The BPA quite clearly states that a uniform must be worn and ID carried at all times. I was also privy to the RIPA laws being a Station Officer in the fire service where our appliances were fitted with image recording devices. The law is also quite clear about recording images of minors without prior knowledge or permission. And you are right, I might let it lie. Just to have Minster Baywatch exposed as charlatans in the press was probably enough.

The 3 independent witness statements that I provided to the courts backed up my claim that these operatives were taking furtive, and secretive photos on their mobiles of parents momentarily stopped to drop young children off at the York College sports field. This came to light because I noticed on one of these occasions a person dressed in all black, with a "beanie" hat on was slowly spinning around holding his mobile device in front of him. He was wearing earphones. I asked all the parents in the vicinity if they knew this man. No one did, so I assumed he was taking images of the young children (under 10's football team) I followed him back to his unmarked van and challenged him. He would not say who he was I removed him from his van with the intention of taking him to security. At this point he said that he was one of Minsters operatives, but had no liveried inform and could not produce any ID. The only thing that he had was some noted paper with a Minster Baywatch address. One of the 3 witness statements is from one of the security guards on duty that night. I maintain that this is how they issued many PCN's, totally against the BPA code of conduct. The PNC issued to me showed 4 photographs only 33 seconds apart as their evidence that I was in breach of their contract!! I am sure many people, unlike me, just pay the reduced invoice of £30 to save hassle. Shameful and shocking behaviour!

ty

>>>>>>> Why am I not surprised? I was informed by the Consumer watch Group that your organisation is toothless and is completely biased towards your “paying” members. Indeed, why would you suspend or issue penalty points to one of your members so that they are unable to pay you? Be forewarned, and as In have stated previously, that this matter is far from over. I shall now be taking legal advice as to how to proceed against Minster Baywatch. Any form of action will include the investigations and the totally inadequate, biased decision from the BPA. Refusing to accept THREE signed independent witness accounts ,accepted by the law courts as facts. Instead, you state “that the BPA are unable to come to a conclusion as to which version of events is true” THREE signed independent witness accounts that would be subject to perjury if they were untrue. I suggest that you ask Minster to produce similar signed witness statements to refute the facts instead of you just accepting the word of their operatives who are LYING to save their jobs or be saved from further discipline. I suggest you read YOUR OWN code of conduct regarding your members and apply it not only to them but to your organisation and staff members. It is no wonder that the private parking firms are detested by the public whilst they are being menaced and harassed with lookalike PCN’s and demands from debt collection agencies. And you advocate these underhand tactics by your inactions. Shameful. From: AOS Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 2:21 PMTo: Subject: BPA- Your complaint regarding Minster Baywatch - Case Number Dear Firstly please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your recent correspondence. I know these matters can cause undue worry and concern and that is not our intention, we want to assist where best we can and with a clear understanding of the situation. With regard to your particular concerns my comments are as follows: · Regarding the witness statements, there are conflicting reports as statements from independent witnesses have subsequently not been recognised by Minster Baywatch. I therefore reiterate that the BPA are unable to come to a conclusion as to which version of events is true. Cleary this is disappointing for you to hear but I do hope you understand that we are unable to intervene any further on this matter. · Regarding the alleged harassment used by Minster Baywatch and other appointed agencies in pursuing you for payment of an outstanding parking charge notice, I believe that the processes followed and the communication from our members to you throughout the process was in line with the standards as set out our Code of Practice for Parking on Private Land and that no breach took place. I have had sight of the correspondence used to communicate with you in regard to the parking charge notice and am confident that these have been set out in an appropriate way using language that was acceptable and in line with our Code. I understand that you feel that these were unfair and in breach of our Code but I do not contend this is the case. I am confident that we have carried out a thorough investigation into your case and have responded to the matters you have raised fairly and appropriately and with clarity. Please note that the BPA is an independent membership association and we are accountable only to our members. As I am sure you are aware and has previously been advised we are not a regulator and as a consequence are not directly accountable to any particular body. However the BPA and our members are expected to comply with the law of the land and we ourselves with company law. We do take concerns or complaints from members of the public very seriously. In 2016-17 we responded to nearly 6000 written enquiries regarding parking on private land alone. If there is anything else we can be assistance with then please do let me know. However please do understand that regarding the matters above we will not be investigating the case any further. Kind regards, Dave Smith Head of Public Affairs and Research British Parking Association British Parking Association Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3BN From: AOS Sent: 22 June 2017 15:26 To: Subject: BPA- Your complaint regarding Minster Baywatch - Case Number Dear Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in our response. I am writing on behalf of colleague, Dave Smith, who is currently out of the office and will respond upon his return (23/06/2017). Kind Regards, Esme Berry Compliance Investigations Officer British Parking Association Tel: 01444 255 940 From: Sent: 21 June 2017 22:59 To: AOS Subject: Fw: BPA-Your complaint regarding Minster Baywatch - Case Number No response, or even acknowledgement of, to my E-mail from 5 days ago? Please forward the details of the person or organisation to whom you are responsible. Given that your organisation benefits financially from having Minster Baywatch as a member you are obviously impartial and are subject to “confirmation bias” From: Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:40 PM To: AOS Subject: Re: BPA- Your complaint regarding Minster Baywatch - Case Number Once again. An absolute complete disregard for the FACTS. Quote>> You previously expressed your concern that Minster Baywatch were in breach of our Code of Practice due to the parking attendant on site not wearing a uniform as well as not having his ID badge to hand on the 23/11/2015 and 14/12/2015. You provided witness statements to support this claim. In line with our standard investigation process, we contacted the operator for their comments and provided them with a copy of the witness statements. The operator disputed the claim that the parking attendant was not wearing a uniform or their ID badge on the 23/11/2015 and 14/12/2015. As there was conflicting reports from both parties on this issue the BPA were unable to come to a conclusion as to which version of events were true. I have provided three INDEPENDENT witness statements to validate THE TRUTH. All of whom work for the organisation who employ Minster Baywatch.These witness statements were accepted as a true account by the law courts and are on permanent record. You have accepted a “report” from Minster Baywatch that they “disputed the claim” With ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIM. And the “BPA were unable to come to a conclusion as to which version of events were true” Shocking, shameful and completely unacceptable. You have totally disregarded, or have purposefully refused to comment on, the number of demands of differing amounts made by Minster and other appointed agencies to harass me into paying. This is in complete contravention of YOUR OWN code of conduct regarding the public and fairness. Please be aware that this matter is far from over. You are shirking your responsibilities and are not carrying out your designated function either through sheer reluctance or complete bias on behalf of one of your paying members. Please forward the details of the body or organisation that you are accountable to. If this information is not provided within 7 days please be aware that I shall be taken this matter through the civil courts. Do not under estimate my resolve in this matter. This incident is in the interests of all members of the public who should be treated fairly. I await your response, From: AOS Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 3:17 PM To: Subject: BPA-Your complaint regarding Minster Baywatch - Case Number Dear Thank you for your patience whilst I looked into this matter. Unfortunately the court letter you have provided does not state specifically as to why the claim was dismissed. As the recognised authority in parking the British Parking Association is actively representing and promoting the sector by advancing knowledge, raising standards and professionalism, and using its influence to deliver excellence for the benefit of all. Placing the consumer at the heart of our thinking is one of our objectives in our five year strategy. By being a member of our Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) a private parking company is part of an Accredited Trade Association and is able to request the registered keeper’s details if they have ‘reasonable cause’. A condition of being a member of the Approved Operator Scheme is that the private parking company must adhere to our Code of Practice. Whilst we, the British Parking Association, are able to investigate breaches of our code of Practice we do not have the authority to become involved in individual disputes between a motorist and a private parking operator or their agent. All AOS members should allow the driver a grace period at the beginning of the parking period to give the driver time to read the terms and conditions and decide whether they wish to stay in the car park. This grace period will vary from site to site as it will be dependent of the size and layout of the concerned car park. It is not a requirement of the Code of Practice that the photographs of the vehicle reflect the duration of time that the vehicle was observed. In this case, where photographs were taken 33 second apart, we are satisfied that no breach has occurred and will therefore not be looking at this point further. Please note the 10 minute grace period referred to in the Code only applies at the end of the parking contract to allow the motorist a reasonable period to leave the car park before enforcement action is taken. You previously expressed your concern that Minster Baywatch were in breach of our Code of Practice due to the parking attendant on site not wearing a uniform as well as not having his ID badge to hand on the 23/11/2015 and 14/12/2015. You provided witness statements to support this claim. In line with our standard investigation process, we contacted the operator for their comments and provided them with a copy of the witness statements. The operator disputed the claim that the parking attendant was not wearing a uniform or their ID badge on the 23/11/2015 and 14/12/2015. As there was conflicting reports from both parties on this issue the BPA were unable to come to a conclusion as to which version of events were true. In addition the court judgement you have provided does not confirm that the case was dismissed due to the court considering your account of events to be true. The operator advised us that on the 30/11/2015 the parking attendant at the concerned site was not wearing a high visibility jacket but still had his ID badge on him. The operator had already applied their own internal procedures to address this matter. In lieu of the steps the operator had taken to rectify this breach of the Code, we did not issue sanction points. Under this scheme Operators who breach the Code may expect to receive a number of sanction points dependent upon the breach. It is at the BPA’s discretion as to whether sanction points will be issued. I hope that you will appreciate that such disciplinary action is confidential and I am unable to inform you of any specific details regarding any member of the AOS Scheme. I can conclude, after reviewing case BPA-, that the investigation was conducted in line with our standard investigations process and I am confident that we previously investigated every point raised which was within our remit to investigate. The outcome of our investigation has not changed and we will not be looking into this matter further. Kind Regards, Dave Smith Head of Public Affairs and Research British Parking Association Email: Web: Sent: 01 June 2017 12:09 To: Esme Berry Subject: Re: BPA- Your complaint regarding Minster Baywatch - Case Number Esme, further to my e-mail. I have just received a response from DVLA in which it has put the ball back in your court. It states that you have the duty to ensure that it’s members carry out it’s functions ‘within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorists and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators” This is clearly not the case in relation to Minster. I await your response. Regards, From: Esme Berry Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:01 PM To: Subject: BPA- Your complaint regarding Minster Baywatch - Case Number Dear Mr Thank you for your patience whilst I look into this matter. My name is Esme Berry and I am currently in the process of reviewing of your case BPA I will be back in contact once I have I have completed my review. Kind Regards, Esme Berry Compliance Investigations Officer British Parking Association Tel: 01444 255 940 Email: From: Steve Clark Sent: 24 May 2017 16:11 To: Dear Mr Thanks for your e-mail and for understanding my position with regard to phone dialogue. I have given this matter some considerable thought and propose the following; · That your case be re-opened - its file number is and I would aske that this is used in future correspondence. · That a senior member of my team look at your case with a fresh set of eyes - Esme has been copied in for this purpose · That her investigation is overseen by another member of the BPA Senior Management Team - Dave Smith - again copied to this e-mail. The reason for this proposal is that I believe that in the interests of fairness, I should recuse myself from this matter. I hope you accept my proposition and Esme will be in contact with you shortly. Regards Steve Clark Head of Operational Services British Parking Association Tel: 01444 447307 Email: To: Steve Clark Cc: Subject: minster baywatch Importance: High Mr Clark, Given your unwillingness to try and resolve this matter by dialogue it leaves me with no alternative but to raise this matter through the official channels. Given that the County Court at York decided in my favour and accepted that my version of events were the true account I would like BPA to accept this E-mail as a letter of complaint. Please be aware that I have also made a complaint to DVLA regarding the disclosure of my personal details. The complaint is in two parts. 1. That Minster Baywatch were in breach of your rules and indeed maybe the law with regard to “reasonable cause” in applying to DVLA for my personal details. (BPA Code of Practice 13 and 21.4 regarding the DVLA requirements) The photographs on the PCN were taken only 33 seconds apart and given the fact that the latest guidelines now suggest up to 10 minutes Minster have not used “reasonable cause” Your reply to my previous complaint stated >>>> · Pictures provided by Minster Baywatch – In this instance you are seeking to persuade me that the ticket was NOT appropriately issued and I do not believe that this is within my remit – I would respectfully suggest that this is for a Court to decide. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether Minster Baywatch have breached the Code here and as a consequence no further action will be taken on this point at this time. From: Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:48 PM To: [ 2. That Minster Baywatch were in breach of your rules regarding the dress code on numerous occasions (BPA Code 9.1) and that their staff have not been factual about this being a regular event. The witness statements I have provided from 3 separate sources are now on permanent record as being the true account. I refer you to your statement in your response to my allegations >>>>>>>> • While not wearing the complete uniform is a serious matter there was sufficient evidence provided to me by Minster Baywatch that the transgression in this instance did not set out to disguise their operatives or mislead the public. Not only was it accepted that they were not wearing the correct uniform it was also accepted that they were not wearing any form of ID Now that my version of events is now on permanent record and has been accepted as the true account I shall expect that you will revisit this matter. I have also attached a number of documents relating to Minster and other debt collecting agencies who have harassed me over a period of 18 months with threatening letters and demanding varying amounts of money. All of the attached documents are copies of the originals accepted by the courts. I would appreciate early acknowledgement of receipt of this e-mail

Minster Baywatch took me to court and I won. I then complained to the BPA that their operatives were not wearing uniforms and were taking furtive and secretive photographs and then sending PCN's to persons who were momentarily stopped to drop young children off at the sports complex at York College. I Had THREE independant witnesses from York College present written witness statements at the court. BPA said that Minster Baywatch disputed the statements but OFFERED NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. They questioned their operative who said that the only item of uniform that was missing was his hig viz. A TOTAL LIE confirmed by 3 independent signed witness statements and accepted as a true record of the facts in a court of law BPA concluded that they could not issue points or sanctions because they could not conclude that the Minster operatives were not wearing uniforms or any form of ID. Convenient as Minster pay a membership fee to the BPA How do I take this further to have the BPA and MInster accountable for their actions. See press report below Link to yorkpress website and type in Minster baywatch. Mark Hamilton