DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59872--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: b789
Date: February 27, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver’s condition is classed as a protected characteristic
under the Equality Act 2010 (EA).
Under Section 6 of the EA 2010, a person is considered disabled
if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a
substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to
carry out normal day-to-day activities.
In this case:
[indent]• Physical impairment: The driver has a replacement
knee, relies on a walking stick, and is awaiting another knee
replacement.
• Substantial effect: Mobility is clearly restricted, impacting
normal activities like walking and standing.
• Long-term: The condition is ongoing, with further medical
intervention planned. A condition lasting 12 months or more
qualifies as long-term.[/indent]
Application under the EA 2010:
[indent]• The driver meets the definition of disability under
the Act.
• This means they are entitled to reasonable adjustments, such
as adequate disabled parking provisions and exemptions from
unfair penalties where mobility limitations are a
factor.[/indent]
As this is related to a private parking charge, ParkingEye has a
legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, and failure to do so
amounts to disability discrimination.
#Post#: 59877--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: February 27, 2025, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So will it be possible to appeal without identifying the driver?
It will only be the driver that is able to evidence the
disability and so evidencing that will, by necessity, result in
identification of the driver, unless evidencing the disability
is not required for making the appeal.
#Post#: 59887--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: b789
Date: February 27, 2025, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In this case, yes, it is better to appeal as the driver. They
will need to provide some evidence of their disability.
#Post#: 59888--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 27, 2025, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed - the downside of throwing away some potential PoFA
arguments is outweighed by the merits of the driver's arguments
re. their mobility, in my view.
#Post#: 60308--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: March 3, 2025, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> OK. Remind us in a few days to put together an appeal based on
the information you have provided and the technical failures in
their NtK.
>
--- End Quote ---
Would it be possible for you to provide me with some draft
wording to go into the appeal letter please? I am conscious
that if the appeal reveals the identity of the driver the NtK
defects pretty much become irrelevant.
My friend has said that the driver is prepared to go to court if
necessary to clear this charge, being utterly appalled by the
approach taken. One thing the keeper noted was that there is no
mention on the signage that ParkingEye only expect to allow 5
minutes to park. The driver had taken longer than this to find
a space which would allow exiting the car before getting to the
machine and sign to find that parking over 24 hours was not
allowed. If the sign had in fact said that drivers were only
allowed 5 minutes before they become liable to pay for parking,
a ticket would have been purchased.
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 61146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: March 7, 2025, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would be grateful for comments on the first draft letter to
Parkingeye Ltd below.
The driver does not have a blue badge or any documentation
evidence of the knee replacement but can provide photos of the
scar on the replacement knee, and the knee brace worn on the
other knee which also needs replacing. Should these photos be
sent with this appeal?
"I am appealing the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the
registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle has
not been identified, and I decline to identify the driver as
there is no legal obligation to do so. The burden of proof lies
with Parkingeye Ltd to demonstrate that I, as the keeper, was
also the driver at the time of the alleged incident, and you
have failed to do so. I am appealing this charge on the
following grounds:
1
At the time of the alleged incident, the driver of the vehicle
was attempting to park for a 48-hour period, having previously
parked at this car park for a similar term a number of years
ago.
The driver is mobility impaired as a result of having a knee
replacement, needs a stick to walk and is currently in the
process of arranging for a second knee replacement operation.
The driver therefore has difficulty getting into and out of a
motor vehicle and is unable to walk as quickly as a person that
is not affected by those mobility issues.
On arriving at the car park, the driver found the car park to be
relatively busy and had few free parking spaces. A first space
was found and the driver pulled into that space, only to find
that due to the size of the space it was not possible for the
driver to get out of the vehicle. The driver therefore left
that space and drove around the car park again to find another
free parking space. Again, due to the size of the space it was
not possible for the driver to exit the vehicle. The driver
then left that second space and continued to drive around the
car park to find the third space. The driver was able park and
was able to exit the vehicle. The driver, having retrieved
their walking stick walked to the ticket machine to pay. There
were others at the machine in front of the driver, so the driver
needed to wait until those others had vacated the machine.
Whilst the parking tariffs were displayed on the machine,
including a rate for 24 hours, there did not appear to be any
option to buy a ticket for multiple 24-hour periods.
As a consequence of it not being clear whether or not multiple
periods of 24-hours could be purchased, the driver then walked
to one of the signs to see if there was any further information
relating to parking duration. There was no further information
and also no confirmation whether the maximum parking period was
in fact 24 hours. Additionally, there was no indication on the
sign that drivers were to be allowed a limited time in the car
park before parking charges applied, nor any signage to display
how long that consideration period was.
Unable to confirm that it was possible to buy two 24-hour
tickets to facilitate parking for a 48-hour period, the driver
decided that it would be best to leave the car park and look for
an alternative long-stay car park.
Incidentally, the driver did then park in the Frenchgate Centre
Rail Parking car park which is also managed by Parkingeye Ltd
and parked in that car park (and paid) for the required period.
The driver has subsequently learned that Parkingeye Ltd allows
the minimum period of 5 minutes for the Consideration Period for
drivers to decide upon whether to accept the parking contract.
For the driver this period was wholly inadequate as a
consequence of the driver’s impaired mobility.
2. The PCN Was Issued Incorrectly: Failure to Comply with the
Equality Act 2010 and BPA Code of Practice
Parkingeye Ltd has failed to comply with its legal obligations
under the Equality Act 2010 by not making reasonable adjustments
for disabled individuals. This constitutes a breach of the
British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice “The private
parking sector single Code of Practice” (version 1) dated 27
June 2024, particularly Section 4 regarding disabled motorists
requiring longer consideration and grace periods.
3. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability – Breach of PoFA
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
Parkingeye Ltd is attempting to hold me, the registered keeper,
liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), but has
failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA.
Specifically, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the
conditions set out in Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, which
mandates that the NtK must contain a clear "invitation" for the
keeper to pay or provide the driver's details. The NtK contains
no such "invitation", nor any synonym of the word. Partial or
even substantial compliance with PoFA is not sufficient.
Parkingeye Ltd has failed to include the required wording in the
NtK, and as such, has not transferred liability from the driver
to the keeper.
As the operator has not complied with PoFA, they cannot assume
that the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the
alleged contravention. Parkingeye Ltd must provide strict proof
that the registered keeper was the driver. Without such proof,
Parkingeye Ltd has no legal grounds to hold the keeper liable,
and the PCN must be cancelled.
4. Inadequate Signage and Failure to Provide Clear Terms and
Conditions
Parkingeye Ltd relies on signage to convey the terms and
conditions of parking, yet the signage at this site is unclear
and does not adequately inform drivers or passengers of the
parking rules, including consideration and grace periods and any
necessary adjustments for disabled individuals.
The BPA Code of Practice requires that signage must be clear,
legible, and positioned in such a way that drivers can make
informed decisions. The signage at this site does not clearly
mention consideration and grace periods or provide any notice of
reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists or their
passengers. This lack of clarity invalidates any supposed
contract with the driver, and the PCN has therefore been issued
incorrectly.
5. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Parkingeye Ltd's signage, which forms the basis of their alleged
contract with the driver, contains unfair terms under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). Section 62 of the CRA prohibits
unfair terms in contracts, and Parkingeye Ltd’s signage fails to
accommodate reasonable consideration and grace periods or make
provisions for disabled motorists or passengers. This amounts to
an unfair and unenforceable term.
Additionally, the CRA 2015 protects consumers from unfair
treatment. Penalising an individual or any occupant of the
vehicle for a situation caused by their disability, and for
which the operator failed to make reasonable adjustments,
amounts to a breach of the CRA. The terms enforced by Parkingeye
Ltd place disabled individuals at a disadvantage and therefore
cannot be legally upheld.
Conclusion
To summarise, this PCN has been issued incorrectly for several
reasons:
Failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010 by not making
reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists or passengers.
Failure to allow an appropriate consideration period as required
by the BPA Code of Practice.
Breach of PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), as the Notice to
Keeper fails to meet the conditions required to transfer
liability to the keeper.
Inadequate signage, which does not clearly communicate the terms
or consideration and grace periods for disabled individuals,
whether drivers or passengers.
Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, due to unfair terms and
failure to make necessary adjustments for disabled users.
In view of the above I request that Parkingeye Ltd cancels this
PCN.
If you do not cancel this PCN, please provide the appropriate
POPLA code and take notice that the driver will be defending
this matter in Court if you fail to cancel the PCN to then seek
to escalate the matter to recover the alleged “debt”.
Yours faithfully,"
#Post#: 61205--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: ixxy
Date: March 7, 2025, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good luck with all that as most of it isn't factually correct.
First until you appeal you can't claim they've not taken any
disability issues into account. They don't know about the
drivers alleged issues so how can they make adjustments to
accommodate them.
All the stuff about not displaying the consideration and grace
periods on the signage will get you nowhere, it's not done by
any of the private parking companies and is not a requirement of
the joint COP.
If you're claiming the signage is not clear or misleading you
need to evidence why that is the case otherwise they will just
say it's not. If your argument is around the consideration
period see above.
The burden of proof is not on Parking Eye to prove you were the
driver if they are able to use POFA to transfer liability to the
keeper. All the arguments above about the PCN not being POFA
complaint are theoretical and untested and certainly won't work
at appeal stage or probably POPLA.
You've been given a reasonable appeal criteria above based on
the drivers medical issues, appeal on that basis, then if they
reject it you can use the argument they have not made reasonable
adjustments once they have been informed of the drivers
circumstances in a POPLA appeal. If you want this resolved
quickly, keep it simple and lead the person reading the appeal
to the conclusion you want them to make.
Final point, are you sure it wasn't possible to pay for more
than 24 hours, no app based payment options, the payment machine
definitely didn't have the option to pay for more than 24 hours.
The car park is next to the railway station, seems odd you can't
stay for more than 24 hours.
#Post#: 61209--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 7, 2025, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> First until you appeal you can't claim they've not taken any
disability issues into account. They don't know about the
drivers alleged issues so how can they make adjustments to
accommodate them.
--- End Quote ---
This point can be fairly easily reworded... Instead of saying
they haven't made a reasonable adjustment, turn it instead to
point out that due to their disability the driver requires a
reasonable adjustment, set out what that adjustment is (in this
case, a longer consideration period), provide evidence of the
driver's need for such adjustments, then ask that they make one.
If they reject your appeal, then the case can be made that they
have failed to make reasonable adjustments.
#Post#: 61211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: March 7, 2025, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks IXXY - good points well made.
As far as the signage not being clear, neither the driver nor
the passenger could work out whether it was possible to stay for
longer than 24 hours, so left and found another car park. The
signage was not clear enough for them to work it out at least.
So should the initial letter to Parkingeye disclose the identity
of the driver or should the keeper refer to the driver's
mobility issues and ask that they are taken into account?
Should the initial letter simply refer to what happened,
identify the driver's mobility issues and ask that Parkingeye
allow a longer consideration period than the 5 minute minimum?
I have absolutely no idea whether it was or was not possible to
pay for longer than 24 hours. I have not visited that car park
for years. The driver could not work out whether it was
possible to select a period longer than 24 hours at the machine
and did not have the time to try and download a payment app.
Thanks
#Post#: 61238--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye Ltd - PCN - Overstay - Doncaster St. James
DIR By: gliderpilot63
Date: March 7, 2025, 1:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Second draft:
I am appealing the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the
registered keeper of the vehicle.
The driver of the vehicle has not been identified, and I decline
to identify the driver as there is currently no legal obligation
to do so. Your letter attempts to hold me, the registered
keeper liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA),
but has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of
that act.
Background
At the time of the alleged incident, the driver of the vehicle
was attempting to park for a 48-hour period, having previously
parked at this car park for a similar term a number of years
ago.
The driver is mobility impaired as a result of having a knee
replacement, needs a stick to walk and is currently in the
process of arranging for a second knee replacement operation.
The driver therefore has difficulty getting into and out of a
motor vehicle and is unable to walk as quickly as a person that
is not affected by those mobility issues.
On arriving at the car park, the driver found the car park to be
relatively busy and had only a few free parking spaces. A first
space was found and the driver pulled into that space, only to
find that due to the size of the space it was not possible for
the driver to get out of the vehicle. The driver therefore left
that space and drove around the car park again to find another
free parking space. Again, due to the size of the space it was
not possible for the driver to exit the vehicle. The driver
then left that second space and continued to drive around the
car park to find the third space. The driver was able park and
was able to exit the vehicle.
The driver, having retrieved their walking stick walked to the
ticket machine to pay. There were others at the machine in
front of the driver, so the driver needed to wait until those
others had vacated the machine. Whilst the parking tariffs were
displayed on the machine, including a rate for 24 hours, there
did not appear to be any option to buy a ticket for multiple
24-hour periods.
As a consequence of it not being clear whether or not multiple
periods of 24-hours could be purchased, the driver then walked
to one of the signs to see if there was any further information
relating to parking duration. There was no further information
and also no confirmation whether the maximum parking period was
in fact 24 hours. Additionally, there was no indication on the
sign that drivers were to be allowed a limited time in the car
park before parking charges applied, nor any signage to display
how long that consideration period was.
Unable to confirm that it was possible to buy two 24-hour
tickets to facilitate parking for a 48-hour period, the driver
decided that it would be best to leave the car park and look for
an alternative long-stay car park.
Incidentally, the driver did then park in the Frenchgate Centre
Rail Parking car park which is also managed by Parkingeye Ltd
and parked in that car park (and paid) for the required period.
The driver has subsequently learned that Parkingeye Ltd allows
the minimum period of 5 minutes for the Consideration Period for
drivers to decide upon whether to accept the parking contract.
For the driver this period was wholly inadequate as a
consequence of the impaired mobility.
The events leading up to the driver staying at the site for 9
minutes were entirely reasonable and consistent with the fact
that the car park was busy, had few free spaces wide enough to
park, and signage that confused the driver.
I am attaching photographs of the driver’s replacement knee and
the knee brace used for the knee for which an operation is
awaited.
I would therefore ask that you reconsider whether the minimum
Consideration Period at this car park is appropriate for a
mobility impaired driver and cancel the charge.
If you do not cancel this PCN, please provide the appropriate
POPLA code so that a full appeal can be prepared and take notice
that the driver will be defending this matter in Court if you
fail to cancel the PCN to then seek to escalate the matter to
recover the alleged “debt”.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page