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.
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:
• 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.
The two working day rule arises from CPR 6.26 and not directly from s7 of the Interpretation Act.
PoFA 2012 Sch 4(9)(6)
See above
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.
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:
• 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.
The two working day rule arises from CPR 6.26 and not directly from s7 of the Interpretation Act.
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. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji52.png)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7)
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.
You only need a free Proof of Posting certificate from any post office for this presumption to apply.
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.
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.
Don't worry too much about this. If the POPLA appeal is successful, that is the end of the matter. If it is not, their decision is not binding on you. You certainly don't pay it.
Since 3-1-5 Health Club hasn’t replied to the formal complaint and legal warning letter that was sent to them on 12 March 2025. It looks like they’re hoping you won’t follow through, and they’re choosing to ignore the situation.
At this point, you could take them to court for disability discrimination under the Equality Act. However, I’ve looked into the company behind 3-1-5 (X-Force UK Ltd), and there are warning signs that they may not be financially stable. They’ve had insolvency issues in the past and currently have charges (debts) registered against them.
This means that even if you win your case, there’s a real risk that the company might not be able to pay you—and you could end up losing money, such as the court fees. Because of that, it’s worth thinking carefully before going ahead with legal action.
If you don’t want to risk going to court, there are other ways to keep the pressure on them and possibly get a result:
• Contact the landlord or landowner – If 3-1-5 rents their building, the landowner may be concerned about discrimination taking place on their site. They may step in.
• Public pressure – You can leave reviews online (Trustpilot, Google, etc.) or share your experience on social media. You can also contact local newspapers or disability support groups. This can damage their reputation and often pushes businesses to take complaints seriously.
• Make a data complaint – If ParkingEye still has your personal details or Blue Badge image, and they had no right to keep them, you can complain to them under data protection law (UK GDPR). If they don’t handle that properly, you can escalate to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
• Use a final letter to push for cancellation – One last short letter could say that due to their financial situation, you’ll pause any court action—but if they don’t cancel the PCN and apologise, you’ll take other steps instead. This sometimes makes them reconsider.
• Contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) (https://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com) – They offer free advice about your rights and how to push forward with your complaint without going to court.
You don’t have to decide straight away, but these are all ways to move forward without spending more money or taking legal risks. Let me know what you’d like to do.
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. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji52.png)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7)
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.
You only need a free Proof of Posting certificate from any post office for this presumption to apply.
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.
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:
“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
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:
• 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.
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.
I suggest you send the following formal complaint to 3-1-5 Gym as they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agent, ParkingEye. Also, read up on this:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/disability-discrimination
You could even send the formal complaint to 3-1-5 as a Letter Before Claim (LBC). Given the clear direct and indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, you could seek damages for distress, inconvenience, and injury to feelings.
How Much in Damages? The Vento Guidelines set out compensation levels for discrimination claims. Based on your experience, including:
• Distress and inconvenience caused by the PCN and ParkingEye’s enforcement.
• Humiliation and indignity from being treated differently than able-bodied visitors.
• Impact on your health (i.e., your disability means you risk collapse if forced to stand, and their inaccessible system put you at that risk).
You would likely fall into the Lower Band of Vento (2023 figures, adjusted for inflation in 2025):
• £1,100 – £11,200 (lower band) for one-off or less serious cases of discrimination.
• £11,200 – £33,700 (middle band) for more serious cases of discrimination with ongoing effects.
A reasonable starting figure would be around £3,000–£5,000, given the stress, inconvenience, and breach of your rights. This would reflect:
• The burden of having to challenge the PCN.
• The discriminatory treatment.
• The emotional and practical impact of an inaccessible system.
You could go higher if you feel the discrimination was particularly egregious.
Anyway, here is a simple formal complaint you should send immediately to 3-1-5 Gym:
The Management
3-1-5 Health Club
Lancaster Business Park, Caton Road
Lancaster, LA1 3PE
Subject: Formal Complaint – ParkingEye’s Discriminatory Practices & 3-1-5 Gym’s Own Direct Disability Discrimination
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding the unlawful discrimination that I have suffered as a disabled visitor to 3-1-5 Gym on 18th December 2024, as a result of both ParkingEye’s actions as your agent and 3-1-5 Gym’s own discriminatory policies.
1. Summary of Events
On 18th December 2024, I attended a medical appointment at a business that leases an office within your premises but is located outside the gym’s swipe-barrier-controlled area. As a Blue Badge holder, I was legally entitled to park in a disabled space. However, I have since received an unfair Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from ParkingEye.
Your parking policy discriminates against disabled visitors because:
• Able-bodied visitors can park for three hours for free, without any action required.
• Disabled visitors must register their vehicle using a parking terminal that is not accessible unless they first obtain permission to pass through the gym's swipe barriers.
• The parking terminal is hidden from public view, making it impossible for disabled visitors attending businesses outside the gym to access it.
• There is no seating in Reception, and my disability means I am unable to stand for prolonged periods without risking collapse, dizziness, and nausea.
Your staff have confirmed that PCNs for able-bodied visitors can be cancelled, but that disabled visitors are denied this option because ParkingEye allegedly will not allow it.
2. Direct Discrimination by 3-1-5 Gym (Not Just ParkingEye)
Under the Equality Act 2010, 3-1-5 Gym is legally responsible for ensuring that disabled people are not treated less favourably. Your current parking policy is discriminatory in two key ways:
(a) Direct Discrimination
• Your staff have explicitly confirmed that disabled visitors are treated differently from able-bodied visitors regarding PCN cancellations.
• You provide automatic free parking for able-bodied visitors, but disabled visitors must undertake an extra, unnecessary, and inaccessible process just to park.
(b) Indirect Discrimination
• The requirement for disabled visitors to register their vehicle in an inaccessible area (beyond swipe barriers) is an unreasonable and avoidable burden.
• The lack of seating in Reception means that disabled visitors cannot queue safely.
3. 3-1-5 Gym’s Liability – Joint and Several Responsibility for ParkingEye’s Conduct
• ParkingEye is acting as your agent, and you remain jointly and severally liable for their actions.
• You have chosen to implement a system that disproportionately affects disabled visitors.
• You cannot delegate your legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to a third party.[/indnet]
4. Required Action – Immediate Cancellation of the PCN and Policy ReformTo resolve this matter, I require the following actions within 14 days:
1. Immediate cancellation of the PCN issued by ParkingEye.
2. Written confirmation that disabled visitors will not be unfairly penalised in the future.
3. A formal review of your parking system to ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010, including:
• Relocating the parking terminal to an accessible area.
• Ensuring all disabled visitors are exempt from unfair enforcement measures.
• Staff training on disability rights and legal obligations.
If this matter is not resolved within 14 days, I will:
• Include 3-1-5 Gym as a co-defendant in any counterclaim against ParkingEye should they pursue litigation.
• Seek damages under the Equality Act 2010 for distress and inconvenience caused by your unlawful discrimination.
6. Final Opportunity to Resolve This AmicablyI trust that 3-1-5 Gym will take this final opportunity to rectify the discrimination and cancel the PCN. If you wish to discuss this matter further, I am open to dialogue within the response period.
I look forward to your urgent response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]