IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

Minster Baywatch - No windscreen PCN, No postal notice - straight to payment demand? residents spot

edited 2 June 2018 at 11:26AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
38 replies 2.7K views
124»

Replies

  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    105.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    My friend's vehicle has a ticket in the same place, same scenario. What's POPLA's stance on reusing the same appeal? As far as I can see the same points all apply just don't want to harm my chances. Obviously will adapt to the different keepers etc.

    Also, once I'm done with this appeal, I am intending to make life as awkward as possible for MBW. Including possible claims for possible misuse of data and so on.
    Any ideas?
    A SAR for a start:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5849784

    ...and make life hard for the DVLA too, the more complaints they get the harder it makes it for them, and IamEmanresu has stated the DVLA has the ICO breathing down their neck about data, right now.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • edited 6 July 2018 at 10:05PM
    Mr_StroopwafelMr_Stroopwafel Forumite
    118 Posts
    edited 6 July 2018 at 10:05PM
    Done an SAR to MBW already, got a reply within the time limit. Is there anything else to do with the response or is it just more paperwork for them?

    Incidentally, I wrote a "stern letter" to the management agency, not had any response from them yet and I put I would expect a reply within 30 days... so to let them off the hook seems a bit bad. Since then I've submitted the POPLA appeal and dealing with it that way as it is the easiest way to get this killed.


    To be honest my girlfriend has now moved out of these flats so in some ways if this gets cancelled at POPLA that's it, but I would still like to give them some well deserved grief in return for the tickets they've given our vehicles over the years and the amount of time I've wasted on this nonsense!
  • edited 25 July 2018 at 8:22PM
    Mr_StroopwafelMr_Stroopwafel Forumite
    118 Posts
    edited 25 July 2018 at 8:22PM
    [FONT=&quot]Thanks again to the regulars for the help over the past few PCNs...I would like to take this further with MBW if possible but glad to have won at POPLA for now. :beer:
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Decision[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Successful [/FONT]


    [FONT=&quot]Assessor summary of operator case[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant. The PCN was issued as the appellant did not clearly display a valid permit.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Assessor summary of your case[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The appellant states that the notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]He says that no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the person being pursued by the operator is liable for the PCN. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The appellant advised that permission was already granted by the tenant and landowner. He states that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, in relation to grace periods. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The appellant states that the vehicle was observed for 10 minutes, which is not enough time for motorists to review the terms and conditions, or obtain anything from others vehicles if needed. The appellant says that no contract exists in a trespass case.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]He advised that no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the operator has the authority to issue PCNs on the site in question. The appellant states that the operator does not have legitimate interest in enforcing a charge.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]He says that the Beavis Vs Parking Eye case is not relevant. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Furthermore, the appellant has made reference to a comment made by R Reeves POPLA team, which was made in September 2015. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The appellant advised that the charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease. The appellant has made reference to the case Jopson V Home Guard Services. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]He states that there was no contract due to inadequate signage. The appellant has requested to see a site map, and signage in the dark. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The appellant says that the operator has breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]He advised that the operator has breached the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]The appellant has provided a copy of a tenancy agreement, images of the site in the dark, including images of the entrance of the site. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Furthermore, the appellant has provided a copy of the notice to keeper issued to him, and an image of a permit.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Assessor supporting rational for decision[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]In this instance, the operator issued the appellant with a PCN due to the appellant not clearly displaying a valid permit. Rebutting this, the appellant states that the notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence which demonstrates that the PCN was issued correctly.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]I note that the operator in the case summary states: "Minster Baywatch have the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle in instances where the driver is knowingly withheld, even in cases were PoFA 2012 is not applicable. Mr XX was informed of this within his Notice to Keeper letter. The Notice to Keeper [appellant] received gives no mention of PoFA for this reason";[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]I have reviewed the notice to keeper issued by the operator, and can see that within this document it states "You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued), the Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have a right to recover any unpaid part of the Charge from you as the registered keeper of the vehicle";. In this instance, I am satisfied that the operator has used PoFA 2012 in the notice to keeper. Section 9, paragraph 9(4)(b) states: "The notice must be given by: sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period."[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Furthermore, Section 9, paragraph 9 (5) states: "The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended". In this instance, the date of the alleged parking contravention occurred on the 7 April 2018, and the notice to keeper was issued on the 30 April 2018. The notice to keeper was assumed to be received on the 2 May 2018 however, should have been received by the 23 April 2018. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not issued under the correct timescales. If the operator continues to state that the notice to keeper was not issued under PoFA 2012 then, the driver has not been identified, and it is irrelevant that the registered keeper has chosen not to name the driver. In this instance, the operator continues to pursue the unknown driver. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal however, as I have allowed the appeal, I will not be taking these into account.[/FONT]
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    29.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well done.

    Those XXXXs in there don't help anyone to understand PoPLA's date calculations, do they? Why the continued secrecy?
  • paranoia @KeithP - I will edit them back in if it helps people
  • edited 24 July 2018 at 10:08PM
    UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    36.3K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 24 July 2018 at 10:08PM
    paranoia @KeithP - I will edit them back in if it helps people

    Yes do that - nothing more to hide!
    I note that the operator in the case summary states: "Minster Baywatch have the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle in instances where the driver is knowingly withheld, even in cases were PoFA 2012 is not applicable. Mr XX was informed of this within his Notice to Keeper letter. The Notice to Keeper [appellant] received gives no mention of PoFA for this reason";
    Worthy of a complaint to the BPA and DVLA that MB are knowingly misrepresenting the law to hoodwink POPLA. Popla seem to have missed this misrepresentation to them. Ask them to investigate and inform you of the sanctions they will be applying.

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

    You have nothing more to lose on this and if you want to put back into the pot what regulars have given to you, freely and of their own time, give MB as much shiite as you can muster.

    How about a further SAR-bomb to keep them busy for a few weeks - they have to respond to all your queries about how they've treated your personal data, what they've used it for, who they've passed it on to, how they've required their sub-contractors to deal with it, whether your data has been stored outside of the UK .... and so on. Read here for further ideas on turning the tables and making their life difficult, now you're safely out of their clutches!

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5849784

    Go for it, turn up the heat.

    And well done on your win :T - happy to have done my small bit in helping,
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • Umkomaas wrote: »
    Yes do that - nothing more to hide!


    Worthy of a complaint to the BPA and DVLA that MB are knowingly misrepresenting the law to hoodwink POPLA. Popla seem to have missed this misrepresentation to them. Ask them to investigate and inform you of the sanctions they will be applying.

    [EMAIL="steve.c@britishparking.co.uk"][email protected][/EMAIL]

    [EMAIL="ccrt@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"][email protected][/EMAIL]

    You have nothing more to lose on this and if you want to put back into the pot what regulars have given to you, freely and of their own time, give MB as much shiite as you can muster.

    How about a further SAR-bomb to keep them busy for a few weeks - they have to respond to all your queries about how they've treated your personal data, what they've used it for, who they've passed it on to, how they've required their sub-contractors to deal with it, whether your data has been stored outside of the UK .... and so on. Read here for further ideas on turning the tables and making their life difficult, now you're safely out of their clutches!

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5849784

    Go for it, turn up the heat.

    And well done on your win :T - happy to have done my small bit in helping,


    Have added the dates back in, basically MBW didn't send the NtK in time.


    Thank you for the help and those suggestions....



    Can you clarify what you mean in the misrepresentation of the law? I will gladly give them grief, they deserve every bit of it, bullying and lying con-men.
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    36.3K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Can you clarify what you mean in the misrepresentation of the law? I will gladly give them grief, they deserve every bit of it, bullying and lying con-men.
    Minster Baywatch have the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle in instances where the driver is knowingly withheld, even in cases were PoFA 2012 is not applicable.
    There is no legal precedence for them to assert this. It is a total misrepresentation, and as that statement was made as part of their evidence to POPLA, it can only be interpreted as designed to mislead POPLA in order that they find against you, in favour of MB.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides