The old “who is the Monkey and who is the Organ Grinder” in a contractual relationship. It’s a very unattractive position for them to take, but it might be contractually possible – and that’s probably what’s going on here.
A few points to try and explain it:
What their letter actually says
The wording is careful: “We have recently received a request to cancel this parking charge via our client… we are unable to cancel the parking charge at this stage…”
That’s not the same as “our principal has instructed us to cancel and we are defying them”. It suggests the landowner (or site management) has asked them to “look at cancelling”, and ParkingEye has decided not to, but will take £20 as a “compromise”.
Principal/agent vs independent contractor
In a pure agency relationship, the principal (landowner) tells the agent what to do. If the principal gives a clear instruction, the agent is normally expected to follow it.
However, most ParkingEye contracts are drafted so that ParkingEye issues and enforces charges in its own name and for its own account, with wide discretion over cancellations. The landowner often keeps a step-back role and simply provides authority to operate, not day-to-day control over each PCN.
If the contract does give ParkingEye cancellation discretion, then a “request” from the client is just that – a request – not a binding instruction. From a third-party motorist’s point of view, that is not something you can usually enforce.
Why this still helps the recipient
Even if they are technically allowed to ignore the client’s request, the letter is useful ammunition:
It is clear evidence that the landholder or site client wanted the case dropped, and ParkingEye chose to press on for money anyway.
In a complaint or in front of a judge, that speaks volumes about motive and reasonableness. It shows the regime is revenue-driven rather than about site management or loss.
It can support an argument on unreasonable conduct and, at the very least, undermine any attempt by ParkingEye to present themselves as acting in the landowner’s best interests.
How I characterise their claim
They are not saying “we are legally forbidden” to cancel; they are saying “we have decided not to”, dressed up as being “unable”.
Whether they can override a clear instruction from the landowner depends entirely on the private contract between them – which you don’t see.
What you can say, safely, is that it is commercially and ethically dubious for an operator to continue pursuing a motorist after the client has asked for cancellation.
Apart from that, is there a question?
