Minster baywatch pcn

Got a letter on Friday the 5th from Minster Baywatch demanding payment of £100 after the loss at POPLA. The letter date is 03/01/208 and they have asked for payment by 03/01/2018. This further proves they are a bunch of amateurs with no idea of what they are doing. issuing the letter on a date , and to expect payment on the same date. just shows what this industry is like. Bunch of scam artists.

Maybe this letter could help my cause if there ever was to be a court case i wonder. So now i already expect a bunch of debt letters from this company.Who do they use for the debt stage.

2nd popla lost. not going to bother with the rest.
Surely if i was taken to court now id lose. What would i even argue?

---

DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor Name :
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant was not authorised to park.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has not provided evidence it has a compliant contract with the landowner. The appellant stated that a witness statement is not sound evidence. The appellant has stated the operator has not shown the individual it is pursuing was the driver. The appellant said that the parking charge amount is a penalty. The appellant also stated the signs in place at the site are not sufficient. The appellant stated the operator has breached Section 21 of the BPA Code of Practice. Further, the appellant said that it has not acted in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, with reference to lack of proof of the ANPR quality check. Additionally, the appellant stated that the operator has not included time and date stamped photographs as part of its evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has stated the operator that there is no evidence the person the operator is pursuing for the parking charge was the driver. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I consider it transferred liability correctly and in line with the provisions set out in PoFA (2012). As the appellant failed to provide the driver details, he is liable for the parking charge as the Registered Keeper. The appellant stated that the operator has not complied Section 21 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. This is with reference to the operator not stating what it uses the data captured by the ANPR camera for. The BPA Code of Practice Section 21.1 states; “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” Upon reviewing the evidence of the signage provided by the operator, I note it states “this site may be monitored by camera technology and/or warden patrols for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the conditions above”. As such, I am satisfied that it is clear the data is used to monitor vehicles using this car park. I also consider that it is clear the data is used to identify non-compliance with the terms and conditions at the site. The appellant has raised Section 21.2 of the BPA Code of Practice and questioned the reliability of the ANPR systems at this location. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to provide POPLA with any evidence to substantiate their claims that the vehicle did not remain in the car park for the length of time suggested by the ANPR cameras. I must therefore work on the basis that they were in working order on the date of the contravention The appellant said that the photographic evidence provided by the operator did not have a time and date stamp. In response, the operator has provided clear images of the vehicle entering the car park at 12:48 and exiting at 13:32 on 19 October 2017. I am satisfied this photographic evidence is sufficient. The appellant has stated that the operator has not provided any evidence to show it has the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” The operator has provided evidence of a contract signed 20 December 2005. The contract confirms that the contract was valid for an initial period of 12 months. Thereafter, either party giving the other not less than 60 days written notice would terminate the agreement. I am therefore satisfied the operator had a valid contract at the time the operator issued the parking charge. The appellant has stated that the signage at the car park is not sufficient. I will therefore consider if the signs at the car park bring the terms and conditions of parking to motorists. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states: “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I am satisfied that the signage installed by the parking operator is “conspicuous”, “legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The signs in place at this car park state “Mecca Bingo and Bank Top Tavern patrons: Vehicles must be included on the authorised user list”. I consider it clear that motorists using this car park must be on an authorised user list. The appellant has referred to the parking charge as a penalty. I will therefore consider the prominence of the parking charge on the signs at the site. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that could be expected of the parking operator when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The act then moved on to define “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. As previously stated, I am satisfied that the signage at the car park is “conspicuous”, “legible, and the parking charge amount of £100 is prominently displayed on the signs. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the signage at the location is clear the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100, this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. The operator has provided a list of vehicles authorised to park in this car park on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle was not on this list as per the terms and conditions of parking at this site. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. By parking your vehicle at the site, the driver of the vehicle is indicating an acceptance of the terms and conditions. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the appellant failed to meet these terms and conditions. I can only conclude the operator issued the parking charge correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.