Minster Baywatch PCN

ducatidaz

Hi, thats very helpful.

It was Tintagel, King Arthur's Car Park. PL34 0DA.

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82062400#Comment_82062400

We Would certainly expect that to happen for an unpaid outstanding Invoice, so yes over the next 6 years

But that doesn't mean that there will be any CCJ, ( unless you ignored the court process )

ducatidaz

I have made sime amendments to my POPLA appeal if I continue. Thoughts please?

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement, and there will be no admission as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

Since your Parking Charge Notice is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close-up photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, as well as your images of the vehicle.

I am appealing this PCN on the following grounds:

1. FAILURE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF BREACH

The operator claims I overstayed by 17 minutes 51 seconds and despite my request the operator has failed to provide:

• The start and end times of my paid parking session
• Evidence of what grace period applies at this site
• Details of any consideration period as required under BPA Code of Practice

The alleged overstay of 17 minutes and 51 seconds is entirely invalid due to a failure to apply mandatory industry grace periods and a clear misrepresentation of transit time as parking time. 

1. FAILURE TO APPLY BPA CODE OF PRACTICE (Section 13) GRACE PERIODS.

As a member of the British Parking Association (AOS), Minster Baywatch is bound by the BPA Code of Practice. Under Section 13, operators must provide a mandatory minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of a parking session before a charge can be legally issued. When subtracting this 10-minute period from the alleged 17 minutes and 51 seconds, the remaining balance is a mere 7 minutes and 51 seconds.

1. FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE MANDATORY CONSIDERSTION PERIOD.

Section 13 also dictates that drivers must be given a minimum of 5 minutes upon arrival to locate a parking space, park, and read the contractual terms. This vehicle was parked in a busy seaside town car park where traffic flow and space-hunting inherently consume time. When adding the mandatory 10-minute exit grace period and the 5-minute entry consideration period together, a total of 15 minutes is contractually protected before any overstay can begin.

1. INACCURACY OF ANPR CAMERA LOGS.

Your charge is based strictly on ANPR images captured at the car park boundary. These cameras measure total time on site, not active parking time. The remaining 2 minutes and 51 seconds of the alleged overstay are entirely accounted for by the driver queuing to exit the site and traversing the car park to reach the road. No active parking took place outside of the permitted contract.
 

1. PAID FOR PARKING

I paid for 3 hours of parking as evidenced by my bank statement (attached). Without proof of when my paid session started and ended, the operator cannot demonstrate I breached the terms.

1. IGNORED REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE

In my appeal to Minster Baywatch on 25th June at 2:21pm, I specifically requested the ticket start/end times and grace period details. They rejected my appeal without providing this essential evidence.

1. INSUFFICIENT PROOF

Entry and exit photographs alone do not prove an overstay of paid parking time. The operator must prove I exceeded my paid 3-hour period plus any applicable grace period.

1. OMMISSION OF TERMS ON SIGNAGE

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the on-site signage provides explicit details regarding the allocation of the consideration period and grace period, which violates the industry rules on transparent pricing and clear contract formation. Therefore no contract formed. 

The burden of proof rests with the operator. They have failed to provide evidence that a breach occurred.

I request this PCN be cancelled.

If the allegation concerns a payment machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made – showing a partial vehicle registration number – and an explanation of the reason for the Parking Charge Notice, because your notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

ducatidaz

Sorry, the numbers had bern changed to represent each point, seem not to be saved!

1505grandad

If this is the car park it seems the usual Bransby Wilson is involved:- (do you or the MB portal have any pictures of the contract (signs) with the motorist?)

https://www.tintagelcarpark.co.uk/car-park/

ducatidaz

Thats definitely the address on NTK.

GrannyKate

Appears to be owned by

Dangar Ltd
King Arthur's
Fore Street
Tintagel
PL34 0DA

Gr1pr

So

Are the signs ( and so the actual parking contract ) with Bransby Wilson ( so not with Minster Baywatch )

And was the NTK PCN letter from Minster Baywatch ( and so NOT from Bransby Wilson. ) ?

Have you studied the other cases on here where a similar name issue occurred. ?

ezerscrooge

Have a read of my process which ended in defeat for Minster Baywatch at POPLA (with great help from this forum)

Original thread with PoPLA appeal and subsequent outcome - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6615181/minster-baywatch/p1

Check the particulars apply in your case (Bransby Wilson signage, creditor etc.) and use a template. PoPLA should be consistent so it helps to post the findings of a successful appeal embedded within yours.

Be careful with MB - they have a habit of 'sending' letters/emails that never actually arrive.

I had no luck with the landowner - I think anyone who takes on MB and its BW ilk are likely to be of the same mindset.

ducatidaz

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82062687#Comment_82062687

The NTK was from Minster Baywatch