DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63904--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 24, 2025, 2:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Layrex9 link ---
>
> 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
>
--- End Quote ---
Just to cover this minor point that you asked earlier in the
thread... The short answer is 'possibly' - it depends on the
contract between ParkingEye and the landowner. I have seen some
that levy a fee on cancellations or otherwise purport to limit
cancellations.
However, I'd say that's not your problem. Any contract they may
have signed with ParkingEye does not absolve them of any
obligations relating to disabled people and fair treatment of
customers. If they've signed a contract that leaves them out of
pocket in such cases, that's their problem.
#Post#: 63909--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 24, 2025, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear DWMB2,
Ah, thank you for clearing that up for me - I was wondering why
this parking company, if they have no regards for the guidelines
and rules, are generating so much money. I am guessing that
people are frightened into thinking they have to pay it and they
do just pay it?
Hence the removal of the POFA section on the reminder that I
received, and when I later received by email the original, it
was on there! Instead on the reminder, they insert a paragraph
on Case Law, which has nothing to do with anyone except the
people concerned - but it must frighten people into paying!
These companies make such a lot of money, I was wondering how if
they’re operating in a dubious manner.
I am going to copy and paste my response letter onto here now so
you can all see it and then I need to go out, and will be back
this afternoon to continue. I win’t send anything until it has
been approved.
Many thanks again for all your help!
#Post#: 63910--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 24, 2025, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXX XXX
24th March, 2025
3-1-5 Health Club
Mannin Way
Lancaster
LA1 3PE
Dear Ms Sarah Dack McGuniess,
Thank you for your response dated 18th March 2025. 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 health club facilities themselves.
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.
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.
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. I have already been informed 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, you 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,
XXXXXXXX
#Post#: 63911--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 24, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry - the formatting has moved my address. It appears
(normally) top right!
#Post#: 63937--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 24, 2025, 7:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Layrex9 link ---
>
>
> XXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXX
> XXXX XXX
>
> 24th March, 2025
>
> 3-1-5 Health Club
> Mannin Way
> Lancaster
> LA1 3PE
>
> Dear Ms Sarah Dack McGuniess,
>
> Thank you for your response dated 18th March 2025. 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 health club facilities themselves.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. I have already been informed 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, you 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,
>
> XXXXXXXX
>
--- End Quote ---
I would not include the section you have added about the NtK.
You are not corresponding with ParkingEye and your assertion is
wrong. A "reminder" is not debt recovery or enforcement.
The "reminder" is simply informing the Keeper that any discount
period has expired and that the full amount of the charge will
be due by the expiry of the "relevant period". The statutory
period of 28 days you refer to is the number of days counting
from the day after the date the notice is given, before the
creditor can attempt to recover the charge from the Keeper,
subject to all the requirements of PoFA being fulfilled.
The original NtK may or may not have actually been sent and
ParkingEye have provided no evidence to prove the date the
notice entered the postal system as required by the PPSCoP and
therefore cannot establish service according to the requirements
of the Interpretation Act 1978.
The requirements of PoFA only need to be established on the
original NtK. Any reminder is irrelevant. As you saw on the copy
of the original NtK, ParkingEye do include reference to PoFA.
However, their NtK is flawed and is not fully compliant with all
the requirements and can be argued should it ever get to a court
hearing.
You are correct in your assertion that these PCNs, reminders and
all debt recovery correspondence is designed to make the
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out of ignorance
and fear. Consider that over 40,000 private PCNs are issued
EVERY DAY!!!! These parasitic, unregulated private parking
companies are raking in well over a £billion a year in profits,
never mind actual revenue. Between them, they overwhelm the
county courts with automated claims and they ruin many peoples
finances without a care.
Anyway, I suggest you remove the highlighted section from your
response to 3-1-5 Gym as it is not relevant to the main point
you are making. You are requiring them to get their agent to
have the PCN cancelled and to respond to your discrimination
complaint.
#Post#: 63972--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 24, 2025, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789,
I have edited as per your suggestions and sent it.
Goodness me - it sounds like the industry sails close to the
legal wind - how is it legal? Sounds a bit dodgy!
Best wishes!
#Post#: 63977--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: March 24, 2025, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When you consider that most of the unregulated private parking
companies stated out as clampers and all the thuggery and
illegality that was associated with that, you get an idea of why
the industry is what it is.
The trough that these swine now have their snouts firmly
ensconced in is deep and, when you think about it, they don't
even have to pay VAT on the actual charges they recover. A
series of incompetent governments and ministers who conveniently
bow to the well funded lobby that these parking operators have
in place and a refusal to give a date for implementation the
Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 (yes, it received
royal assent 6 years ago) but has not yet been introduced, the
DVLA raking in £2.50 per DVLA KADOE data request at a rate that
I will leave you to work out but consider that these rogue
companies issue over 40,000 PCNs a DAY, is all evidence of a
malaise within government to actually act and, although I do not
have evidence, but this suggests to me that with the amounts of
money being taken about (£billions) you can see why it is not
changing for the better (for the consumer).
#Post#: 64009--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 25, 2025, 2:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gosh that is terrible that they can get away with it. I don’t
think governments work for us. They just tax us, and work
against us.
I don’t remember signing anything saying the DVLA could share my
data - so how does that work?
There has recently been a huge ‘experimental’ facial recognition
roll out in Cardiff (I saw on Big Brother Watch) at a recent
rugby game by the police. Clearly, the end goal is a digital
database. They’re also talking about being able to revoke
people’s driving licences!
I am not sure why we have to ask permission from the government
to drive our own cars, but it seems anything registered to the
government is owned by it. This government over-reach of control
is getting out of hand.
I have joined the Sovereign Project because I don’t see any
other way out of how things are progressing in the UK. They can
seemingly grab anything they want. We have to take back control
of our things, because the way this is heading reminds me of
historic events!
#Post#: 64012--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 25, 2025, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am mindful that the purpose of this thread is to help you
fight a specific parking charge, and I don't want this topic to
stray too far from that, but I noticed this:
--- Quote ---
> I have joined the Sovereign Project
--- End Quote ---
From a quick glance, they seem to be a 'Sovereign Citizen' /
Freeman on the Land type group. Many of their arguments are
legal bollox - and following them can cause you all kinds of
issues.
We have a pinned thread on such arguments: FOTL and Other
Misguided Folk
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/fotl-and-other-misguided-folk/
#Post#: 64016--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: March 25, 2025, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for that, I shall have a look. I am sorry - it is
because I am interested and curious as to how things work. I
don’t want to stray away from the parking topic.
Thank you very much for that thread, I shall have a look. I am
so glad I found this website!
Please can I just ask - why do the DVLA sell our data, when it
is so protected by various things such as GDPR, to private
companies without our permission? Especially when camera
doorbells have come under scrutiny and yet the DVLA are happy to
pass on the info (I know they get paid) but it seems nefarious
nevertheless.
Best wishes!
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page