DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85620--------------------------------------------------
Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: August 13, 2025, 10:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can somebody help with this situation, the registered keeper is
elderly and this is causing a lot of stress.
The vehicle was parked in a disabled bay for around 4 hours,
apparently 2 hours are free after which charges apply. The car
park is pay on exit, the driver did not see any signage or pay
machines in the vicinity of the parking space and left without
paying. You need to input the vehicle registration at the
machine, and there are no barriers.
The car park is very large, the PCN states it's the ‘rear
visitor’ car park (oo er mrs). I’m trying to track down the
exact location of the bay on streetview, in relation to the
payment terminal ‘in reception’, and where the signs are and
what they say. The registered keeper did not receive the initial
PCN but received a PCN ‘reminder’, dated 25 June (attached).
I have emailed the retail park and intend to appeal Parking Eye
with the MSE template, adding mention of an occupant being a
blue badge holder and unable to walk round searching for
signs/pay stations late at night.
The wording on the back of the PCN refers to staying “within the
car park for longer than the 0 hours 0 minutes max stay time”.
This seems nonsensical to me, how can the maximum time allowed
be zero?
#Post#: 85643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: b789
Date: August 14, 2025, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to send a formal complaint to ParkingEye, which they
are obliged to also treat as an appeal, user section 11.2 of the
PPSCoP.
--- Quote ---
> Subject: FORMAL COMPLAINT AND APPEAL – Parking Charge [PCN
number]
>
> To: Complaints Department, ParkingEye Ltd
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> This is a formal complaint about the above Parking Charge
Notice, issued to me as the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM].
> Under Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP), any complaint that could also be considered
an appeal must be treated as both a complaint and an appeal. If
it is treated as an appeal, it must be handled in accordance
with the timescales set out in Clause 8.4.
>
> If Clause 8.4 applies, you are also required to issue a POPLA
verification code should you reject the appeal, and you are on
notice that I will require that code without delay or
obstruction.
>
> 1. Failure to Serve the Original Notice to Keeper – PoFA
Schedule 4 Breach
>
> I did not receive the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). The
only correspondence received was a “Reminder” dated 25 June.
>
> Under PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(5), you must serve a
compliant NtK within 14 days of the alleged contravention if you
wish to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. You
are put to strict proof that the NtK was:
>
> [indent]• Generated in compliance with PoFA; and
> • Actually posted within the statutory timeframe.[/indent]
>
> The presumption of service under the Interpretation Act 1978
applies only where the sender can prove actual posting. It is a
rebuttable presumption, not an automatic shield against
challenge.
>
> For clarity:
>
> [indent]• Proof of posting is not the same as producing a copy
of the NtK from your system.
> • Acceptable evidence includes a Royal Mail certificate of
posting, a franked mail manifest, or equivalent independent
evidence showing the date the item entered the postal system.
> • Without such evidence, the presumption of delivery is
rebutted and the court must accept that the NtK was not served.
> • Any attempt to rely on the tired line “we are not
responsible for the postal service” will be rejected
outright.[/indent]
>
> Responsibility for evidencing service lies entirely with you,
as the party asserting that service occurred.
>
> 2. Disability Discrimination and Breach of PPSCoP Sections 4.1
& 4.2
>
> The driver of the vehicle is a disabled person. You have
statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable
adjustments, and you also have binding obligations under PPSCoP
sections 4.1 and 4.2 to:
>
> [indent]• Ensure at least one sign containing the full parking
terms can be viewed without the driver leaving the vehicle.
> • Ensure obligations for disabled motorists are prominent,
low-placed, and readily visible from disabled bays, with clear
guidance on any steps they must take to benefit from additional
time or concessions.[/indent]
>
> From the driver’s account, no terms signage or payment
machines were visible or accessible in the vicinity of the bay
used. This placed the disabled motorist at a clear disadvantage,
constituting both a breach of the Code and unlawful indirect
discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
>
> You are now required to produce strict proof of compliance,
including:
>
> [indent]• A dated, scaled site plan showing all signage and
payment machines in relation to the disabled bay used.
> • Dated photographs showing exactly what is visible from that
bay and on the approach to it.
> • Specific evidence of reasonable adjustments in place to
ensure disabled motorists are not disadvantaged in accessing or
understanding the terms.[/indent]
>
> 3. Vague, Incoherent and Unenforceable Allegation – “0 hours 0
minutes”
>
> Your reminder states that a Parking Charge is payable if the
vehicle “remains within the car park for longer than the 0 hours
0 minutes max stay time”.
>
> This is patently absurd. A term stating that the maximum
permitted stay is zero minutes is meaningless in contract law
and in plain English. It is incapable of acceptance by any
reasonable motorist and fails to convey any intelligible
contractual obligation.
>
> Further, your own notice lists three entirely different and
mutually exclusive possible reasons for issuing the charge:
>
> [indent]• No valid pay and display ticket purchased;
> • Remaining at the car park for longer than permitted;
> • Not entering the vehicle registration into a terminal in
reception.[/indent]
>
> You have failed to identify which of these you allege applies
in this case, let alone point to the specific contractual term
said to have been breached. Such ambiguity is fatal to any
claim, as a motorist cannot be expected to guess which
obligation is alleged to have been breached.
>
> If the signage genuinely states “0 hours 0 minutes” as the
maximum stay, then it is void for uncertainty. If it does not,
then your Notice misrepresents the terms and is misleading. In
either case, the allegation is unenforceable under the Consumer
Rights Act 2015 (sections 62 and 68) due to lack of transparency
and failure to bring a key term to the attention of the motorist
in a clear and intelligible way.
>
> 4. Misuse of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
>
> Your reliance on Beavis is wholly misplaced and misleading.
The Beavis judgment concerned a retail car park offering a
clearly advertised free period, with prominent signage at the
entrance and throughout, where the motorist had knowingly
overstayed that free period.
>
> This case does not involve a clearly advertised free parking
period, and your own paperwork suggests that no such free period
exists. The facts are therefore materially different. To cite
Beavis as if it applies wholesale here is at best sloppy, and at
worst a deliberate attempt to mislead the recipient into
believing the charge has been judicially approved in
circumstances where it plainly has not. Any repetition of that
position in litigation will be challenged in open court.
>
> 5. Litigation Warning
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I am fully aware of my rights and
the relevant legal framework. If ParkingEye is under the
illusion that I can be influenced by veiled threats of possible
future litigation, you are mistaken.
>
> If you choose to escalate this matter beyond the appeals
process, I am already prepared and committed to defending any
claim robustly. In that event, I will:
>
> [indent]• Rely on your breaches of the Equality Act 2010,
PPSCoP, Consumer Rights Act 2015, and PoFA 2012.
> • Place before the court any failure to address this
complaint/appeal properly and any refusal to provide the
evidence requested.
> • Seek appropriate sanctions and costs for unreasonable
behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
> • Escalate complaints to the DVLA, BPA, and Information
Commissioner’s Office for misuse of my personal data and failure
to comply with statutory and Code obligations.[/indent]
>
> If you reject this appeal and are so sure of your position,
you are obliged under the BPA’s AOS membership rules to issue a
valid POPLA code to allow escalation. I will expect that code to
be supplied without delay or obstruction. While I hold POPLA in
little regard due to its clear lack of true independence — given
its financial reliance on the very industry it is meant to
assess — you remain contractually bound to provide that route of
escalation.
>
> Any attempt to issue a claim without first addressing the
substantive issues and evidence requests set out in this
complaint will be treated as unreasonable behaviour and will be
brought to the court’s attention in full.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name of Registered Keeper]
> [Address]
> [Email]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85662--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: August 14, 2025, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for that, I will do as advised. Can I just
check, should it be signed as if written by the registered
keeper, or can (should?) they authorise me to correspond on
their behalf, as I said they have health issues and do not need
the stress.
I have some more information about the location and signage
which I will add in a following post.
#Post#: 85666--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: b789
Date: August 14, 2025, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unless you have power of attorney or a letter of authority from
them to act on their behalf, then just sign it as them.
For ParkingEye, it’s safest and cleanest if this first formal
complaint/appeal goes in the registered keeper’s name, signed by
them, because:
[indent]• They are the one the PCN was issued to.
• PoFA liability (or lack of it) attaches to them, not you.
• ParkingEye is far less likely to try to dodge on “data
protection” grounds if it’s from the actual addressee.[/indent]
If they want you to handle all correspondence going forward —
which sounds sensible given their health — then you can add a
very short line at the end, like:
[indent]“I authorise [Your Name] to act on my behalf in relation
to this matter and to correspond with ParkingEye in my
place.”[/indent]
You would still sign it by typing in their name underneath that
line.
That way:
[indent]The keeper is clearly the complainant/appellant.
You’re formally authorised from the outset, so you can respond
to any follow-up without ParkingEye stonewalling.[/indent]
#Post#: 85671--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: August 14, 2025, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Further information about the location and signage:
I have been informed by the general manager of the shopping
centre that "after 6pm this car park is for the use of Buzz
Bingo Patrons only" and "there are a number of signs in and on
the entry to this car park". Images of signs provided have been
attached. 3 hours free for bingo patrons, (maybe this explains
zero time for non-bingo?)
The location of these signs appears to be as highlighted
(yellow) in the plan map view attached. The vehicle was parked
in the disabled bays outside the bingo entrance, highlighted
(red) in plan and streetview attached. There does not appear to
be any signage there, though streetview could be out of date. I
have asked the centre manager to send pictures of any signs in
this area if he has them.
Streetview of the entrance (yellow arrow) shows a hut, which
isn't there now, nor does it appear to be on the plan view, so
don't know what signage is there.
#Post#: 85677--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: b789
Date: August 14, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't worry about it for now. According to GSV, the images
from September 2024 show that there were no signs that conform
to the requirements of the PPSCoP section 4.1 and 4.2.
Send the complaint to ParkingEye as advised and wait for a
response.
#Post#: 85695--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: August 14, 2025, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've had a response from the centre showing signs on the red
fencing behind the parking spaces, which I've attached for
completeness.
Lastly before I complain can I ask is it likely that this will
end up in court? Am I right to presume PE/Popla will reject any
complaint/appeal and take me to court? The reason I ask is with
the registered keepers health issues taking up enough of my
time, I also have ADHD and anxiety which means keeping track of
paperwork and meeting deadlines is not my strong point, I'm
worried I won't be able to keep on top of it all and end up
paying additional costs.
#Post#: 85697--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: b789
Date: August 14, 2025, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The sign needs to readable from the drivers position. That sign
is too far away and behind the expected position of the car.
The odds of that ever actually seeing the inside of a courtroom
are less than 1%. If it did, the odds of winning are greater
than 90%. If you follow the advice, you won't be paying a penny.
You will also get a very valuable life lesson on how to stand up
for your (or the drivers) rights and win.
#Post#: 85699--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 14, 2025, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To emphasise the point it might be wise to take a photo from the
perspective of a driver who has driving into the space forwards,
showing that there isn't a sign directly in front of the space
(which would be good practice in a disabled bay).
Whilst nobody can provide reliable odds, I'd agree with b789
that this is more likely to be one of the ones ParkingEye farm
out to DCB Legal, in which case the odds of a hearing are very
small. They usually only take legal action "in house" when they
fancy their chances, which ones imagines they won't in this
case.
#Post#: 85818--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkingeye PCN - Non-payment - Cockhedge Shopping Centre
DIR By: txl08
Date: August 15, 2025, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the continued advice. I have now submitted the
complaint.
Does the fact they sent the 'reminder' so soon - 9 days after
date of 'issue' - suggest they never sent the original PCN in
the first place? The 14 days allowed to pay the reduced rate
hadn't even passed. It definitely wasn't received and the post
here is usually pretty reliable.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page