DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 62408--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 13, 2025, 4:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If I were to do the POPLA appeal tomorrow, now the letter has
been sent, the PCN I would be responding to is the Reminder
(because the original never came) - is it on that basis that
they have no claim - doesn't it have to be after a certain
amount of days that they send the NtoK? They rejected it twice,
and now I have sent the letter, does that mean any action will
be frozen, or should I still appeal just incase?
Thank you once again!
#Post#: 63721--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 22, 2025, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies, I didn't get back to you in time to put together a
POPLA appeal. I have been travelling and your response slipped
down the list.
However, that should have no bearing on anything going forwards.
POPLA is not a truly independent appeals service, even though
they claim to be. They are funded by the BPA members and so, do
not like to bite the hand that feeds them.
Have you have any response or acknowledgement to your formal
complaint from 3-1-5 Gym? You gave them 14 days to respond. If
you've heard nothing back from them by then, let us know and we
can progress this to the next stage.
#Post#: 63778--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 23, 2025, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear B789,
Thank you for getting back to me, no worries! I did appeal to
POPLA at the eleventh hour (on the 14/03/2025), I haven't heard
back as yet. I did however hear back from 3-1-5 last Wednesday
and I haven't currently replied. I feel a bit uncertain as to
whether to post it on here because it is a bit personal and
defensive - is there a chance I may send it to you privately?
Also, with it being a privately-owned small business and not a
big corporate, I was unsure where I would stand by doing this
and whether I could get myself or anyone else into trouble.
Your help is very much appreciated, and I cannot thank you
enough on this matter. It has made me, on occasion, sad and
anxious.
My very best wishes
#Post#: 63779--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 23, 2025, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please don’t try and do things away from the forum, if you need
to “redact” personal correspondence then by all means do, but
it’s only by having discussion in public that the rest of us get
to learn and offer better advice to people like you in future.
#Post#: 63780--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would need to see the response from 3-1-5 Gym. Interesting
that you are feeling sympathy for the landowner that has
contracted the scammers that are trying to fleece you.
Please PM me the responses you’ve had. I will let you know what
can or should be made public and then you can decide on how you
want to deal with this.
Your POPLA appeal is not likely to be responded to for several
months. However, if the operator does not withdraw, you should
receive an operators evidence pack from POPLA which you will be
able to respond to. If/when you receive that, upload it
somewhere such as DropBox or Google Files and provide a link.
Make sure that the copy you upload for us to review is suitable
redacted of you personal information.
In the meantime, please PM the 3-1-5 Gym response to your formal
complaint so that I can advise on how you respond.
#Post#: 63790--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 23, 2025, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789,
I have PM'd it to you - I hope you have received it - please let
me know if not
Best wishes
#Post#: 63794--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have responded to your PM and advised on how you should
publish a suitable redacted version of the response. I have also
PMd you why their response not only doesn't answer your points
but further exposes their admission to discrimination against
you and all other disable d customers.
lease let me know ASAP so that I can also provide you with the
required next step in responding to 3-1-5 Gym and ParkingEye.
#Post#: 63796--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 23, 2025, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789,
Yes that is fine. Thank you once again for all your help!
#Post#: 63801--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, for clarification, this was the response from 3-1-5 to the
formal complaint:
--- Quote ---
> Dear MX XXXXXXX,
>
> We sincerely apologise that you have felt the need to send
such a detailed complaint regarding your experience at 3-1-5
Health Club. Please be assured that we take all concerns
seriously and strive to ensure fair and accessible policies for
all our visitors.
>
> I am responding on behalf of Sean Thornton, as he is currently
undergoing medical treatment at XXXXXXXXXX and is unable to
reply personally. However, he has been made aware of your
complaint. We appreciate your concerns and would like to clarify
our position and the reasoning behind our parking policies.
>
> 1. Summary of Events
>
> We acknowledge that you received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
after attending a medical appointment at Biomed on 18th December
2024. However, as stated in our last communication, any appeal
must be directed to Parking Eye. From your letter, we assume
your appeal has been declined. Please can you confirm this, our
Front of house team confirm they explained the procedure to you
but were unsure of the outcome as they had not heard since that
discussion.
>
> Regarding your concerns:
>
> Three-hour free parking for able-bodied visitors: This applies
to all standard parking spaces. The disabled bays require
registration due to past abuse by non-disabled users, which
resulted in numerous complaints and cancellations. The policy
was implemented to ensure that disabled bays remain available
for those who need them. That was and is always our priority.
>
> Location of the parking terminal: The registration system is
kept at reception in line with our general visitor sign-in
process. We recognise that Biomed’s location means some visitors
have no requirement to pass by reception, and we have since
taken steps to improve communication with all our resident
partners to ensure visitors are made aware of the need to
register blue badges.
>
> Accessibility issues: We understand that your condition makes
standing at reception difficult. Any member of our team,
including XXXXXX from Biomed, can assist in registering your
Blue Badge and car registration without requiring you to stand
at reception.
>
> 2. Direct Discrimination Allegations
>
> We strongly refute the claim that our parking policy is
discriminatory.
>
> (a) Direct Discrimination
>
> We do not have the authority to cancel PCNs for disabled
users; this ability was removed by Parking Eye due to misuse of
the system. We physically do not have access to a cancellation
portal. Appeals must go through Parking Eye directly.
>
> The requirement to register Blue Badges is not to discriminate
but to ensure that disabled bays are used appropriately. This
system has significantly reduced misuse and has been effective
in ensuring availability for genuine Blue Badge holders.
>
> (b) Indirect Discrimination
>
> The parking terminal is not located behind a swipe barrier but
is in reception. We acknowledge that Biomed visitors may not
automatically pass through or by reception, and we are working
to improve communication about this requirement.
>
> We appreciate the concern regarding seating at reception and
will review options to enhance accessibility, however, we very
rarely have queue’s, so this has never been an issue or a
requirement. We have multiple receptionists on duty at all
times, so queuing has not been an issue on a day to day basis.
In the meantime, any staff member can assist in registering a
Blue Badge without requiring visitors to stand at reception.
>
> 3. 3-1-5 Health Club’s Liability
>
> While Parking Eye manages our parking enforcement, we
acknowledge our responsibility to ensure fair access. However,
we are not legally able to cancel Disabled Bay PCNs ourselves.
> The registration system was introduced as a proactive measure
to prevent abuse of disabled spaces, ensuring they remain
available for those who need them. Again always our priority.
>
> 4. Misleading Signage
>
> The sign states that the parking terminal is in reception,
which is correct. However, we recognize that better clarity may
be required, particularly for visitors to Biomed.
>
> 5. Requested Actions
>
> Cancellation of PCN: As previously stated, 3-1-5 Health Club
does not have the authority to cancel PCN’s for disabled bays,
this is a separate system and as explained, any appeals must be
directed to Parking Eye. Since receiving your letter on 12th
March, we have contacted Parking Eye to ask for an update on
your situation as you have not communicated with us as to
whether your PCN was appealed successfully or not.
>
> Future Prevention of Unfair Penalties: We have reinforced
communication with our partners to ensure that all disabled
visitors are made aware of the need to register their Blue Badge
upon arrival and that we do not have the facility to cancel
PCN’s for the disabled bays.
>
> Review of the Parking System:
>
> We have forwarded your letter to Parking Eye who will deal
with your complaint directly.
> Staff training is paramount to us and always a priority, we
always ensure all visitors, especially those with disabilities,
are treated with fairness and respect.
>
> 6. Legal Considerations
>
> We take accusations of discrimination very seriously and are
disappointed that you feel this way. Our parking policy was
implemented to protect disabled parking spaces, not to
discriminate. We strive to be an inclusive facility and have a
large number of disabled members and visitors who use our
facilities due to our accessibility and the services we provide
for non able bodied users.
>
> 7. Resolution
>
> If you have not yet registered your Blue Badge and
registration with us, we encourage you to do so to avoid future
issues. Please do let us know should you require assistance,
XXXXXX or another team member can register your badge on your
behalf. Please just ask. As stated earlier, Parking Eye who both
issue and have the ability to cancel disabled bay PCN’s will be
in contact with you directly.
>
> We hope this clarifies our position and reassures you of our
commitment to accessibility and fairness.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> XXXXXXXX
> On behalf of Sean Thornton
> 3-1-5 Health Club
--- End Quote ---
That response received from 3-1-5 Gym actually strengthens your
position. They’ve admitted that disabled visitors are treated
differently from able-bodied visitors. Able-bodied people can
use the car park for three hours without registering, but
disabled visitors are required to go out of their way to
register at reception just to avoid a penalty. That’s a clear
example of discrimination, since it places a burden on disabled
people that doesn’t apply to others.
They’ve also admitted that visitors attending businesses like
Biomed might not pass through reception at all, meaning they
won’t even see the parking terminal. While they claim the
terminal is technically located in reception and not behind
swipe barriers, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s not
visible or accessible to people who don’t go through reception.
They even acknowledge that the signage may not be clear enough.
These are direct admissions that the system in place is not
suitable for all visitors, particularly disabled ones.
Their claim that they cannot cancel PCNs for disabled bays
because ParkingEye won’t allow it is absurd and is irrelevant in
law. They are the principal party, and ParkingEye is acting as
their agent. That means 3-1-5 remains legally responsible for
any discriminatory consequences arising from the parking
enforcement system they’ve chosen to use. Passing the buck to
ParkingEye doesn’t change that.
They also dismiss your concerns about accessibility and standing
at reception by saying they don’t usually have queues. That
misses the point entirely. The duty to make reasonable
adjustments under the Equality Act is based on your needs as a
disabled visitor, not on what they consider “normal” or how busy
they think reception usually is.
You now have solid grounds to escalate this to a formal Letter
Before Claim. You can claim for unlawful discrimination under
the Equality Act 2010 and seek compensation for distress,
inconvenience, and the impact this has had on you. A reasonable
amount to claim would be in the region of £3,000 to £5,000,
based on comparable cases. You would also require them to cancel
the PCN and review their parking system to stop this happening
to others. If they don’t resolve it within 14 days, you would
then have the option to begin court proceedings.
I suggest the following response to that letter:
--- Quote ---
> Dear XXXXXXXX,
>
> Thank you for your response dated [insert date]. I note its
contents and your attempt to deflect responsibility for the
discriminatory treatment I experienced as a disabled visitor to
3-1-5 Health Club on 18th December 2024. Unfortunately, your
letter only confirms that 3-1-5’s current policies place
disabled visitors at a clear disadvantage compared to
able-bodied visitors and fails to offer any lawful justification
for doing so.
>
> You expressly admit that able-bodied visitors are permitted to
park for up to three hours with no registration requirement,
while disabled visitors are not permitted to park for up to
three hours unless they undertake an additional process
involving the manual registration of a Blue Badge.
>
> This process is not only unnecessary but your assertion that
the parking terminal is “in reception” is plainly misleading. In
reality, it is located behind access-controlled barriers within
the members-only area of the building. The fact remains that it
is not visible, accessible, or intuitive to anyone not attending
the gym itself.
>
> For visitors parking outside and attending partner services
such as Biomed, the terminal is definitely not visible, not
accessible, and not reasonably discoverable unless someone
happens to inform them. You also accept that signage may be
unclear, which reinforces the fact that the system was not
designed with the needs of disabled visitors in mind.
>
> Your response also dismisses entirely the need for seating at
reception, despite my condition requiring it. Whether or not
queues are “rare” is irrelevant. The duty to make reasonable
adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 is not conditional on
your perception of frequency but triggered by the actual impact
on disabled individuals. That is the legal test.
>
> Now to your most absurd contention—the suggestion that 3-1-5
is “not legally able” to cancel PCNs issued for disabled bays
because ParkingEye, your agent, will not permit it. This is
legally nonsensical. You are the principal. ParkingEye acts on
your behalf, under your authority, on your land. You are jointly
and severally liable for the actions of your agent. If your
position is that your own appointed agent has forbidden you from
intervening even in cases where a PCN has been issued unlawfully
or discriminatorily, then I require strict proof. You will be
expected to disclose, in full, the unredacted contract between
3-1-5 Health Club and ParkingEye Ltd, showing where such an
extraordinary and preposterous restriction on your authority is
stated.
>
> Further, your own letter reveals the discriminatory nature of
your current arrangement in plain terms. You state: “We do not
have the facility to cancel PCNs for the disabled bays”—a
statement which, when read in full context, only serves to
embarrass your position. It implies that cancellations are
possible for other visitors—namely able-bodied ones—but not for
disabled users. If that isn’t direct discrimination under the
Equality Act 2010, then what is?
>
> You appear to be operating a two-tier system where one group
of visitors can expect discretion and flexibility, while
another—disabled people—are subjected to rigid enforcement,
without exception or appeal through the principal. This unequal
treatment, based solely on disability status, is indefensible in
law and will be central to any claim brought against you.
>
> The idea that you would enter into a contract that strips you
of any ability to ensure lawful and non-discriminatory treatment
of your disabled visitors is almost too ridiculous to
contemplate, and if you were to be so imbecilic as to let this
matter reach trial, this excuse will be prised apart in open
court. Passing the buck to your agent is not a defence. The
Equality Act does not allow a principal to delegate away its
legal responsibilities, and any attempt to do so will only
reinforce your liability.
>
> Let me be absolutely clear: this is your final opportunity to
resolve this matter. If the PCN is not cancelled and written
confirmation of this provided within 14 days of this letter, I
will issue a claim against both 3-1-5 Health Club and ParkingEye
Ltd under the Equality Act 2010. I will seek compensation for
unlawful disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable
adjustments, and the distress and inconvenience caused. My claim
will include an award of damages in the region of £3,000 to
£5,000, assessed in line with Vento band guidance.
>
> I expect your next correspondence to be a full and unequivocal
confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled and that you are
reviewing your policies to ensure no further discrimination
occurs against disabled visitors.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 63853--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 23, 2025, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789,
Thank you very much; I am actually preparing this letter right
now. I cannot understand is why they're saying the terminal is
located in reception when it is behind barriers in the private
membership area. The fact is, when you have parked the car, it
could already be too late if the machine has noted the
registration, if one of the partners fails to mention it to a
person. And, not all people may have a visible disability, in
which case, how would they know to mention it? Would it just not
be easier to treat everyone the same and save the hassle of
having to mention it to every single customer?
I did wonder with this response whether they were relying on the
defence (within The Equalities Act 2010) that discriminating
against people in order to solve a genuine problem (abuse of the
disabled spaces) is therefore not discrimination? I am curious
as to what it means in the Act - is that what it means? So if a
company claims it was done to get rid of one problem and
therefore discrimination is collateral damage, can people defend
themselves with that argument? Because they have a case study
(Parkingeye at 3-1-5) online which clearly explains why they
have done it. NB - I am just checking because I am curious about
the mechanisms, and how they go about all of this, what makes
them so confident?
I am sure the NtoK they sent out was not compliant and I wrote
to Parkingeye telling them this - I never received the original
and it is mighty suspicious that a reminder was sent out 15 days
after the parking event, when you are given 28 days to pay! Why
would they send out a 'reminder' 15 days after the parking event
if they had sent the original? They clearly forgot (over Xmas)
to send it out in the first place then tried to rectify their
mistake with this one! Something doesn't add up. When they
finally they sent out the 'original' on an email attachment
(this month, I think) - it mentioned the POFA! Which states they
have only 14 days! Which means this is not allowed and they have
broken the rules (I think).
I cannot understand why they turned down the original appeal
(twice) on these grounds - which made me wonder are they going
for breach of contract? I read the Single Sector Code and also
the BPA guidelines and one of them (can't just remember which)
refers to the parking company having to inform them by what
method they will use to pursue. These guidelines also made
significant reference to the use of POFA and non-reliance of
POFA. What is all that about? I cannot understand why they're
still pursuing after I have explained to them etc. They clearly
must think they can win?
A friend who frequents the gym regularly walked past the
disabled bays the other night and said not one of them had a
Blue Badge displayed - even though it is a requirement on the
sign! I bet they didn't all get parking tickets - Parkingeye's
camera's cannot see the Blue Badges, that is clear. They
couldn't see mine!
Anyway, I shall continue with the letter - thank you once again!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page