DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63854--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 23, 2025, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789,
Also, what is the situation with the landowner and Parkingeye -
essentially, do the club ultimately have the power force PE to
cancel the tickets? Or, as the respondent said, can this power
be removed from them?
Best wishes
#Post#: 63866--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have edited the response to 3-1-5 slightly based on your
explanation about the terminal being behind barriers. Please
check if you are using the draft I propose you send to 3-1-5.
#Post#: 63867--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 2:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Layrex9 link ---
>
> 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?
--- End Quote ---
I don't think that they are confident at all. I don't know what
you makes you think that they are.
Your question is insightful—and yes, it sounds like they may be
trying (consciously or not) to rely on what’s known as a
justification defence under the Equality Act 2010, which applies
only to indirect discrimination, not direct discrimination.
Direct discrimination is where a person is treated less
favourably because of a protected characteristic, like
disability. There is no legal defence to direct discrimination,
except in very limited cases involving age.
Indirect discrimination is where a policy or rule applies to
everyone, but disproportionately disadvantages people with a
protected characteristic. This can be defended if the policy is
a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
Is that what you’re referring to—the so-called “greater good” or
collateral damage justification?
Their explanation—that disabled visitors must register because
others were abusing the disabled bays—suggests they are
attempting to justify indirect discrimination, not realising
that their policy might also be direct discrimination (which has
no such defence).
So, they might argue: “We require Blue Badge holders to register
because of previous misuse. That’s our legitimate aim—to ensure
those bays are kept for genuine users.” But here’s the problem:
The policy only applies to disabled people—not everyone. That
strongly suggests it’s direct discrimination, since you’re being
treated worse because you are disabled. They can’t justify that.
Even if it’s treated as indirect discrimination, they still have
to show that the measure is proportionate. That means the
problem was real and evidenced; The measure was likely to solve
it; There was no less discriminatory way to solve it and the
impact on disabled visitors was minimal.
Their system clearly fails this test because it requires extra
steps from disabled people that aren’t required of anyone else.
It relies on inaccessible terminals and unclear signage. It
offers no safeguard for those with non-visible disabilities.
They refuse to cancel PCNs, even when a person can prove
eligibility to use the space.
That’s unlikely to be considered proportionate by any court.
They may be over-relying on advice from ParkingEye, whose
commercial interest is to maximise enforceable PCNs, not to
protect 3-1-5 from discrimination claims. They may believe the
“abuse of disabled bays” story sounds reasonable to the average
person and might bluff through it if unchallenged. They may
believe that most people won’t sue or know the law well enough
to challenge them.
I have no idea what this "case study with ParkingEye" you refer
to is. Could this possible be a story made up by ParkingEye and
is likely framed as a success story, focusing on reduced bay
misuse and not on whether the system is legally compliant or
discriminatory? Practical success doesn’t override legal
obligations under the Equality Act.
So, they might think their policy is lawful because it aims to
solve a genuine problem, but in reality:
• If the policy causes direct discrimination, it’s indefensible.
• If it causes indirect discrimination, they must justify it—and
the system as it stands is unlikely to pass that test.
So their confidence (that you think they have) may rest more on
habit and lack of legal challenge than on any solid legal
footing.
#Post#: 63869--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Layrex9 link ---
>
> 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).
>
--- End Quote ---
This issue is secondary at this stage, since your formal
complaint to 3-1-5 Health Club squarely puts the onus on them—as
the principal—to instruct their agent to cancel the PCN on
grounds of unlawful discrimination.
However, it may be worth briefly capturing the concern as part
of the wider context, without muddying the central Equality Act
claim. Here's how you might include it, if you want to reference
it in the background section of your response:
--- Quote ---
> For completeness, I should also note that the original Notice
to Keeper (NtK) was never received, and the first correspondence
I received was a so-called “Reminder Notice” dated just 15 days
after the parking event. Given that the statutory period to make
payment is 28 days, this early reminder raises legitimate
suspicion that the original NtK may never have been sent at all.
When ParkingEye finally sent what they claimed was the original
NtK via email attachment (only after my complaint), it attempted
to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, under
Schedule 4 of PoFA, where no Notice to Driver was issued at the
time of the event, a Notice to Keeper must be actually delivered
within 14 days of the alleged contravention in order to create
Keeper liability. If the original was not served within that
period—and I maintain that it was not—then ParkingEye cannot
rely on PoFA, and no Keeper liability arises. This further
undermines the basis of the PCN and should have been sufficient
reason for it to be cancelled outright, even before the Equality
Act breach was considered.
--- End Quote ---
But I repeat, this is not the main issue at this stage. The
focus is squarely on 3-1-5’s discriminatory policy, and they are
fully empowered and legally obligated to put things right,
regardless of PoFA arguments.
#Post#: 63871--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 23, 2025, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear B789,
Oh wow - what a brilliant response the edited one is awesome,
and of course, I shall make sure we are ready to go before
sending anything.
Yes, that is what I meant when I asked about the defence being
to solve a problem and I understand now regarding direct and
indirect, thank you for clarifying this for me and helping me to
understand, I am very grateful.
I suppose I thought they were confident because of their
defensive responses, when clearly in the wrong, one would have
thought they may have let it go and just cancelled the ticket.
You're not going to believe what I have just found. When looking
for the Parkingeye 3-1-5 Case Study, to which I will provide a
link below, one of the quotations from a staff member, states
they are proud to be able to cancel the tickets in event of
error - or words to that effect. I shall provide the link:
HTML https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/car-park-management/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2023/07/Case-Study-315.pdf
Best wishes
#Post#: 63873--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 23, 2025, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789,
Just to add, (sorry if I have already told you but I think it is
relevant in this context). At the beginning of all this, when I
rang the club to ask if they could help me with the cancellation
of the ticket (at first this was agreed to by a receptionist and
I emailed my disabled badges over to her) the following morning
a lady, (management, I think) called me back and said 'sorry
this would not be possible as Parkingeye had stopped them from
doing it because they were cancelling so many'.
Which begs the question - why can they still cancel the normal
car park tickets and not the disabled then? Why would they be OK
with that set-up? Sounds a bit odd!
Best wishes
#Post#: 63876--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, this is a damning bit of evidence:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/wmTG8nM.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/dWFLdrB.jpeg
Will need to think about this a bit more.
#Post#: 63877--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That "case study" significantly undercuts the claims made in
3-1-5 Health Club’s formal response to your complaint and
directly supports your argument that they do have the ability to
cancel PCNs, including for disabled bays, when they choose to.
Here's the key quote from the case study:
[indent]“We like being able to cancel PCNs for genuine mistakes.
Being a private health club, our Customer Service has to be
second to none.” — Sarah Dack McGuiness, 3-1-5 Health
Club[/indent]
This directly contradicts what Ms Dack McGuiness stated in her
response to your complaint—namely, that the club "does not have
the authority" to cancel PCNs issued for disabled bays. The case
study also confirms that ParkingEye’s system is fully
customisable, allows exceptions, and gives the client (3-1-5)
“total control” over how and when enforcement is applied,
including the ability to pause cameras, add whitelists, and
cancel PCNs.
This contradiction raises serious points:
[indent]• Their claim of helplessness is demonstrably false.
• They say they "cannot cancel" tickets for the disabled bays,
yet boast in a ParkingEye-endorsed document that they cancel
PCNs for genuine mistakes.
• Selective enforcement is being practiced.
• The club appears to retain the discretion to cancel PCNs—just
not for disabled users, which is blatantly
discriminatory.[/indent]
The system is not fit for purpose.
ANPR cannot detect Blue Badges, and they know it. You’ve pointed
out that Blue Badges aren’t visible in many of the vehicles
parked in disabled bays, yet enforcement doesn’t apply
consistently. This inconsistency only reinforces the
irrationality of their system.
Their initial phone conversation with you supports this. A
receptionist initially confirmed they could cancel your PCN and
even asked you to send over your Blue Badge. It was only when
"management" intervened the next day that you were told
otherwise. That admission is telling—they used to cancel them,
but allegedly stopped because ParkingEye didn’t like it. That’s
not a legal defence.
I will amend the response letter accordingly.
#Post#: 63879--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Amended response, which now includes Ms Sarah Dack McGuniess's
name as she is in the public domain with the mention of her name
in the case study:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Ms Sarah Dack McGuniess,
>
> 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.
>
> It is astonishing that 3-1-5 Health Club continues to assert
that it lacks the authority to cancel PCNs for disabled bays,
when in fact your own marketing materials—jointly produced with
ParkingEye—state the opposite. In ParkingEye’s published case
study for your site, your staff are quoted as saying: “We like
being able to cancel PCNs for genuine mistakes.” You also
confirm the club has full control of enforcement measures,
including the ability to whitelist vehicles and instruct
ParkingEye to suspend monitoring for events. This completely
undermines your claim that you have no say in the matter. The
reality is that you have simply chosen not to assist disabled
visitors, despite having the clear capacity to do so.
>
> This supports the wider evidence that you operate a two-tier
enforcement system, one in which able-bodied visitors can expect
cancellation for errors, while disabled people are treated with
inflexibility and subjected to PCNs based on inaccessible
procedures. That is not only discriminatory—it is indefensible.
>
> 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#: 63890--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 23, 2025, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789,
Thank you ever so much! I shall get back on it first thing, then
I’ll copy it up here so you can have a look before it goes! It
beggars belief - and on page two of the case study, under the
‘Unparalled Flexibility’ bit. Yes!
Well well well...Fancy that!
Perhaps they’ve forgotten. That figure of speech springs to
mind; 'There’s always a [Tweet]'
Best wishes
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page