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 5
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Jan 18, 9:56 PM
    • 18,360 Posts
    • 23,262 Thanks
    Redx
    those debt collector cases you dealt with in an earlier life were regarding defaults on legal contracts , where there was an "intention to create legal relations" , SO NOT ALLEGED DEBTS BUT REAL AND ACCUMULATED DEBTS , PROBABLY WITH SIGNED AND DATED CONTRACTS

    the whole premise of your current arguments with MB and ECP is that there is no contract of parking between you , that you never entered into one , the drivers intention was to just park there for free because they thought the land did not belong to anyone , so until a judge tells you that you did enter into a contract and must pay , its a disputed unsigned contract over a disputed and alleged debt or debts over no parking agreement

    MIL collections and some parking companies got into trouble in selling details on where they breached their KADOE contracts and MIL were not the principal , so in some cases DPA breached occurred when the PPC had obtained the dvla details for the keeper and then sold the alleged debt on to MIL

    a bit more research required as your previous job is irrelevant in these parking charge notice cases

    and the more you incur as keeper , the more your letterbox will ping , so 1 down and 3 to go when you said "1 out of 4" , plus your ECP ones , mean the more you accrue , that remain unpaid or unresolved , the more debt collector letters you will receive

    plus it takes over 6 years to know if a strategy against a debt collector works, the alleged debt never goes away , just the threat of court due to the 6 year statute , so do you seriously expect to keep us informed until 2024 ? (then we can have a new strategy starting in 2024 , even though a lot of the goalposts will have moved in the meantime , like the new 2018 private members bill and the new 2018 DPA protocols etc)

    as for MB , they can and do issue court claims as EB says above (more so in the last 12 months or so) , like these recent ones

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5757012

    and

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5710354

    and

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5587476

    and

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5578681

    and

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5356821

    are just a few

    we believe that they got some new claims manager in to progress these alleged debts and issue court claims , perhaps 1 to 2 years ago
    Last edited by Redx; 04-01-2018 at 10:49 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • azz007
    • By azz007 5th Jan 18, 11:01 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    The Rt Hon Sir Greg Knight MP is heading this and
    you should complain to him about this very poor POPLA decision ]
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    From: SOTHCOTT, Teresa [mailto:SOTHCOTTT@parliament.uk]
    Sent: 05 January 2018 10:46
    To: Az### <###unitypartnership.com>
    Subject: Re: POPLA CASE: 4113277###




    The Rt Hon Sir Greg Knight MP
    House of Commons
    Westminster
    London SW1A 0AA
    Telephone: 0207 219 4077 or 01377 812123
    Email: secretary@gregknight.com


    Dear Az###

    Thank you for your email and for keeping Sir Greg informed of your own particular circumstances. I am sorry to hear that you lost your appeal.

    Sir Greg is gathering information and evidence, and so this is very helpful.

    Regards

    Teresa

    Teresa Sothcott
    Private Secretary
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Jan 18, 11:07 AM
    • 7,556 Posts
    • 10,060 Thanks
    beamerguy
    From: SOTHCOTT, Teresa [mailto:SOTHCOTTT@parliament.uk]
    Sent: 05 January 2018 10:46
    To: Az### <###unitypartnership.com>
    Subject: Re: POPLA CASE: 4113277###




    The Rt Hon Sir Greg Knight MP
    House of Commons
    Westminster
    London SW1A 0AA
    Telephone: 0207 219 4077 or 01377 812123
    Email: secretary@gregknight.com


    Dear Az###

    Thank you for your email and for keeping Sir Greg informed of your own particular circumstances. I am sorry to hear that you lost your appeal.

    Sir Greg is gathering information and evidence, and so this is very helpful.

    Regards

    Teresa

    Teresa Sothcott
    Private Secretary
    Originally posted by azz007
    Well done, I would suggest that more write to
    Sir Greg whilst he is still gathering evidence

    In particular, the GREAT GLADSTONES IPC/IAS SCAM

    This scam must be investigated urgently and the
    termination of Gladstones/IPC/IAS as an ATA to which
    they have made a mockery of
    Last edited by beamerguy; 05-01-2018 at 11:46 AM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Jan 18, 12:30 AM
    • 58,526 Posts
    • 72,027 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    From: SOTHCOTT, Teresa [mailto:SOTHCOTTT@parliament.uk]
    Sent: 05 January 2018 10:46
    To: Az### <###unitypartnership.com>
    Subject: Re: POPLA CASE: 4113277###




    The Rt Hon Sir Greg Knight MP
    House of Commons
    Westminster
    London SW1A 0AA
    Telephone: 0207 219 4077 or 01377 812123
    Email: secretary@gregknight.com


    Dear Az###

    Thank you for your email and for keeping Sir Greg informed of your own particular circumstances. I am sorry to hear that you lost your appeal.

    Sir Greg is gathering information and evidence, and so this is very helpful.

    Regards

    Teresa

    Teresa Sothcott
    Private Secretary
    Originally posted by azz007


    That's the spirit!

    Fighting back is better than paying. Don't fold!

    Please also contact WHICH? magazine using the easy link from this thread to tell them briefly of your plight. The more people who contact WHICH, the more likely they are to take up this unregulated scam industry as their next cause:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5765579

    and send a copy of your case to your MP as well.
    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 8th Jan 18, 9:39 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    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.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th Jan 18, 10:17 AM
    • 18,016 Posts
    • 28,533 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Who do they use for the debt stage.
    A forum search will tell you who they have used - it!!!8217;s what we would have to do to give you the answer to your question.

    But they can choose whichever debt crawler they like. All you need to do is to ignore anything from a debt collector (see NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4). Don!!!8217;t ignore a LBA or real court papers.
    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.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 8th Jan 18, 10:42 AM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,438 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Indeed, who cares who they use for debt collection? theyre all the same bunch of powerless wastes of oxygen and trees.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Jan 18, 11:02 AM
    • 7,556 Posts
    • 10,060 Thanks
    beamerguy
    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.
    Originally posted by azz007
    At least you now know what d*ckheads they really are

    Which moron debt collector ???
    Probably DRP spouting complete rubbish and lying

    Ignore these complete idiots
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • azz007
    • By azz007 29th Jan 18, 3:11 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    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.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Jan 18, 3:33 PM
    • 18,016 Posts
    • 28,533 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    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.
    If you want to kick off with the BPA about that statement, then do look in at beccih1892!!!8217;s thread, from post #75 and follow her path.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5756819&page=4
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jan 18, 9:57 PM
    • 58,526 Posts
    • 72,027 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Surely if i was taken to court now id lose. What would i even argue?
    LOL, it's only Minster Baywatch, ex-clampers. They use Gladstones who dig their own holes!
    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 30th Jan 18, 11:07 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    i suppose it wont make much difference kicking a fuss as it wont change the outcome, but i appreciate the advice.
    i have emailed BPA about others, and they do nothing. same with the DVLA.

    Guess il just keep building the pile of letters
    • azz007
    • By azz007 30th Jan 18, 11:09 AM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    LOL, it's only Minster Baywatch, ex-clampers. They use Gladstones who dig their own holes!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    2 popla appeals and they decided to refuse the appeal as POPLA accepeted the signage, landowner authority and POFA. Dont think many cases are won on anything else.

    Seems as though MB have a bullet proof Car park at Oldham Mecca Bingo.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Jan 18, 11:06 PM
    • 58,526 Posts
    • 72,027 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Just because a PPC can win at POPLA doesn't mean they can win in Court.
    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 2nd Feb 18, 12:29 PM
    • 134 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    azz007
    quick question - If the so called parking operator does not have land authority ie found from land registry and they are issuig parking tickets on land that isnt covered by them.

    who do i complkain to and take action. Police, council, BPA etc. ?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 2nd Feb 18, 1:40 PM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,438 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Their ATA
    Police obviously would not care.
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

3,325Posts Today

6,856Users online

Martin's Twitter