Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'minster'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums


  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Found 8 results

  1. Here's the chain of events, any advice appreciated! Thursday 23rd November 2017 - "An authorised driver" parked my wife's car in a restaurant car park in York, went in to the restaurant to ask if a payment could be made to park until Sunday 26th (Minster Baywatch didn't offer anything above a "3 hours + until 6am" option). £15 paid and a hand written receipt was issued, showing the registration number of the car, and confirming authorisation to park from 23rd to 26th. No other writing on the receipt that stated the receipt needed to be kept on display in the car. Friday 24th November - Parking Charge Notice issued by Minster Baywatch, reason stated that no valid parking ticket was being displayed. Sunday 26th November - Car removed from car park within the agreed time. Saturday 30th December - NTK received. We have made no contact so far with Minster Baywatch. The NTK shows photographs of the car confirming no ticket being displayed on the dashboard. My main question is, because the driver went directly to the restaurant and made an agreement with them, with nothing confirming that their receipt needed to be kept on display, does this in any way override any presumed contract with the parking operator? Any advice appreciated. I have redacted scans of the NTK and receipt from the restaurant, so far keep getting an error when I try to upload them , will continue to try and get them uploaded. Thanks! Scans attached.... Doc1.pdf
  2. I recently visited Brecon Cathedral and due to unforseen circumstances must have been a few minutes late back to my car. A week later I received a parking demand of £60 for Minster Baywatch Parking. I wasn't very happy but immediately paid the fine online. I didn't receive a confirmation email so checked on my online bank account and found the payment in Pending Transactions so thought all was ok. Four weeks later I received a letter saying I hadn't paid and now had to pay £155. It also stated that if I didn't pay they would forward the debt to a debt collection agency. You cannot contact the company by telephone so I telephoned my bank. They said that if the money is is not collected from the account, the pending transaction will disappear without trace. I then paid the £155 bill online as I had no proof that I had previously paid the £60 online. I feel that Minster Baywatch have deliberately not collected the payment from my bank so that they could then almost triple the charge without any comeback on them. I wondered if anyone else had had this problem and what if anything they could do about it. I have emailed Minster Baywatch but had no reply
  3. a description of the issue: Blossom St, York, Car Park, the amount of money involved £160.00 any relevant dates: 27th July. I parked behind the old cinema on Blossom St York, bought a parking ticket for £1.50, which I though was for 2hours, didn't check the time on the ticket, as I was in a rush. However I was 10 minutes late, the expiry time on the ticket was 11.51 and I got to the car around 12pm, I was therefore late. I was there due to work commitment, an exam at a local dental practise which over ran, I was under the assumption that I had parking until after 12pm. then 2 weeks later I received a PCN from Minster Baywatch LTD, which under some advise I ignored, however those letters have now accumulated and I received a letter from Gladstone Solicitors, I have received a letter before claim- demanding £160. 00. Has anyone else received anything of this nature, and will I be taken to court, it seems really unfair, considering I was only 10 minutes late. Please advise? SR
  4. I received a Notice to Keeper in relation to a PCN from Minster Baywatch. I appealed stating I would not name the driver the fee covering the time the vehicle was there was paid in full (they state payment covering the full duration of the stay was not paid) and there is a witness to this. Obviously they refused this, I only found out about their refusal when I received a further notice demanding now £155 it was originally £60 then £100 and now £155. I called and was informed they emailed their response on 15th March. They absolutely did not no email was received at all and I requested a copy which they have sent in the form of a letter. Where can I go from here I am willing to go to court over it at the money was paid. The vehicle was parked for less than an hour and the fee paid covered 2 hours. They state “having thoroughly examined the payment records for the date and time in question we can find no payment having been made for your vehicle” but provide no evidence. “As the keeper of the vehicle you remain liable for the charge, under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, we are therefore declining your appeal as the keeper” – Are they allowed to keep adding to the charge? Where do I stand with this I have never received a parking ticket and just don’t know what to do. It also states in the letter I can appeal to POPLA within 28 days but their failure to send the email means I’m out of time for this and they say “by law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Service provide an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA” – To me this makes no sense they’re saying I have a right in law but they’ll ignore the law? They also have put in a paragraph quoting a “landmark Court decision” and this feels a bit like a threat they might as well say don’t bother challenging us we’ll win! Can they do this as it’s kind of threatening in my opinion. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, if the £2.50 wasn’t paid then I wouldn’t argue but their fee was paid the machine gave an exit time of two hours later but it feels like I’m fighting a losing battle L One last thing the machine was one of those that did not give out a ticket to display, the registration needs to be entered and money paid. Stupidly no receipt was obtained.
  5. I bought a ticket from a machine for a car park patrolled by Minster Baywatch. I bought a ticket for 2 hours' parking and clearly displayed it on the windscreen. I returned after an hour and a half and had been issued with a ticket with a charge of £100 reducing to £60 if paid within a fortnight. The reason given was that a valid permit was not displayed. This is very confusing as I had paid for parking and was not aware that a permit was also required. I doubt their appeals procedure as any appeal forfeits the right to reduced payment. I really don't know where I stand on this. Should they have accepted my money? I know that in the past this kind of ticket could be ignored and they would give up and go away but I don't know if this is still the case.
  6. Hi, this is my first time on a forum so apologies in advance for the length of this posting. We owned a 1934 classic car and in October 2011 it was being transported to a venue by a reputable carrier in whose tow vehicle my husband was a passenger. Unfortunately the car was totally destroyed when the carrier's driver lost control and both vehicles somersaulted across three lanes of the motorway. The carrier accepted liability and, as we had legal cover and it seemed a straightforward case, our insurers passed us onto Minster Law to handle the claim. Problems arose very soon after the claim was initiated. A friend, who is by co-incidence the head of a legal department with another insurance company, told us to claim as cargo, but Minster insisted the claim be handled as a RTA, even though our car was actually being transported by a third party. Months went by until eventually, the TP's insurers offered a ridiculously low sum in settlement, despite them having a certified receipt for the vehicle. (Anyone with any knowledge of classic cars would know that values actually increase with age, plus ours had been maintained in top condition.) They then deducted a high amount for salvage based on the assumption that because it was a specialist car we could disassemble it ourselves and sell it for parts!!! Minster suggested another option so we declined the offer and were told that court papers were being prepared - indeed they sent us a copy of the official notification. Still matters dragged on. We had to frequently chase for updates and answers to questions, some of which were totally ignored. We were worried because our car was being stored at a specialist garage and charges were growing daily. Getting desperate, we asked for copies of letters relating to our case. They were promised several times but nothing ever materialized. Then, in September 2012 we were informed, out of the blue, that Minster had received a cheque from the TP's insurers. Since we were under the illusion that court proceedings were pending, we were aghast that they had accepted this. When we queried it, we received a curt letter, which basically said 'like it or lump it'. The handler claimed it was an interim payment, that she had advised us previously to accept the offer (she hadn't) and we went against her advice. She intimated that our car was not worth the money we'd paid for it. She also told us we are now liable for storage charges from the date of the cheque. No further mention was made of court action. We reluctantly accepted the payment on the basis that we could still dispute the valuation but my husband phoned our insurers to report our unhappiness with the way things had progressed and also contacted the Complaints department at Minster Law. The claims handler suddenly went on long-term sick leave and the case was transferred to someone else. Despite this, the position remains unchanged. Minster refused to fight the claim as cargo and since we have continued to argue the valuation they are now refusing to act any further on our behalf. They ask that any new solicitor submit a 'lien'. We have no idea what this is, but it sounds ominous and expensive. Despite our requests for a meeting with the Complaints department, they say they cannot see any benefit in it. We invested my husband's entire redundancy payment in that car and had just started up a wedding business, but that has now been blown out of the water, yet we're not asking for compensation, only for justice. None of this was our fault, we've acted honestly and in good faith throughout, yet it feels like we're being punished for trusting: a) the carrier to transport our vehicle safely: b) the insurers to play fair and c) the lawyers who are supposed to be looking after our best interests. How can this seemingly straightforward case have gone so badly wrong? Answers on a postage stamp please!
  7. I was involved in RTA almost 2 years ago, suffered concussion , some bruising, 3rd party admitted liability, witnesses, clear cut case, with my insurance policy at time turns out that Minster Law would be handling my case, I have had a general feeling of incompetence with ML handling this case, why has it taken nearly 2 years to settle, I had email year ago informing me of change of staff, someone new has taken over my case file . Ok, fine, acceptable stuff. Then another email 6 months later, same again. Late October I had the new ML employee phone me and apologise for the change in staff, delay, but assured me all would be settled before end of 2014, Now I have received another email (Jan 2015) , once again, change in staff, and case is under review for another 6 weeks. my gut feel is that ML are just not processing the case in a competent manner, and why have we still not settled, I have emailed them in past, but all I got in return was generic letter saying if they need any more info they will contact me, I feel like escalating this now, writing to Ombudsman, or Law Society, I have found this web article in Law Gazette http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/minster-law-axes-17-in-management-shake-up/5043150.fullarticle http://www.spencerssolicitors.com/accident-guides/how-long-will-a-personal-injury-claim-take-to-settle.html according to above guide lines, based on my offer from 3rd party, case should have taken no more than 9 months this does not add confidence to my current position all advice welcome, what would you do ? I have read quite a few bad reports on ML on web
  8. The above PPC lost yet another court case today. Among other things that worked against them was the confusion over who was bringing the claim and whether they were a legal entity. There is some sort of peculiar tie-up between Minster and another company called Bransby Wilson and it was a Mr Wilson from the latter company that attended court. To quote the successful defendant :- What is clear is that unless you exist as a legal entity, and can prove you have either contractual authority to act as agent, or are the landowner you cannot charge people for parking on your land, and certainly cannot pursue costs - irrespective of whether they would clearly be considered 'penalties' or 'fines'.
  • Create New...