off my back, or better to wait and see if they want to go to court?

Thank you for all the hard work you do.

Coupon-mad

Why was there no blue badge displayed? 

- driver taking a chance?

- bay not clearly signed?

- driver was disabled but no blue badge?

- driver's blue badge fell down?

Gr1pr

And

Do you wish to dob in the driver   ?

vagon

Coupon-mad said:

Why was there no blue badge displayed? 

- driver taking a chance?

- bay not clearly signed?

- driver was disabled but no blue badge?

- driver's blue badge fell down?

No no. Parked there by mistake. There are 3 adjacent "parent and child" bays, then sidewalk and another 3 adjacent disabled bays. Parked in these "parent and child" bays a few times before. But got distracted and did not realize ..... is in a wrong 3-bay section this time. Also, road making is faded and small post sign 15x15cm was hidden behind another already parked car, about 50cm above the ground, not visible. Simple mistake to make.

Gr1pr said:

And

Do you wish to dob in the driver   ?

Definitely not willing to dob the driver.

Coupon-mad

OK, so this can be appealed if you get pics of the signs. You need:

- a view taken from the disabled bays, showing a lack of t&cs readable from the car seat.

- a pic of the nearest sign that we bet ISN'T in the accessible bay area. A close up of all words.

- a pic of the entrance, plus any 'P' entrance sign.

vagon

Coupon-mad said:

OK, so this can be appealed if you get pics of the signs. You need:

- a view taken from the disabled bays, showing a lack of t&cs readable from the car seat.

- a pic of the nearest sign that we bet ISN'T in the accessible bay area. A close up of all words.

- a pic of the entrance, plus any 'P' entrance sign.

Thank you, will do. Thank you for your help for now.

vagon

Hi

I would like to kindly ask if this would be an appropriate form of first response? I would post via claimant's website. I could also attach a few photos where it clearly demonstrates no visibility of any of the signs or markings from driver's prespective.

Thank you very much in advance.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice number XXXXXXXXX

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

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

1.      Inadequate signage

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.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. 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.

Having since visited the site and researched the rules I understand why the signage was not clear at the time when car was parked there. There are not sufficient additional signs placed around the area stating the restrictions that are in force. There is a small disabled sign attached to a bollard in front of the middle parking bay (section of 3 bays), sign which is obstructed if another vehicle is parked in a middle bay (which it was as per your own evidence). This sign in such circumstances can’t be seen (sign is smaller than the minimum necessary size of 450mm x 450mm).

There is another sign with small letter writing and also facing wrong direction, it can’t be considered belonging to the parking bay the vehicle was parked in. This sign can only be read from a very close proximity and at a first glance it doesn’t even look like it has anything to do with parking.

There appears to be a faded disabled logo on the road in the bay the vehicle was parked, logo is very close to the edge of the road. Which can’t be seen from driver’s position (nor can be any of the 2 signs). Due to the bollards very close to the side of the parking bay, the only way to park in this bay is by reversing in, which makes it utterly impossible to see any of the signs including the logo on the road. Each disabled or parent and child bay should have its own sign at least 450 x 450mm to avoid any confusion.

There are similar sets of 3 bays in the same area such as the bays where vehicle was parked (parent and child bays, disabled bays and a combination of disabled bays and bays without restriction). There is no clear pattern and with no appropriate signage the mistake can be easily made.

2.      Equality Act 2010 - Indirect and direct discrimination, failure to anticipate the needs of a person with protected characteristics which is a criminal offense.

The BB scheme is not applicable as the scheme actually prohibits the use of a BB on private land. Forcing someone with protected characteristics to do something (display a badge that does not apply on private land) that an able-bodied person is not required to do is a breach of The Consumer Rights Act 2015.Failing to anticipate the needs and making reasonable adjustments for disabled people with protected characteristics, is not only a breach of the EA 2010 but it is indirect discrimination which is a criminal offence.

Not only does the BB scheme not apply on private land, but it is also an offence to use it where it is not applicable. A BB is not the only indicator of a disability, and an absence of a BB does not mean an absence of disability. The parking industry has had fourteen years to come up with an alternative method to the BB scheme of dealing with motorists who have a disability and a right to uses accessible parking spaces, but have steadfastly refused to do so.

3.      The amount demanded is not a Genuine pre-estimate of loss

The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge. Your monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Please provide a breakdown of how your demanded charge is calculated so that I can consider further whether it amounts to a penalty.

Equally, as the claim is being made for estimated losses at the time of the alleged contravention, then any costs included by the Operator that relate to accumulated amounts post that date are obviously invalid. Should such cost heads be included in the claim, as well as any profit element, then POPLA must reject the charge.
It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

 

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Registered Keeper)

ADDRESS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED

Coupon-mad

No - so much of that is either out of date or factually wrong. Just use the template appeal.

vagon

Initial appeal refused. Popla code issued. Do I just send the same to POPLA with photos and explanation?

Thank you

Gr1pr

vagon said:

Initial appeal refused. Popla code issued.

 Do I just send the same to POPLA with photos and explanation?

Thank you

As expected,  MB were not going to uphold your appeal,  the rejection was automatic, inevitable 

 No, definitely not,  see the popla stage advice in the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  plus study the coupon mad advice you were given on 10th September 

Umkomaas

Do you have photos of the general parking signs at this site?  Does the name ' Bransby-Wilson' appear on any?  If it does, there's your POPLA appeal main point. 

You do not use the initial appeal for POPLA, rather that in the all-but-templated NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, third post.  Let us see what you come up with before submitting. The Bransby-Wilson angle could be important.