Show Posts - 8wrg

Management company cancelled the PCN, thank you both for your help

Quote from: b789 on 29 Oct, 2025 18:07Tut, tut, tut! Why have you identified the driver? I hope you haven't sent that email/letter yet.Quote from: 8wrg on 29 Oct, 2025 16:58Dear [Management Company],I am writing regarding a Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd in relation to my a vehicle, registration AB12 CDE, of which I am the Registered Keeper, at Stockwood Gardens, Luton on 20 October 2025.I The driver was attending the property as a delivery driver, delivering parcels to multiple residents across several blocks. The vehicle remained in active use for loading and unloading throughout this time and was not parked or left unattended.The Parking Charge was issued despite this being legitimate business activity that supports residents and does not obstruct, nor misuse the parking facilities. The signage at the site does not clearly explain how delivery vehicles can register for access, nor does it provide practical means for drivers to comply while performing multiple deliveries. I am concerned that if the issuing of PCN to delivery drivers continues, that your residents will in effect become blacklisted by couriers. Given that ParkingEye operates the car park on behalf of [Management Company], I respectfully request that you instruct them to cancel this Parking Charge Notice as it was issued in error against a vehicle performing legitimate work on the premises. The Parking Charge Notice reference is: [1234]If you require confirmation of the delivery, I can provide the relevant delivery logs for the date in question.Thank you for your time and assistance in resolving this matter.Kind regards Yours faithfully,        Serves me right for doing it whilst I'm tired..... Touchwood that they don't pass on that specific wording to ParkingEye. Still feel that the points stand that the vehicle was loading and not parked.

Quote from: b789 on 29 Oct, 2025 03:51Has there been any attempt contacting the management company and getting them to get their agent to cancel the PCN? It may be worth letting residents that they risk having their address backlisted by delivery firms if their drivers are going to be slapped with a charge for doing their job?Was easier to find them than I though. I've written to them now, and said:Dear [Management Company],I am writing regarding a Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd in relation to my vehicle, registration AB12 CDE, at Stockwood Gardens, Luton on 20 October 2025.I was attending the property as a delivery driver, delivering parcels to multiple residents across several blocks. The vehicle remained in active use for loading and unloading throughout this time and was not parked or left unattended.The Parking Charge was issued despite this being legitimate business activity that supports residents and does not obstruct, nor misuse the parking facilities. The signage at the site does not clearly explain how delivery vehicles can register for access, nor does it provide practical means for drivers to comply while performing multiple deliveries. I am concerned that if the issuing of PCN to delivery drivers continues, that your residents will in effect become blacklisted by couriers. Given that ParkingEye operates the car park on behalf of [Management Company], I respectfully request that you instruct them to cancel this Parking Charge Notice as it was issued in error against a vehicle performing legitimate work on the premises. The Parking Charge Notice reference is: [1234]If you require confirmation of the delivery, I can provide the relevant delivery logs for the date in question.Thank you for your time and assistance in resolving this matter.Kind regards

Quote from: b789 on 29 Oct, 2025 03:51It would be better to see both sides of the Notice to Keeper (NtK). When was the date of the alleged contravention? You have referenced a very old BPA CoP. The BPA CoP was replaced with the PPSCoP over a year a go and has since been updated to v1.1 in February this year.Whilst Jopson v Homeguard is the correct case law to reference, that will only work once it goes to court. At appeal stage, you are dealing with template rejections.There is always a flaw in ParkingEye NtKs because they fail to comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as there is no invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge.Has there been any attempt contacting the management company and getting them to get their agent to cancel the PCN? It may be worth letting residents that they risk having their address backlisted by delivery firms if their drivers are going to be slapped with a charge for doing their job?> Both sides of the NtKhttps://ibb.co/hxxM153qhttps://ibb.co/mVshRXcd> When was the date of alleged contravention?20/10/25 - PCN issued 24/10, received in post 28/10> There is always a flaw in ParkingEye NtKs....Thank you, will look into this. > Has there been any attempt contacting the management company...No, is it worth reaching out to them before appealing with ParkingEye? Any clue on how to find who the management company is?Thank you for your help.

I have drafted a rough appeal letter. Please let me know if there's anything I'm perhaps missing. To ParkingEyeI am the registered keeper of vehicle AB12 CDE. I am appealing Parking Charge Notice reference [XXXXXXXXXXXXXX].Grounds of appeal:Legitimate delivery activity – The vehicle was present at Stockwood Gardens solely for the purpose of completing multiple parcel deliveries to residents. During this time the vehicle was repeatedly loaded and unloaded and remained in active use. In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] 9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris QC confirmed that temporary stopping or remaining on-site for loading or unloading does not constitute “parking.” The activity carried out here falls squarely within that definition.Ambiguous and unfair terms – The signage attempts to include “waiting or otherwise remaining” as parking. This is vague and fails to clearly warn that legitimate delivery or loading activity would attract a charge. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, such ambiguity renders the term unfair and unenforceable.Failure to demonstrate landowner authority – You have not provided proof of a current written agreement with the landowner authorising ParkingEye to issue and pursue parking charges at Stockwood Gardens. I require production of that contract in unredacted form as set out in the BPA Code of Practice, Version 8 (January 2020), Section 7.ANPR limitations – Your cameras record only the times of entry and exit, not whether the vehicle was stationary or actively being loaded or unloaded. These images cannot establish the required “period of parking” under paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.Supporting delivery logs are attached confirming the purpose of the visit and multiple delivery points within the site.If you reject this appeal, I will refer the matter to POPLA.Kind regards,

Sorry the image did not upload properly, it can be viewed here:https://ibb.co/j9Tr3Tjc

My partner has been served a Parking Charge Notice from ParkingEye whilst she was delivering parcels outside a block of flats in England. She was loading in the car park for just over an hour as there were multiple packages. Is there any grounds to appeal this? We have not contacted ParkingEye, nor identified as the driver. ParkingEye claim that "by either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd" which was detailed on the rear of the PCN she received. Does she have any grounds to dispute this and have the charge revoked? I have attached an image of the signage at the car park below.