Minster Baywatch v Ms S C9GF3H7A York 13/1/2017
Minster Baywatch were claiming Ms S stayed a minute over the grace period. However in their Gladstones evidence pack, they disclosed that the timings between the Terminal (P&D) and the ANPR were out by the minute they were claiming Ms S was over.
Minster Baywatch’s vexatious behaviour has cost them once again – that’s if they ever pay up!
Ms S was sent a parking charge notice nearly one year ago, on the mysterious basis that the “Parking covering visit duration was not paid (York – Blossom Street)”.
From start to finish the letters that Ms S had to endure were unprofessional and some even unreadable from both Minster Baywatch and Gladstones. Ms S went through the appeals process with Popla but after a months wait her case was refused. Gladstones demands changed on every letter and the spelling and grammar should have been much better from a solicitors practice.
Minster Baywatch tried to mislead the court by claiming that Ms S overstayed by less than 2 minutes after the grace period. Minster Baywatch commenced the contract from the ANPR camera and not the time of when the contract started (drop of coin). The BPA clearly state that ‘Private Car Parks’ need to give a grace period before the contract starts to see if they wish to abide by it. In this instance, Ms S took nearly 2 minutes to get a ticket. Ms S paid her £1 for one hour at 17.27 (pay and display terminal time) and left the car park at 18:37 (ANPR time). There was therefore no overstay.
Gladstones Solicitors are well known for sending witness statements at the last minute, they truly lived up to their reputation once again by posting it to the defendant a day late.
The inexperienced lady from Minster Baywatch, joined by 2 colleagues, read her Gladstones produced template witness statement to the court on the day of the first hearing (30th November 2016).
The statement had many flaws - from enhanced pictures from their ANPR machine without a full number plate to not having the correct contract with the land owner. The claim was adjourned for another month for them to rustle up a contract.
Ms S sent a drop hands letter by recorded delivery to Gladstones to give them a chance to discontinue but they failed to take their chance by not responding to the letter.
On the second court appearance, Friday the 13th January 2017, Minster Baywatch presented the land owners contract to the court and the case continued. The motorist's defence was that the timings were inconsistent with the BPA’s guidelines and that the lovely lady from Minster Baywatch stated in the first court appearance that they don’t just give 10 minutes grace, that the BPA stipulate, they give 11 minutes. The court announced that Minster Baywatch’s signs were inconsistent around the car park and were confusing. The timings of the ANPR cameras and pay and display machine were also inconsistent, and the claim was dismissed.
Ms S was awarded her costs, paid within 14 days.
What a surprise that Ms S, 3 weeks on, has not received any payment for her costs yet.
Ms S can now take enforcement action against Minster Baywatch.
The Parking Prankster