Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have responded to your PM and advised on how you should publish a suitable redacted version of the response. I have also PMd you why their response not only doesn't answer your points but further exposes their admission to discrimination against you and all other disable d customers.

lease let me know ASAP so that I can also provide you with the required next step in responding to 3-1-5 Gym and ParkingEye.

So, for clarification, this was the response from 3-1-5 to the formal complaint:

Dear MX XXXXXXX,
 
We sincerely apologise that you have felt the need to send such a detailed complaint regarding your experience at 3-1-5 Health Club. Please be assured that we take all concerns seriously and strive to ensure fair and accessible policies for all our visitors.
 
I am responding on behalf of Sean Thornton, as he is currently undergoing medical treatment at XXXXXXXXXX and is unable to reply personally. However, he has been made aware of your complaint. We appreciate your concerns and would like to clarify our position and the reasoning behind our parking policies.
 
1. Summary of Events

We acknowledge that you received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) after attending a medical appointment at Biomed on 18th December 2024. However, as stated in our last communication, any appeal must be directed to Parking Eye. From your letter, we assume your appeal has been declined. Please can you confirm this, our Front of house team confirm they explained the procedure to you but were unsure of the outcome as they had not heard since that discussion.
 
Regarding your concerns:

Three-hour free parking for able-bodied visitors: This applies to all standard parking spaces. The disabled bays require registration due to past abuse by non-disabled users, which resulted in numerous complaints and cancellations. The policy was implemented to ensure that disabled bays remain available for those who need them. That was and is always our priority.

Location of the parking terminal: The registration system is kept at reception in line with our general visitor sign-in process. We recognise that Biomed’s location means some visitors have no requirement to pass by reception, and we have since taken steps to improve communication with all our resident partners to ensure visitors are made aware of the need to register blue badges.

Accessibility issues: We understand that your condition makes standing at reception difficult. Any member of our team, including XXXXXX from Biomed, can assist in registering your Blue Badge and car registration without requiring you to stand at reception.
 
2. Direct Discrimination Allegations

We strongly refute the claim that our parking policy is discriminatory.

(a) Direct Discrimination

We do not have the authority to cancel PCNs for disabled users; this ability was removed by Parking Eye due to misuse of the system. We physically do not have access to a cancellation portal. Appeals must go through Parking Eye directly.

The requirement to register Blue Badges is not to discriminate but to ensure that disabled bays are used appropriately. This system has significantly reduced misuse and has been effective in ensuring availability for genuine Blue Badge holders.

(b) Indirect Discrimination

The parking terminal is not located behind a swipe barrier but is in reception. We acknowledge that Biomed visitors may not automatically pass through or by reception, and we are working to improve communication about this requirement.

We appreciate the concern regarding seating at reception and will review options to enhance accessibility, however, we very rarely have queue’s, so this has never been an issue or a requirement. We have multiple receptionists on duty at all times, so queuing has not been an issue on a day to day basis. In the meantime, any staff member can assist in registering a Blue Badge without requiring visitors to stand at reception.
 
3. 3-1-5 Health Club’s Liability

While Parking Eye manages our parking enforcement, we acknowledge our responsibility to ensure fair access. However, we are not legally able to cancel Disabled Bay PCNs ourselves.
The registration system was introduced as a proactive measure to prevent abuse of disabled spaces, ensuring they remain available for those who need them. Again always our priority.
 
4. Misleading Signage

The sign states that the parking terminal is in reception, which is correct. However, we recognize that better clarity may be required, particularly for visitors to Biomed.
 
5. Requested Actions

Cancellation of PCN: As previously stated, 3-1-5 Health Club does not have the authority to cancel PCN’s for disabled bays, this is a separate system and as explained, any appeals must be directed to Parking Eye. Since receiving your letter on 12th March, we have contacted Parking Eye to ask for an update on your situation as you have not communicated with us as to whether your PCN was appealed successfully or not.

Future Prevention of Unfair Penalties: We have reinforced communication with our partners to ensure that all disabled visitors are made aware of the need to register their Blue Badge upon arrival and that we do not have the facility to cancel PCN’s for the disabled bays.

Review of the Parking System:

We have forwarded your letter to Parking Eye who will deal with your complaint directly.
Staff training is paramount to us and always a priority, we always ensure all visitors, especially those with disabilities, are treated with fairness and respect.
 
6. Legal Considerations

We take accusations of discrimination very seriously and are disappointed that you feel this way. Our parking policy was implemented to protect disabled parking spaces, not to discriminate. We strive to be an inclusive facility and have a large number of disabled members and visitors who use our facilities due to our accessibility and the services we provide for non able bodied users.
 
7. Resolution

If you have not yet registered your Blue Badge and registration with us, we encourage you to do so to avoid future issues. Please do let us know should you require assistance, XXXXXX or another team member can register your badge on your behalf. Please just ask. As stated earlier, Parking Eye who both issue and have the ability to cancel disabled bay PCN’s will be in contact with you directly.
 
We hope this clarifies our position and reassures you of our commitment to accessibility and fairness.
 
Yours sincerely,

XXXXXXXX
On behalf of Sean Thornton
3-1-5 Health Club

That response received from 3-1-5 Gym actually strengthens your position. They’ve admitted that disabled visitors are treated differently from able-bodied visitors. Able-bodied people can use the car park for three hours without registering, but disabled visitors are required to go out of their way to register at reception just to avoid a penalty. That’s a clear example of discrimination, since it places a burden on disabled people that doesn’t apply to others.

They’ve also admitted that visitors attending businesses like Biomed might not pass through reception at all, meaning they won’t even see the parking terminal. While they claim the terminal is technically located in reception and not behind swipe barriers, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s not visible or accessible to people who don’t go through reception. They even acknowledge that the signage may not be clear enough. These are direct admissions that the system in place is not suitable for all visitors, particularly disabled ones.

Their claim that they cannot cancel PCNs for disabled bays because ParkingEye won’t allow it is absurd and is irrelevant in law. They are the principal party, and ParkingEye is acting as their agent. That means 3-1-5 remains legally responsible for any discriminatory consequences arising from the parking enforcement system they’ve chosen to use. Passing the buck to ParkingEye doesn’t change that.

They also dismiss your concerns about accessibility and standing at reception by saying they don’t usually have queues. That misses the point entirely. The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act is based on your needs as a disabled visitor, not on what they consider “normal” or how busy they think reception usually is.

You now have solid grounds to escalate this to a formal Letter Before Claim. You can claim for unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and seek compensation for distress, inconvenience, and the impact this has had on you. A reasonable amount to claim would be in the region of £3,000 to £5,000, based on comparable cases. You would also require them to cancel the PCN and review their parking system to stop this happening to others. If they don’t resolve it within 14 days, you would then have the option to begin court proceedings.

I suggest the following response to that letter:

Dear XXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your response dated [insert date]. I note its contents and your attempt to deflect responsibility for the discriminatory treatment I experienced as a disabled visitor to 3-1-5 Health Club on 18th December 2024. Unfortunately, your letter only confirms that 3-1-5’s current policies place disabled visitors at a clear disadvantage compared to able-bodied visitors and fails to offer any lawful justification for doing so.

You expressly admit that able-bodied visitors are permitted to park for up to three hours with no registration requirement, while disabled visitors are not permitted to park for up to three hours unless they undertake an additional process involving the manual registration of a Blue Badge.

This process is not only unnecessary but your assertion that the parking terminal is “in reception” is plainly misleading. In reality, it is located behind access-controlled barriers within the members-only area of the building. The fact remains that it is not visible, accessible, or intuitive to anyone not attending the gym itself.

For visitors parking outside and attending partner services such as Biomed, the terminal is definitely not visible, not accessible, and not reasonably discoverable unless someone happens to inform them. You also accept that signage may be unclear, which reinforces the fact that the system was not designed with the needs of disabled visitors in mind.

Your response also dismisses entirely the need for seating at reception, despite my condition requiring it. Whether or not queues are “rare” is irrelevant. The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 is not conditional on your perception of frequency but triggered by the actual impact on disabled individuals. That is the legal test.

Now to your most absurd contention—the suggestion that 3-1-5 is “not legally able” to cancel PCNs issued for disabled bays because ParkingEye, your agent, will not permit it. This is legally nonsensical. You are the principal. ParkingEye acts on your behalf, under your authority, on your land. You are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agent. If your position is that your own appointed agent has forbidden you from intervening even in cases where a PCN has been issued unlawfully or discriminatorily, then I require strict proof. You will be expected to disclose, in full, the unredacted contract between 3-1-5 Health Club and ParkingEye Ltd, showing where such an extraordinary and preposterous restriction on your authority is stated.

Further, your own letter reveals the discriminatory nature of your current arrangement in plain terms. You state: “We do not have the facility to cancel PCNs for the disabled bays”—a statement which, when read in full context, only serves to embarrass your position. It implies that cancellations are possible for other visitors—namely able-bodied ones—but not for disabled users. If that isn’t direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, then what is?

You appear to be operating a two-tier system where one group of visitors can expect discretion and flexibility, while another—disabled people—are subjected to rigid enforcement, without exception or appeal through the principal. This unequal treatment, based solely on disability status, is indefensible in law and will be central to any claim brought against you.

The idea that you would enter into a contract that strips you of any ability to ensure lawful and non-discriminatory treatment of your disabled visitors is almost too ridiculous to contemplate, and if you were to be so imbecilic as to let this matter reach trial, this excuse will be prised apart in open court. Passing the buck to your agent is not a defence. The Equality Act does not allow a principal to delegate away its legal responsibilities, and any attempt to do so will only reinforce your liability.

Let me be absolutely clear: this is your final opportunity to resolve this matter. If the PCN is not cancelled and written confirmation of this provided within 14 days of this letter, I will issue a claim against both 3-1-5 Health Club and ParkingEye Ltd under the Equality Act 2010. I will seek compensation for unlawful disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and the distress and inconvenience caused. My claim will include an award of damages in the region of £3,000 to £5,000, assessed in line with Vento band guidance.

I expect your next correspondence to be a full and unequivocal confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled and that you are reviewing your policies to ensure no further discrimination occurs against disabled visitors.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

Dear b789,

Also, what is the situation with the landowner and Parkingeye - essentially, do the club ultimately have the power force PE to cancel the tickets? Or, as the respondent said, can this power be removed from them?

Best wishes

I did wonder with this response whether they were relying on the defence (within The Equalities Act 2010) that discriminating against people in order to solve a genuine problem (abuse of the disabled spaces) is therefore not discrimination? I am curious as to what it means in the Act - is that what it means? So if a company claims it was done to get rid of one problem and therefore discrimination is collateral damage, can people defend themselves with that argument? Because they have a case study (Parkingeye at 3-1-5) online which clearly explains why they have done it. NB - I am just checking because I am curious about the mechanisms, and how they go about all of this, what makes them so confident?

I don't think that they are confident at all. I don't know what you makes you think that they are.

Your question is insightful—and yes, it sounds like they may be trying (consciously or not) to rely on what’s known as a justification defence under the Equality Act 2010, which applies only to indirect discrimination, not direct discrimination.

Direct discrimination is where a person is treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic, like disability. There is no legal defence to direct discrimination, except in very limited cases involving age.

Indirect discrimination is where a policy or rule applies to everyone, but disproportionately disadvantages people with a protected characteristic. This can be defended if the policy is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

Is that what you’re referring to—the so-called “greater good” or collateral damage justification?

Their explanation—that disabled visitors must register because others were abusing the disabled bays—suggests they are attempting to justify indirect discrimination, not realising that their policy might also be direct discrimination (which has no such defence).

So, they might argue: “We require Blue Badge holders to register because of previous misuse. That’s our legitimate aim—to ensure those bays are kept for genuine users.” But here’s the problem: The policy only applies to disabled people—not everyone. That strongly suggests it’s direct discrimination, since you’re being treated worse because you are disabled. They can’t justify that.

Even if it’s treated as indirect discrimination, they still have to show that the measure is proportionate. That means the problem was real and evidenced; The measure was likely to solve it; There was no less discriminatory way to solve it and the impact on disabled visitors was minimal.

Their system clearly fails this test because it requires extra steps from disabled people that aren’t required of anyone else. It relies on inaccessible terminals and unclear signage. It offers no safeguard for those with non-visible disabilities. They refuse to cancel PCNs, even when a person can prove eligibility to use the space.

That’s unlikely to be considered proportionate by any court.

They may be over-relying on advice from ParkingEye, whose commercial interest is to maximise enforceable PCNs, not to protect 3-1-5 from discrimination claims. They may believe the “abuse of disabled bays” story sounds reasonable to the average person and might bluff through it if unchallenged. They may believe that most people won’t sue or know the law well enough to challenge them.

I have no idea what this "case study with ParkingEye" you refer to is. Could this possible be a story made up by ParkingEye and is likely framed as a success story, focusing on reduced bay misuse and not on whether the system is legally compliant or discriminatory? Practical success doesn’t override legal obligations under the Equality Act.

So, they might think their policy is lawful because it aims to solve a genuine problem, but in reality:

• If the policy causes direct discrimination, it’s indefensible.
• If it causes indirect discrimination, they must justify it—and the system as it stands is unlikely to pass that test.

So their confidence (that you think they have) may rest more on habit and lack of legal challenge than on any solid legal footing.

Dear B789,

Oh wow - what a brilliant response the edited one is awesome, and of course, I shall make sure we are ready to go before sending anything.

Yes, that is what I meant when I asked about the defence being to solve a problem and I understand now regarding direct and indirect, thank you for clarifying this for me and helping me to understand, I am very grateful.

I suppose I thought they were confident because of their defensive responses, when clearly in the wrong, one would have thought they may have let it go and just cancelled the ticket.

You're not going to believe what I have just found. When looking for the Parkingeye 3-1-5 Case Study, to which I will provide a link below, one of the quotations from a staff member, states they are proud to be able to cancel the tickets in event of error - or words to that effect. I shall provide the link:

https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/car-park-management/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2023/07/Case-Study-315.pdf

Best wishes

Well, this is a damning bit of evidence:




Will need to think about this a bit more.

Amended response, which now includes Ms Sarah Dack McGuniess's name as she is in the public domain with the mention of her name in the case study:

Dear Ms Sarah Dack McGuniess,

Thank you for your response dated [insert date]. I note its contents and your attempt to deflect responsibility for the discriminatory treatment I experienced as a disabled visitor to 3-1-5 Health Club on 18th December 2024. Unfortunately, your letter only confirms that 3-1-5’s current policies place disabled visitors at a clear disadvantage compared to able-bodied visitors and fails to offer any lawful justification for doing so.

You expressly admit that able-bodied visitors are permitted to park for up to three hours with no registration requirement, while disabled visitors are not permitted to park for up to three hours unless they undertake an additional process involving the manual registration of a Blue Badge.

This process is not only unnecessary but your assertion that the parking terminal is “in reception” is plainly misleading. In reality, it is located behind access-controlled barriers within the members-only area of the building. The fact remains that it is not visible, accessible, or intuitive to anyone not attending the gym itself.

For visitors parking outside and attending partner services such as Biomed, the terminal is definitely not visible, not accessible, and not reasonably discoverable unless someone happens to inform them. You also accept that signage may be unclear, which reinforces the fact that the system was not designed with the needs of disabled visitors in mind.

Your response also dismisses entirely the need for seating at reception, despite my condition requiring it. Whether or not queues are “rare” is irrelevant. The duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 is not conditional on your perception of frequency but triggered by the actual impact on disabled individuals. That is the legal test.

Now to your most absurd contention—the suggestion that 3-1-5 is “not legally able” to cancel PCNs issued for disabled bays because ParkingEye, your agent, will not permit it. This is legally nonsensical. You are the principal. ParkingEye acts on your behalf, under your authority, on your land. You are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agent. If your position is that your own appointed agent has forbidden you from intervening even in cases where a PCN has been issued unlawfully or discriminatorily, then I require strict proof. You will be expected to disclose, in full, the unredacted contract between 3-1-5 Health Club and ParkingEye Ltd, showing where such an extraordinary and preposterous restriction on your authority is stated.

Further, your own letter reveals the discriminatory nature of your current arrangement in plain terms. You state: “We do not have the facility to cancel PCNs for the disabled bays”—a statement which, when read in full context, only serves to embarrass your position. It implies that cancellations are possible for other visitors—namely able-bodied ones—but not for disabled users. If that isn’t direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, then what is?

You appear to be operating a two-tier system where one group of visitors can expect discretion and flexibility, while another—disabled people—are subjected to rigid enforcement, without exception or appeal through the principal. This unequal treatment, based solely on disability status, is indefensible in law and will be central to any claim brought against you.

It is astonishing that 3-1-5 Health Club continues to assert that it lacks the authority to cancel PCNs for disabled bays, when in fact your own marketing materials—jointly produced with ParkingEye—state the opposite. In ParkingEye’s published case study for your site, your staff are quoted as saying: “We like being able to cancel PCNs for genuine mistakes.” You also confirm the club has full control of enforcement measures, including the ability to whitelist vehicles and instruct ParkingEye to suspend monitoring for events. This completely undermines your claim that you have no say in the matter. The reality is that you have simply chosen not to assist disabled visitors, despite having the clear capacity to do so.

This supports the wider evidence that you operate a two-tier enforcement system, one in which able-bodied visitors can expect cancellation for errors, while disabled people are treated with inflexibility and subjected to PCNs based on inaccessible procedures. That is not only discriminatory—it is indefensible.

The idea that you would enter into a contract that strips you of any ability to ensure lawful and non-discriminatory treatment of your disabled visitors is almost too ridiculous to contemplate, and if you were to be so imbecilic as to let this matter reach trial, this excuse will be prised apart in open court. Passing the buck to your agent is not a defence. The Equality Act does not allow a principal to delegate away its legal responsibilities, and any attempt to do so will only reinforce your liability.

Let me be absolutely clear: this is your final opportunity to resolve this matter. If the PCN is not cancelled and written confirmation of this provided within 14 days of this letter, I will issue a claim against both 3-1-5 Health Club and ParkingEye Ltd under the Equality Act 2010. I will seek compensation for unlawful disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and the distress and inconvenience caused. My claim will include an award of damages in the region of £3,000 to £5,000, assessed in line with Vento band guidance.

I expect your next correspondence to be a full and unequivocal confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled and that you are reviewing your policies to ensure no further discrimination occurs against disabled visitors.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]