DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: March 26, 2025, 9:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That appears to be from the BPA. It only shows that the letter
was sent to the mail consolidator on that date. It is not proof
of the date that the letter entered the postal system.
What is this other email that is referenced??
HTML https://i.imgur.com/XjaG7Ho.png
#Post#: 64224--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 26, 2025, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I assume that the first one is the Notice to Keeper (that did
not arrive) and the second one is the reminder that I received
on 3rd January. Can you confirm what are the likely next steps
from ParkingEye now that the BPA have closed the case? The SAR
will likely take weeks to come back (I have had no notification
that they have been received). Many thanks.
#Post#: 64233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: March 26, 2025, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No way that a reminder is sent only 9 days after the original
NtK. What you have been given by the BPA is not evidence of
posting. It is only evidence of issue.
Their own CoP clearly states in section 8.1.2:
[indent]"...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.)[/inddnt]
#Post#: 64632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 28, 2025, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello. I have received an email today from ParkingEye. They are
just reiterating what they have said before and as proof of
postage have shown a section from the report from the mail
consolidator (exactly the same as the BPA provided)…..
“We are writing in response to your recent correspondence
regarding Parking Charge reference xxxx, which was passed to us
by the British Parking Association.
The signage located at Home Bargains Shipley confirms the
customer only car park has a 2-hour maximum stay period in
operation. Vehicle registration xxxx remained within the car
park on 18/12/2024 for 2 hours 21 minutes, therefore the terms
and conditions were breached and the Parking Charge was
incurred.
Our records confirm that correspondence was issued via the post
on 21/12/2024 and 30/12/2024. We do appreciate your frustrations
regarding the postal issues; however, any Royal Mail postal
issues are unfortunately out Parkingeye’s control. Our mail
consolidator report shows the below record of postage :-
We can confirm that complaint reference #xxxx, received on
04/01/2025 via our website was responded to via email on
22/01/2025. Copies of the postal correspondence were provided,
together with the appeals procedure, our website link and postal
address. The case was placed on hold to allow you to submit an
appeal, or make a payment at the discounted amount.
Our records show that no appeal has been received to date and
Parking Charge xxxx remains outstanding at £60.00.”
#Post#: 64643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: March 28, 2025, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Her sis why they have not shown that their NtK is PoFA
compliant:
PoFA 9(6) – Presumption of Delivery
[indent]“A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for
the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day
after the day on which it is posted.”[/indent]
This is a rebuttable presumption. It is not absolute. The burden
of proof lies initially on the recipient (keeper), who must
provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.
What constitutes “proof to the contrary”?
To rebut the presumption, courts often require:
[indent]• Evidence raising reasonable doubt about delivery by
the presumed date.
• Evidence that is more than mere assertion. A simple “I didn’t
receive it” is usually not enough.[/indent]
Where applicable, independent supporting evidence, such as:
[indent]• Proof of address accuracy issues
• Patterns of misdelivered post (e.g. letters arriving late or
at wrong address)
• Evidence of the notice being sent second class or bulk mail
without guaranteed delivery standards
• Absence of proof of actual date of posting (e.g. no franking
or Post Office receipt)
• Poor scan quality or metadata anomalies in the operator’s
documentation.[/indent]
The presumption of service under Section 7 of the Interpretation
Act 1978 also depends on proper addressing, prepaying, and
posting. If the operator fails to prove these points, the
presumption is not made out at all.
You may argue:
[indent]“The operator has failed to discharge the evidential
burden of proving that the notice was properly addressed,
pre-paid, and posted as required by Section 7 of the
Interpretation Act 1978. Accordingly, the presumption of service
cannot apply, or is rebutted.”[/indent]
If the operator cannot prove posting on a specific date (e.g. no
timestamp, no proof of mailing), they cannot benefit from the
presumption of delivery under either PoFA or the Interpretation
Act.
So, if you raise a substantive challenge to the operator’s claim
of delivery and they fail to provide conclusive or adequate
evidence, that can amount to the “contrary being proved”. It
does not need to be a guaranteed rebuttal — a balance of
probabilities is sufficient. If the operator relies on
assumptions or generic processes, rather than specific proof of
posting and addressing, you can argue the presumption is
displaced.
I would respond to ParkingEye with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Re: Parking Charge Reference [xxxx]
> Vehicle Registration: [xxxx]
>
> Formal Complaint – Continued
>
> I refer to your recent correspondence following the British
Parking Association’s (BPA) referral of my complaint back to
you. Regrettably, your latest response entirely fails to address
the core issue raised in my original complaint, namely that the
Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not received, and therefore the
requirement under Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) — that the notice be “given” by the
14th day following the date of the alleged contravention — has
not been met.
>
> You rely on a mail consolidator report as proof of posting.
However, PoFA 2012 requires more than internal records or
generic process documentation to demonstrate that a notice was
“given” within the statutory timeframe. Paragraph 9(6) of PoFA
makes clear that the presumption of delivery on the second
working day after posting only applies “unless the contrary is
proved.”
>
> That presumption is now rebutted.
>
> I reiterate that the NtK dated 21/12/2024 was not received,
and you have not provided any evidence capable of displacing
that assertion. Your reference to a mail consolidator report
lacks essential details such as:
>
> The actual date of physical posting,
> Confirmation that the mail was properly addressed, including
full and correct flat/building numbers,
> The class of post used (e.g. first-class, second-class, or
non-priority),
> Proof that the notice was handed over to Royal Mail for
delivery, as required under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act
1978 to even engage the presumption of delivery.
> Without these, the presumption under PoFA 9(6) cannot stand.
It is insufficient to simply state that something was “issued”
internally. Unless it was demonstrably posted and delivered
within the prescribed timeframe, the statutory presumption of
proper service does not apply.
>
> Moreover, as PoFA compliance hinges on the notice being
“given”, and your evidence fails to establish this, keeper
liability has not been established in accordance with Schedule
4.
>
> It is deeply unsatisfactory that a complaint specifically
concerning the failure to demonstrate that a NtK was “given” has
been dismissed based solely on a generic mail consolidator
report, which does not itself prove that the notice was
correctly addressed, prepaid and actually entered into the
postal system. The requirement is not proof of delivery but
rather proof of posting; only once proper posting is established
does the statutory presumption of delivery arise. In this case,
no such evidence has been provided beyond bare assertions and
internal batch data, which are insufficient to satisfy the
requirements of the Interpretation Act 1978 or to displace a
credible assertion that the NtK was not received.
>
> I again request that this Parking Charge be cancelled, and
formal confirmation of cancellation provided. If you persist in
pursuing this charge without satisfying the requirements of
Schedule 4, I will escalate the matter to the DVLA and other
relevant bodies for review of both your conduct and that of the
BPA.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> [Address if not already provided]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 64692--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: March 28, 2025, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the draft letter. I have sent it and will update when
I get a response.
#Post#: 67098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: Waggytail
Date: April 14, 2025, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is ParkingEye's response to the letter you drafted - they
have not addressed any of the points made......
"Dear Ms. X
We are writing in relation to your below correspondence
regarding Parking Charge reference xxxxxxxx
Our records confirm that the Notice to Keeper was issued on
Saturday, 21/12/2024 and was deemed served on the second working
day - Tuesday, 24/12/2024. A further letter was issued on
Monday, 30/12/2024, which you have acknowledged receiving on
Friday, 03/01/2025.
Please be advised that there is no requirement for us to send
correspondence via recorded delivery. We have provided
sufficient evidence confirming that the letter was sent via our
mailing provider. We have no incentive to withhold
correspondence, as it is in our interest for matters to be
resolved promptly, either through payment or appeal, rather than
through referral to debt recovery agents or legal proceedings.
Our position therefore remains unchanged. As a gesture of
goodwill, the Parking Charge remains payable at the discounted
rate of £60.00. The same rate that was applicable when the
initial Notice to Keeper was issued. The case has been placed on
hold at this amount for 7 days.
Payment can be made by telephoning 0330 555 4444, by visiting
www.parkingeye.co.uk/payments or by posting a cheque/postal
order to Parkingeye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ. Please
ensure you write your reference number on the reverse of any
cheque/postal order so the payment can be allocated.
We have now closed this complaint, and no further responses will
be issued via this process."
I assume from this that if I don't pay within 7 days they will
pass it to debt recovery agents?
#Post#: 67144--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge Notice from Parkingeye, Home
Bargains, Shipley
DIR By: b789
Date: April 15, 2025, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but you can safely ignore all debt recovery agents. They
are powerless to do anything except to scare the low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and
fear.
You now have plenty of evidence of having raised the issue of
non receipt of the original notice and they are aware of that.
When you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), come back and let us
know.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page