Minster Baywatch PCN

[222helen]

My partner received an NTK from Minster Baywatch; he is the keeper of the vehicle in question. Sadly, he is unwell and unable to follow up. His son posted on another forum, and he was advised to appeal. They didn't offer anything further, and we are stuck.

The driver allegedly parked at a location without paying and the vehicle identified using a camera. They want £100, which will reduce to £60 if paid within 14 days. I spoke with his son, who has provided details for me like sign photos, the payment meter and their letter. He is now on a business trip and doesn't have time to deal with it.

Please help me with how to proceed.

Thank you
Helen

[des8]

could you please post up a copy of the PCN (suitably redacted) and copies of the signage.

Do you know any other details of the alleged incident, eg were the ticket machines working, position of the signs etc

[222helen]

could you please post up a copy of the PCN (suitably redacted) and copies of the signage.

Do you know any other details of the alleged incident, eg were the ticket machines working, position of the signs etc

Thank you for the welcome.

I know the site quite well, before Covid we visited a lot and always paid. One of the people in our group would pay by phone or cash, depending on the circumstances. On the alleged non-payment day, the driver parked directly in front of the meter which was working but somehow forgot to pay. There was a squabble between drivers arguing about a parking space and it distracted the driver. The NTK arrived 16 days after the alleged contravention so remembering things isn't a strong point. There are signs, but you often don't see them where we park. We do see the sign above the payment meter. Here is the anomaly; the meter sign, the main one, states the car park is managed and operated by Bransby Wilson but the others say Minster Baywatch. It is a rural site so there are no yellow boxes or lines, just bays to park in. My partner's son drove there yesterday and he photographed the signs. He contacted the land owner (National Trust / Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust) and they say Minster Baywatch operate the car park. The landowners are not interested in parking disputes which they make obvious on Trip Advisor.

[atticus]

And are you now looking for a reason not to pay?

What was the date of the parking, and of the NTK? For some reason I cannot see your images in a legible size.

[des8]

Thanks for the attachments, but I can't read them and when enlarged they are too blurry!
(and please don't ask me another way of posting them.. I'm far from computer literate!)

In the meantime check the PCN against the requirements of PoFA 2015, schedule 4 para 9 [esp (2)] to make sure it complies with the regulations. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...dule/4/enacted)

The NTK should be received within14 days of incident (counting starts day after the incident).
That means it has to be issued at the latest 12 days after the incident.
so if the incident occurred on 1st of month the NTK would need to be posted on 13th to reach registered keeper by 15th

[222helen]

And are you now looking for a reason not to pay?

What was the date of the parking, and of the NTK? For some reason I cannot see your images in a legible size.

I must be honest and say yes, we don't want to pay. We feel the amount is extortionate and we normally pay the fee, which is cheap at £2, and we also pay to both trusts for membership. They have shown no interest so we cancelled the lot.

The incident took place on 18/09/22, they allegedly issued the NTK on 27/09/22 and it arrived on Tuesday 4/10/22.

I will try and post the images in a more legible format, but I am not good with this type of thing.

[222helen]

Thanks for the attachments, but I can't read them and when enlarged they are too blurry!
(and please don't ask me another way of posting them.. I'm far from computer literate!)

In the meantime check the PCN against the requirements of PoFA 2015, schedule 4 para 9 [esp (2)] to make sure it complies with the regulations. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...dule/4/enacted)

The NTK should be received within14 days of incident (counting starts day after the incident).
That means it has to be issued at the latest 12 days after the incident.
so if the incident occurred on 1st of month the NTK would need to be posted on 13th to reach registered keeper by 15th

The incident was on 18/09/22, they allegedly issued it on 27/09/22 and it arrived on 4/10/22. The car did not have a windscreen ticket.

I will attempt to post images in a more legible format; I am sorry for my first attempt, I am not good at this.

[222helen]

I do hope this is better, my second attempt also failed

[222helen]

I am pleased with myself; I can copy a link :-) https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attrac...d.html#REVIEWS

Hundreds of people complaining about the parking.

[des8]

well done with the posting

Problems with the NTK
1) does not state the period of parking as required by PoFA Sch 4 9 (2) (a)
2)keeper has not been invited to pay the outstanding charges as required by PoFA Sch 9 (2) (e) i

Whether or not you would want to dispute their charge on the basis of their technical failures (they are "musts" and should enable you to win at POPLA or in court but it is always a bit of a lottery!) do take into account the stress factor.


GWF are being stupid and it seems they are losing members.
Our local trust charges £3 per day parking to non members, (free to members,) but privately admit they don't pursue non payers as they want people to come (and perhaps join or get future generations involved)
As principals GWF could easily order their parking agents to cancel any PCN issued.

[atticus]

The letter was sent to a company. Is this your partner's company?

[Huxie]

well done with the posting

Problems with the NTK
1) does not state the period of parking as required by PoFA Sch 4 9 (2) (a)
2)keeper has not been invited to pay the outstanding charges as required by PoFA Sch 9 (2) (e) i

Whether or not you would want to dispute their charge on the basis of their technical failures (they are "musts" and should enable you to win at POPLA or in court but it is always a bit of a lottery!) do take into account the stress factor.


GWF are being stupid and it seems they are losing members.
Our local trust charges £3 per day parking to non members, (free to members,) but privately admit they don't pursue non payers as they want people to come (and perhaps join or get future generations involved)
As principals GWF could easily order their parking agents to cancel any PCN issued.

RE 1) is the period of parking not as shown at the bottom of the box on the right hand side of the first page?

[222helen]

well done with the posting

Problems with the NTK
1) does not state the period of parking as required by PoFA Sch 4 9 (2) (a)
2)keeper has not been invited to pay the outstanding charges as required by PoFA Sch 9 (2) (e) i

Whether or not you would want to dispute their charge on the basis of their technical failures (they are "musts" and should enable you to win at POPLA or in court but it is always a bit of a lottery!) do take into account the stress factor.


GWF are being stupid and it seems they are losing members.
Our local trust charges £3 per day parking to non members, (free to members,) but privately admit they don't pursue non payers as they want people to come (and perhaps join or get future generations involved)
As principals GWF could easily order their parking agents to cancel any PCN issued.

I spoke with GWT and they showed no interest. My partner donated hundreds of pounds each year, all voluntarily but he ceased when one of his friends had a fine for overstaying by a few minutes. He challenged the Trust then (c.2018) and they couldn't care less. We both cancelled our annual memberships and we paid a voluntary £100 each, so it is a decent loss.

I am happy to challenge them on the technicalities; are they less likely to pursue court action knowing they have not met the PoFA regulations? Is there an appeal template I could use please?

[222helen]

The letter was sent to a company. Is this your partner's company?

That surprised us; no, he is retired, and he privately owns the vehicle in question.

[atticus]

But who is the registered keeper?