Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • azz007
    • By azz007 16th Nov 17, 6:39 PM
    • 134Posts
    • 27Thanks
    azz007
    Minster baywatch pcn
    • #1
    • 16th Nov 17, 6:39 PM
    Minster baywatch pcn 16th Nov 17 at 6:39 PM
    2 postal PCN from Minster Baywatch as being parked on a Mecca Bingo Car park on two occasions 24th Oct and 02 Nov 2017.

    these are monitored now with ANPR cameras .

    Now as keeper have 2 PCN and wrote a Without Prejudice Letter to hoefuly work to bring the matter to a close if they accecpt. as keeper will sent a letter via post with a cheque.


    This is what i have so far, i think maybe i should remove point 2, as ive read this no longer works??
    any thoughts , ammendants or things to add will be appreciated. see below

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    17/11/2017
    Without Prejudice

    Dear Sirs,

    I write further to your recent correspondences as the Keeper relating to the Parking Charges issued by yourselves. (See attached).
    Parking Charge Number 1: 12345
    Parking Charge Number 2: 12345

    I am challenging your parking charge dated 24/10/2017 & 02/11/2017) on the following grounds:
    1.

    2. 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 as the charge that you are levying is punitive and therefore void against me. The charge of £100 is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges.
    3. You were using an ANPR camera system but this has evidently not been advertised on the signage with prominence and not seen by the driver.
    4. Having examined your PCN I believe it is non-compliant demand for payment. Your notice in the text refers to being a PCN. This term is attributed to a penalty charge notice issued by a local authority. It is therefore easily confused with a statutory penalty charge notice. The BPA is clear in its rules that such abbreviations and terms are not permissible.

    As a gesture of goodwill and to bring the matter to a swift and amicable conclusion, I am offering you on a without prejudice basis only, the sum of £10.00 for both alleged breaches in full and final settlement of all claims you have against the Keeper. This should enable you to cover the costs of obtaining the vehicle details and your alleged loss of income you may have suffered arising from the alleged contract. I should point out that if you bank or negotiate this cheque this will be taken as your acceptance of the offer which cannot be retracted under any circumstance.

    If you choose to reject my offer to settle this matter and wish to pursue this matter through the courts then I shall bring to the Court!!!8217;s attention this letter.

    Yours Faithfully,

    PRINT NAME

    any feedback appreciated, i dont really want to ignore this one as ive already ignored another one i got from ECP in August and at the 2nd DRP+ LETTER stage.
    Last edited by azz007; 17-11-2017 at 11:02 AM.
Page 4
    • azz007
    • By azz007 19th Dec 17, 7:18 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    I expect that MB will wait the full 21 days before uploading their evidence pack. When they do you should receive an email notification from info@popla.co.uk. .
    Originally posted by Edna Basher
    can i send my rebutall to this as pdf... see above my rebuttal points
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 19th Dec 17, 7:20 PM
    • 7,667 Posts
    • 7,374 Thanks
    KeithP
    the 2000 character limit is not sufficient so would i be able to send my POPLA REBUTTAL via email instead. to info@popla.co.uk and what should i wirtie in the comments box on popla site for them to know and acknowldge my comments for appeal.
    Originally posted by azz007
    Stick POPLA rebuttal 2000 into the forum search facility, select Show Posts et voila, you have your answer.

    Quicker than asking a question here.
    .
    • azz007
    • By azz007 19th Dec 17, 8:04 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    Stick POPLA rebuttal 2000 into the forum search facility, select Show Posts et voila, you have your answer.

    Quicker than asking a question here.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Pdf email it is...

    Care to provide any feedback on the rebuttal
    • azz007
    • By azz007 20th Dec 17, 10:32 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    bump for comments from post#58
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th Dec 17, 11:13 AM
    • 17,984 Posts
    • 28,470 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The rebuttal looks fine. You!!!8217;ve nicely brought the MB/Bransby Wilson axis to the assessor!!!8217;s attention.

    Make sure you get it back to POPLA by the deadline - they won!!!8217;t hang about beyond that.

    The outcome is now in the hands of the assessor - you can!!!8217;t do any more. Even if you lose, you don!!!8217;t have to pay MB a bean, unless a judge orders it.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 20th Dec 17, 11:32 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    Make sure you get it back to POPLA by the deadline - they won’t hang about beyond that
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    il send the pdf tonight if no further comments.

    also what should i write in the POPLA 'comments box ' as ill be emailing my rebuttal
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Dec 17, 2:50 PM
    • 58,374 Posts
    • 71,905 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Write that you have emailed your comments as this small box is not big enough.

    Don't call it a 'rebuttal'.

    Call it your 'comments on the evidence pack'.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • azz007
    • By azz007 21st Dec 17, 10:13 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    Submitted the comments on the evidence pack. How long do POPLA take on the decision.

    As i Need to submit the 2nd POPLA appeal within the next 10 days.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Dec 17, 10:18 AM
    • 17,984 Posts
    • 28,470 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Depends on volume at the time - a week or two?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 2nd Jan 18, 6:12 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    What a load of tosh, 1 out of 4. Not even going to bother with the rest appealing to POPLA.

    Bacically agreeing all singage is legible with close up pics by the operator and the RED lettering PARKING CHARGE 100 .
    which tbh can barely be red from 5 feet away.

    the landowner authority does not show anything its between both MB and Bransby.. Not sure what this assessor is actauly doing. if anything.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DecisionUnsuccessful
    Assessor Name Gemma W
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without authorisation.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, which I have listed below: • The appellant states the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge. • He says that the amount requested is a penalty. • The appellant states the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing is liable for the parking charge. • He explains that the images provided by the operator show the date and time-stamp inserted at the bottom and therefore requests the original images. • The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. • The appellant has questioned the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) accuracy and compliance.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, which state “Mecca Bingo and Bank Top Tavern patrons: Vehicles must be included on the authorised user list…By failing to comply with any of these you are contractually agreeing to pay the parking charge of £100”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked without authorisation. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras have captured the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 12:57 and exiting at 13:45, totalling a stay of 48 minutes. The appellant states the signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible and there is insufficient notice of the parking charge. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 18.2 states “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.” 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.” The operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the car park in question. As such I am satisfied that appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. Ultimately, I consider the signage was compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Furthermore, upon review of the signage, the PCN amount clearly states in large red lettering “Parking Charge “£100”. I am satisfied sufficient notice of the sum is provided on the signage. He says that the amount requested is a penalty. 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 first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (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 a parking operator must meet 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 (PoFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking 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. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. 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 appellant states the operator has not shown the individual it is pursing is liable for the parking charge. As the appellant in this case has not been identified as the driver, I must consider if the operator has met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in its attempt to hold them, as the registered keeper, liable for the charge. I have reviewed the copy of the notice to keeper that has been issued, and I am satisfied that this meets the full requirements of PoFA. He explains that the images provided by the operator show the date and time-stamp inserted at the bottom and therefore requests the original images. The operator has provided images of the appellant’s vehicle entering and exiting the site. I appreciate the appellant’s comments that the evidence provided shows the date and time-stamp displayed underneath the photograph, I am satisfied this is sufficient evidence to confirm the vehicle remained on site for 48 minutes. Furthermore, the appellant has not supplied any evidence to demonstrate the vehicle was not parked on site. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority in issuing and pursuing PCNs at this site. The operator has produced a contract statement to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. I note the appellant’s comments that the contract is redacted; however, an operator does not need to provide a full contract due to this containing commercially sensitive information. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7. The appellant has questioned the ANPR accuracy and compliance. While I acknowledge the appellants comments that they do not believe the technology to be accurate, as there is no evidence to dispute the accuracy of the ANPR I must work on the basis that it is fully accurate. While I recognise that the signs do not state what the operator will use the data captured by the ANPR system for, as the car park has a maximum permitted stay, it has not had an impact on the motorists ability to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park. If the driver had concerns about the validity of the signage and did not feel that, as a result, they could comply with the terms and conditions in force, they had the opportunity to reject the contract by not parking in the car park. The operator has provided a whitelist lookup, which confirms the appellant was not authorised to park on site. Upon consideration of the evidence provided, the appellant parked without authorisation and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse the appeal.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 2nd Jan 18, 6:18 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,308 Thanks
    pappa golf
    ok , you now know the "loosing" wording , now reprase the others and hope for a different assessor
    • azz007
    • By azz007 2nd Jan 18, 6:27 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    ok , you now know the "loosing" wording , now reprase the others and hope for a different assessor
    Originally posted by pappa golf

    loosing , or 'losing' not sure i follow what you mean here. the asessor got sold on the pics close ups by the opeartor who provided like 20+ pics.. so not sure if as keeper should waste my time anymore on the others for the same PPC. so reprashing just the same points to begin with prob wont have much sucess too

    now i cant take them matter any further so either as keeper pay up or ignore . dont think i can keep ignoring as already done ignoring one with ECP. and dont like the sound of waiting arouund for 6 years to to get summoned for court..
    Last edited by azz007; 02-01-2018 at 8:36 PM.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 3rd Jan 18, 9:26 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    Already had to submit the 2nd appeal to popla so will have to change the rebuttal points as now i know what went against the appeal.

    also, hypothetically if the 2nd appeal becomes successful, could i question the 1st decision 'unsuccessful' or that one is done and dusted and the outcome cannot be changed
    Last edited by azz007; 03-01-2018 at 9:51 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jan 18, 1:09 AM
    • 58,374 Posts
    • 71,905 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    dont think i can keep ignoring as already done ignoring one with ECP.
    I ignored about 3 from them a few years ago, and a few from Britannia I think. It's quite fun, no big deal to get letters.

    Seeing as you are dealing with a firm who DO NOT sue people, of course you must ignore them!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • azz007
    • By azz007 4th Jan 18, 8:57 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    there is a increase in court activity with MB IN 2017, althought its around 1% of the total tickets issued.
    http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Minster_Baywatch.html

    Dont really know what MB are like and how far they go, as many on the forum are other PPCs more often
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 4th Jan 18, 10:58 AM
    • 667 Posts
    • 1,740 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    A friend of mine is going to Court with MB in a couple of months' time. This relates to a parking "incident" from about a year ago.

    He didn't respond to any of the early correspondence and ended up receiving a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones. He responded to the LBC highlighting its deficiencies but good old Gladstones have carried on regardless.

    As you highlight, MB have not been prolific in the Courts and maybe they've been focusing on the "ignorers" in the hope of picking up easy default wins. However, you've already shown MB that you're a tough nut to crack.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 4th Jan 18, 11:07 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    first person i know that knows somebody going to court,. What area is your friend from if you dont mind me asking?

    bmpa advised
    1. The POPLA decision is binding on them but not on you. You need not pay if you don't want to.
    2. You'll get lots of debt collector letters but as they cannot do anything they can be ignored.
    3. MB do go to court but not overly so. They have two "favourite" courts - York for obvious reasons and Port Talbot (!!). If you are not within these catchment areas you should be safe but they do like multiple tickets.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 4th Jan 18, 11:26 AM
    • 2,748 Posts
    • 3,411 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Appeal to popla. You!!!8217;ve got it all written so it!!!8217;s negligble effort. Not every assessor is equal.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 4th Jan 18, 11:30 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    A friend of mine is going to Court with MB in a couple of months' time..
    Originally posted by Edna Basher
    Keep us updated
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 4th Jan 18, 9:28 PM
    • 667 Posts
    • 1,740 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Will do.

    My friend's case involves a "parking incident" in York. He's the vehicle's keeper but wasn't driving and wasn't even present at the time.

    Maybe MB were hoping for an easy default win in York County Court. Too bad for them that he'll be defending the claim in his local Court which is quite some distance from York.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,063Posts Today

7,828Users online

Martin's Twitter