DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66444--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: ixxy
Date: April 10, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hmm they don't look dodgy do they. I thought you had an issue
with unregulated businesses? Shouldn't that apply even more so
to a firm operating in a generally regulated sector who proudly
proclaim "We are a leading unregulated law firm" on their
website?
#Post#: 66457--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Charitynjw
Date: April 10, 2025, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=Charitynjw link=topic=5478.msg66196#msg66196
date=1744149665]
> All the ppc has to do is show, on balance of probability, that
the first pcn was correctly addressed, postage paid & put into
the postal system.
>
> They do not have to prove that it was delivered.
>
> In fact, once they've done the above, the burden of proof
falls to you to prove that it was NOT delivered.
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji52.png
>
>
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7
>
--- End Quote ---
Absolutely WRONG!!!!! If challenged, the operator must prove
that the notice was actually entered into the postal system. It
is not enough to simply assert that it was.
Under the Interpretation Act 1978, a notice sent by first class
post is deemed to be delivered (i.e., "given") on the second
working day after posting — but only if it was properly
addressed, postage paid, and posted by first class.
[indent]You only need a free Proof of Posting certificate from
any post office for this presumption to apply.[/indent]
Private parking companies do not generally post items
themselves. They outsource to mail consolidators using hybrid
mail services. These consolidators print and dispatch the mail,
often using bulk business postage that does not qualify as first
class.
What the operator typically tries to rely on is the handover
receipt from the mail consolidator, claiming this proves the
date the notice entered the postal system. It doesn’t. At best,
it proves the date the item entered the consolidator’s internal
system — not the Royal Mail postal system.
I will confidently wager £100 that any "evidence" they provide
from the mail consolidator will not show the use of Royal Mail
first class post. Instead, it will show a 2–3 working day
delivery service, which is not deemed delivery within two
working days.
Only first class post qualifies for the two working day
presumption under both the Interpretation Act and the Civil
Procedure Rules. If they’re using a slower service, then three
working days minimum should be allowed for delivery — and that
must be reflected in any procedural deadlines tied to the date
of service.
[/quote]
s7 of the Act
7 References to service by post.
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by
post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or
“send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the
contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected
by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter
containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to
have been effected at the time at which the letter would be
delivered in the ordinary course of post.
No mention of 2 days there.
Or 1st class post.
Perhaps Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch 4 (9)(6)
(6) 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; and for this purpose “working
day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public
holiday in England and Wales.
But it doesn't mention that it must be 1st class.
Just A notice sent by post.
& for completeness
All the ppc has to do is show.......
Ie demonstrate, not just assert.
#Post#: 66458--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: April 10, 2025, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Yamba is 100% legit. He has a fantastic track record of
suing private parking companies. You will see his name on many
of the persuasive appeals that we now use against the claimants
such as VCS v Edward 2023
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zra61px7l3if53o3bp9c4/VCS-v-EDWARD-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=bv4bba389nau5qpfglqkpjq5l&st=mmzmssqo&dl=0,<br
/>Brennan v PPS 2023
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=b8xvi7g1&dl=0,<br
/>CEL v Chan 2023
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=oqhy5zyy&dl=0,<br
/>CPM v Akande 2024
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=9diue1ku&dl=0,<br
/>VCS v Carr 2024
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ob8hw1062bdaiw8ine4u8/VCS-v-Carr.pdf?rlkey=m33wuz8wjogdz13mbisu69ziy&st=u1khe1os&dl=0<br
/>to name a few. These are appeal wins. He has many non
persuasive
wins and I suggest you have a read of the blog on the Contestor
Legal website to see whether you think this is legit or not.
#Post#: 66460--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: April 10, 2025, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Charitynjw link ---
>
> s7 of the Act
>
> 7 References to service by post.
>
> Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served
by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give”
or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the
contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected
by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter
containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to
have been effected at the time at which the letter would be
delivered in the ordinary course of post.
>
> No mention of 2 days there.
> Or 1st class post.
>
--- End Quote ---
The two working day presumption comes not from the Act's wording
but from judicial interpretation and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
practice, where first class post is generally treated as taking
two working days for deemed service.
Specifically:
[indent]• Under CPR 6.26, documents sent by first class post are
deemed served on the second business day after posting.
• This presumes the use of first class post, as it reflects
Royal Mail’s published delivery aim.
• If an operator uses a slower hybrid service, then they lose
the ability to rely on the two-day deemed delivery
rule.[/indent]
The two working day rule arises from CPR 6.26 and not directly
from s7 of the Interpretation Act.
#Post#: 66463--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Charitynjw
Date: April 10, 2025, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=Charitynjw link=topic=5478.msg66457#msg66457
date=1744294185]
> s7 of the Act
>
> 7 References to service by post.
>
> Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served
by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give”
or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the
contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected
by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter
containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to
have been effected at the time at which the letter would be
delivered in the ordinary course of post.
>
> No mention of 2 days there.
> Or 1st class post.
>
--- End Quote ---
The two working day presumption comes not from the Act's wording
but from judicial interpretation and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
practice, where first class post is generally treated as taking
two working days for deemed service.
Specifically:
[indent]• Under CPR 6.26, documents sent by first class post are
deemed served on the second business day after posting.
• This presumes the use of first class post, as it reflects
Royal Mail’s published delivery aim.
• If an operator uses a slower hybrid service, then they lose
the ability to rely on the two-day deemed delivery
rule.[/indent]
The two working day rule arises from CPR 6.26 and not directly
from s7 of the Interpretation Act.
[/quote]
PoFA 2012 Sch 4(9)(6)
See above
#Post#: 66471--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: April 10, 2025, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why are we arguing this here? You can start a thread in the
flame pit of the legal forum if you want to try and argue the
point. For now, the only way an item posted can be deemed given
within two working days is by first class post. If all the
hybrid mail receipts say that a delivery service of 2-3 days is
used, then there can be no guarantee that it can be delivered in
two working days. Royal Mail states that first class post is 1-2
working days, therefore the only guaranteed postal method that
can guarantee two working days must be first class post.
#Post#: 66472--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 10, 2025, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is a view.
OP, I don't know where you're going with this..other than the
more you write the more you are likely to identify the driver.
Also, as you received a 'reminder' well within the 28-day period
attached to the NTK then you had all the time you needed to
'appeal'.
I suggest you get back to the essence of your 'appeal'.
Remember, unless you can cause the assessor to conclude that a
parking charge is not due from the driver then the only issue is
whether they could hold you liable as keeper. You've seen the
NTK, albeit late, and I suspect that a judge would be convinced
that it was posted in time. The issues then revolve around its
compliance with PoFA.
If you've got sufficient time and energy to attack on two
fronts, fine, but if not then I suggest you focus on the NTK and
the breach.
Cage rattling and name calling might make you feel better, but
when it comes to the crunch .....!
Anyway, what do you know:
1. Use of the accessible parking bays is permitted by Blue Badge
holders ONLY whilst using 3-1-5 Health Club.
But there's no evidence that the driver, whoever they were, was
using the Health Club.
2. Parking Eye are acting as agents of the landowner and the
contract is formed between the driver and the landowner. (this
is stated in the sign)
What you don't know:
The exact relationship between the 'medical person' and 3-1-5
e.g. their customers were entitled to use the car park etc? In
which case does being unable - did anyone try- to access the
reception area and validation terminal equate to frustration of
contract? Did anyone ask at the time?
I'm trying to tease out the essence of the issues but there's so
much 'noise' that it's difficult.
So, who is pursuing the parking charge and with what authority?
#Post#: 66546--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: April 10, 2025, 4:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear HC Andersen,
Thank you for your message. There is an electronic receipt for
several hundreds of pounds from inside the premises, dated and
time-stamped. Yes, the disabled person could not access the
machine owing to a huge queue and no seating. The terminal is
situated in the members only area, so one has to alert reception
to tell them they’re there. This is not the case for the
able-bodied, just the disabled bays - for these you have to
enter the reg into the terminal on arrival, as the able bodied
get 3h free parking without having to use the terminal. They
only need to input the reg if they’ll be longer than 3h. The
people visiting business within the club, are able to use the
spaces in the same manner as the club members. It was appealed
twice and rejected twice, and a letter of complaint was sent to
Parkingeye. The club was contacted and asked to cancel the
ticket, which was agreed, then management called the following
day and said Parkingeye couldn’t let than and it had been taken
out of their hands. This is not the “complete control and
flexibility” of their car park, that their collaborated
marketing material with Parkingeye boasts of. Having mentioned
that to them in the last communication, 3-1-5 have not
responded. A letter of complaint was sent additionally
mentioning that this was discriminatory - it is a free car park
after all, and Parkingeye didn’t take kindly to that point being
made. They reiterated that money was owed or POPLA, so POPLA was
appealed to, and this is the current situation. Today, POPLA
asked for the disabled badges, which have been sent. The club
themselves have copies of the disabled badges.
Best wishes
#Post#: 66571--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: b789
Date: April 11, 2025, 2:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please provide some context to the above post.
#Post#: 66576--------------------------------------------------
Re: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS
AFTER PARKING EVENT
DIR By: Layrex9
Date: April 11, 2025, 2:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Please provide some context to the above post.
>
--- End Quote ---
Dear b789,
Sorry - I was replying to HC Andersen, as some
questions/thoughts were put forth. Thank you for your
recommendation - I will get in touch with Jackson Yamba. I am
going away today but shall take my computer with me - the WiFi
might be ropey, but I shall phone and/or email him. Thank you
for all your help so far. I’ll let you know how I get on.
Best wishes,
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 7
DIR Previous Page