DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 56801--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: February 5, 2025, 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello. It has been 10 working days since I sent the email you
drafted to ParkingEye and I have had no response from them. I
would appreciate your help in raising a formal complaint with
the BPA.Kind regards,
#Post#: 56844--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: February 6, 2025, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You gave them 14 days to respond. Come back after 14 days have
elapsed if no response by then.
Here is a draft complaint to the BPA about ParkingEye's failure
to respond when you're ready:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint Against ParkingEye – Failure to
Address Keeper Liability & Non-Compliance with BPA Code of
Practice
>
> Dear BPA Compliance Team,
>
> I am writing to formally escalate a complaint against
ParkingEye Ltd regarding their failure to handle a formal
complaint appropriately and their non-compliance with the
BPA/IPC Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
>
> 1. Background of the Complaint
>
> On [date], I submitted a formal complaint to ParkingEye
regarding Parking Charge Notice [PCN Number], issued in relation
to vehicle [Vehicle Registration]. My complaint specifically
raised concerns about their failure to issue a compliant Notice
to Keeper (NtK) in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> The basis of my complaint was:
>
> [indent]• I never received the original NtK.
>
> • ParkingEye's Reminder Notice did not comply with PoFA.
>
> • ParkingEye failed to provide proof of posting (e.g., a Royal
Mail Certificate of Posting) or proof of delivery (e.g.,
tracking or confirmation of receipt), which is required to
establish whether the NtK was served in compliance with
PoFA.[/indent]
>
> 2. ParkingEye’s Inadequate Response & Breach of BPA Code
>
> On [date of PE’s response], ParkingEye responded but failed to
provide strict proof that the NtK was:
>
> [indent]• Properly issued in compliance with PoFA.
>
> • Served on the Keeper within the required statutory
timeframe.
>
> • Delivered via a traceable postal method to establish proper
service.[/indent]
>
> Instead, they merely stated that correspondence was "issued"
on specific dates and attempted to divert my complaint into
their appeals process, which was wholly inappropriate. They also
dismissed my concerns by blaming potential Royal Mail postal
issues, which is neither a valid excuse nor an answer to the
fundamental PoFA compliance concerns.
>
> Given the inadequacy of their response, I followed up on [date
of second email], reiterating the complaint and setting a clear
14-day deadline for response. ParkingEye has now failed to
respond within this timeframe, which is a breach of:
>
> [indent]• BPA’s Code of Practice on complaint handling, which
requires operators to respond in a timely and professional
manner.
>
> • The general principles of fair and transparent treatment of
motorists.[/indent]
>
> 3. BPA’s Required Action
>
> ParkingEye’s failure to respond in good faith and their
refusal to engage with my legitimate concerns constitutes a
procedural failure and a breach of BPA’s oversight
responsibilities. Therefore, I request that the BPA:
>
> [indent]• Investigate ParkingEye’s failure to provide proof of
proper service of the NtK and their failure to handle formal
complaints appropriately.
>
> • Confirm whether ParkingEye’s practices align with the BPA’s
requirements on handling formal complaints, particularly
regarding compliance with PoFA.
>
> • Direct ParkingEye to either provide the requested evidence
or cease pursuing this charge, as they have failed to
demonstrate PoFA compliance.
>
> • Confirm what action will be taken against ParkingEye for
non-compliance with BPA’s standards.[/indent]
>
> 4. Supporting Documentation
>
> I have attached:
>
> [indent]• My original complaint to ParkingEye (dated [date]).
>
> • ParkingEye’s inadequate response (dated [date]).
>
> • My follow-up email (dated [date]) requesting a proper
response.[/indent]
>
> I confirm that ParkingEye has failed to respond within 14
days.
>
> Conclusion
>
> ParkingEye’s failure to engage with formal complaints is not
an isolated incident, and I expect the BPA to uphold its duty to
ensure fair and professional complaint handling among its
Accredited Operators. I request a formal update on this
complaint, along with a timeline for resolution.
>
> I look forward to your prompt response.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 57110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: February 7, 2025, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this. I have submitted a complaint to the BPA today
and they have assigned a case number stating they will respond
within 28 days. I will keep you posted. Once again, many thanks.
#Post#: 59006--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: February 20, 2025, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello. I have had an email from BPA and this is their response:
"Thank you for your enquiry.
Our Role
Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate
alleged breaches of our Code of Practice where evidence can be
supplied and our members internal complaints policy has been
exhausted. We are unable to become involved in individual
Parking Charge disputes.
About your Case
You have stated that the Notice to Keeper and Reminder letter
are not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
however, you have not provided any evidence of this so, we
cannot look into this for you.
The Code of Practice states:
8.1.2 NOTE 2: A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless
the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second
working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this
purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday,
Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
It would up to the motorist to show that the Parking Charge was
not delivered within this timeframe.
Next Steps
I note you have complained to the Operator and they have
referred you to us, unfortunately, as your complaint does not
relate to a breach of the Code of Practice we are unable to
investigate your complaint further.
We are sorry we cannot assist you on this occasion.
Kind regards
British Parking Association"
I am at a loss to understand how anybody proves they did not
receive something!
#Post#: 59066--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: February 20, 2025, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Use the following as a response:
--- Quote ---
> British Parking Association (BPA) Compliance Department
> Haywards Heath Business Park
> 4th Floor, West Point
> 78 Queens Road
> Haywards Heath, RH16 1EB
>
> Subject: Formal Complaint: BPA Response Misrepresenting PoFA
Compliance & Code of Practice Obligations
>
> Dear BPA Compliance Team,
>
> I am writing to formally challenge your response to my
complaint regarding the private parking operator’s failure to
comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section
8.1.2(e) Note 2. Your response was not only evasive but also
misleading in its selective quoting of the BPA’s own Code of
Practice. Given the serious nature of this matter, I request a
substantive response that properly addresses the concerns
raised.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Background & Facts
>
> I initially raised a complaint about the failure of a BPA
member operator to comply with PoFA’s delivery requirements for
a Notice to Keeper (NtK). The BPA responded by quoting PPSCoP
8.1.2(e) Note 2, stating that a notice is presumed to be
delivered two working days after posting unless proven
otherwise. However, your response conveniently omitted the
second half of the same Note, which clearly states:
>
> [quote]“Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of
the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system).”
--- End Quote ---
This omission is crucial, as it misrepresents the obligations
placed upon operators and attempts to shift the burden of proof
onto motorists rather than ensuring compliance from your
members.
---------------------------------------------------------
2. Legal Violations
Your failure to acknowledge the full text of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e)
Note 2 directly contradicts the BPA’s role as a regulatory body
overseeing fair enforcement practices. The following issues
arise:
[indent]
1. Failure to Ensure Code of Practice Compliance: The operator
is required to retain proof of the actual date of posting, not
simply the date the notice was generated. Your response does not
confirm whether the operator has provided this proof.
2. Improper Burden of Proof Allocation: By stating that it is up
to the motorist to disprove the presumption of delivery, you
ignore the requirement that the operator must retain and provide
evidence of posting before such a presumption can apply.
3. Regulatory Oversight Failure: If the BPA does not enforce
this requirement, it undermines the integrity of the entire
enforcement framework and calls into question its role as a
regulatory body.
[/indent]
---------------------------------------------------------
3. Requested BPA Actions
In light of the above, I request that the BPA:
[indent]
1. Provide a clear response on why the second half of PPSCoP
8.1.2(e) Note 2 was omitted from your reply, given its direct
relevance to this complaint.
2. Confirm whether the parking operator has retained actual
proof of posting and, if not, explain what regulatory action the
BPA intends to take.
3. Clarify the BPA’s position on compliance enforcement
regarding PoFA and whether it acknowledges that the presumption
of delivery can only apply if the operator first provides proof
of the actual posting date.
4. Confirm what steps the BPA will take to prevent misleading
responses in future complaints, as this selective quoting
severely undermines trust in the BPA’s role as an oversight
body.
[/indent]
---------------------------------------------------------
4. Next Steps if BPA Fails to Act
If the BPA fails to address these concerns satisfactorily, I
will escalate this matter to:
[indent]
• The DVLA, to report the BPA’s failure to enforce its members’
requirement to keep proof of actual posting of notices, which is
necessary to establish the presumption of delivery.
• My Member of Parliament (MP) and the Ministry for Housing,
Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), to highlight BPA’s
failure to enforce its own Code of Practice and to bring this
matter to the attention of those processing the upcoming Private
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.
• Relevant consumer rights and regulatory bodies, including the
ICO if necessary.
[/indent]
I trust the BPA will handle this matter with the seriousness it
warrants and look forward to your detailed response within 14
days. Should you require any further clarification, I am happy
to provide it.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[/quote]
#Post#: 59191--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: February 21, 2025, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have sent it and will update when I receive a response from
them. Many thanks for your help.
#Post#: 61162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 7, 2025, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello. This is the response that I have received from the BPA
today. Suggesting they get ParkingEye to confirm postal dates is
a complete waste of time as confirmation is not proof.
"Dear C,
Thank you for your response.
Our quote of the single-sector Code of Practice was not done to
mislead. I apologise if you believe it appeared like that.
We have not been provided with evidence to show that the letters
were not posted when Parkingeye have stated so, we would be
unable to advise on this.
With your permission, we can forward your correspondence on to
our contact at Parkingeye ask them to make contact with you and
provide confirmation of the dates letters were posted. If you
would like us to do this, please advise by return email."
#Post#: 61169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: March 7, 2025, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is that the sum total of their response to the letter I drafted
for you?
The formal complaint requires a response to each of the points
raised. The complaint also states what steps to take if the
response does not adequately answer the questions or offer a
suitable solution.
So, please go through the letter that was sent and their
response and highlight the points that they have or have not
complied with. Before you respond to any offer they suggest to
contact the operator on your behalf, show us your understanding
of their response to thee formal complaint.
#Post#: 61181--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 7, 2025, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
THEY HAVE NOT ADEQUATELY RESPONDED TO ANY OF THE LETTER YOU
DRAFTED. THE RESPONSE I POSTED EARLIER IS THE SUM TOTAL OF THEIR
RESPONSE.
REGARDING THE SPECIFIC POINTS RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT…..
1.
8.1.2(e) Note 2 was omitted from your reply, given its direct
relevance to this complaint.
THEIR RESPONSE TO THIS APPEARS TO BE:
“Our quote of the single-sector Code of Practice was not done to
mislead. I apologise if you believe it appeared like that”.
2. Confirm whether the parking operator has retained actual
proof of posting and, if not, explain what regulatory action the
BPA intends to take.
THEIR RESPONSE TO THIS APPEARS TO BE:
“We have not been provided with evidence to show that the
letters were not posted when Parkingeye have stated so, we would
be unable to advise on this.”
3. Clarify the BPA’s position on compliance enforcement
regarding PoFA and whether it acknowledges that the presumption
of delivery can only apply if the operator first provides proof
of the actual posting date.
THEY HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THIS AT ALL
4. Confirm what steps the BPA will take to prevent misleading
responses in future complaints, as this selective quoting
severely undermines trust in the BPA’s role as an oversight
body.
AGAIN, THEY HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THIS AT ALL
#Post#: 61208--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: March 7, 2025, 11:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The BPA’s reply is inadequate, fails to address the specific
points directly, and is evasive on key compliance issues raised.
Their response either deflects or ignores important points
regarding PoFA compliance and their own enforcement
responsibilities. They shift responsibility back to ParkingEye
rather than proactively enforcing compliance.
Respond with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Inadequate Response to Formal Complaint – Request for
Immediate Clarification
>
> Dear BPA Compliance Team,
>
> Thank you for your response dated [insert date]. I grant
permission for the BPA to forward my correspondence to
ParkingEye, with the explicit expectation that ParkingEye
provides documentary evidence (e.g., Royal Mail Certificates of
Posting) confirming the precise dates on which the letters were
issued. I expect the BPA to independently review and verify this
evidence to ensure compliance with both PoFA and the PPSCoP.
>
> However, your reply is incomplete and has failed to fully
address several critical aspects of my original complaint. To
avoid ambiguity, please respond clearly and directly to each of
the following points:
>
> 1. Omission of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) Note 2 (Second Half)
>
> Your previous response merely stated:
>
> [indent]"Our quote of the single-sector Code of Practice was
not done to mislead. I apologise if you believe it appeared like
that."[/indent]
>
> This does not explain why the second half of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e)
Note 2—which explicitly addresses the operator's obligation to
provide evidence of posting—was omitted from your original
reply. Please confirm clearly:
>
> [indent]• The specific reason for omitting this highly
relevant part of PPSCoP from your previous response.[/indent]
>
> 2. Proof of Posting and BPA’s Regulatory Responsibility
>
> You previously stated:
>
> [indent]"We have not been provided with evidence to show that
the letters were not posted when Parkingeye have stated so, we
would be unable to advise on this."[/indent]
>
> This response sidesteps the BPA’s responsibility. The burden
of proof rests with ParkingEye to demonstrate actual compliance,
not on me to prove non-delivery. Therefore, please confirm
explicitly:
>
> [indent]• Whether ParkingEye has provided the BPA with
tangible proof of posting (e.g., Royal Mail Certificate of
Posting).
> • If ParkingEye cannot or has not provided such evidence,
clarify precisely what regulatory action the BPA intends to take
against ParkingEye for this non-compliance.[/indent]
>
> 3. BPA’s Position on PoFA Compliance Enforcement
>
> Your response did not address the following critical point at
all:
>
> [indent]Please clearly clarify:
>
> [indent]• The BPA’s official position on compliance
enforcement relating specifically to PoFA, particularly
regarding whether the statutory presumption of delivery can
lawfully apply only after the parking operator has first
provided documentary proof of the actual posting date.[/indent]
>
> This clarification is critical, as failure to enforce
compliance on this point undermines the entire legislative
framework upon which private parking enforcement
relies.[/indent]
>
> 4. Steps to Prevent Future Misleading or Selective Responses
>
> Your previous response completely ignored this point:
>
> [indent]The selective quoting of PPSCoP by the BPA severely
undermines trust in the BPA’s integrity as an oversight body.
Please explicitly confirm:
>
> [indent]• What measures the BPA will implement to prevent
similar misleading or selective quoting of your own Code of
Practice in responses to future complaints.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> Given the serious implications of these unanswered points,
please respond comprehensively and transparently to each item
above. A prompt and specific reply is expected, as these matters
relate directly to BPA’s obligations to ensure fairness,
transparency, and accountability from accredited operators.
>
> I look forward to your swift and comprehensive response.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Your Reference/PCN Number]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page