Free Traffic Legal Advice

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

Just to cover this minor point that you asked earlier in the thread... The short answer is 'possibly' - it depends on the contract between ParkingEye and the landowner. I have seen some that levy a fee on cancellations or otherwise purport to limit cancellations.

However, I'd say that's not your problem. Any contract they may have signed with ParkingEye does not absolve them of any obligations relating to disabled people and fair treatment of customers. If they've signed a contract that leaves them out of pocket in such cases, that's their problem.

                           XXXXXXXXX
                           XXXXXXXXX
                           XXXXXXXXX
                           XXXXXXXXX
                           XXXX XXX

                           24th March, 2025

3-1-5 Health Club
Mannin Way
Lancaster
LA1 3PE

Dear Ms Sarah Dack McGuniess,

Thank you for your response dated 18th March 2025. 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 health club facilities themselves.

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.

For completeness, I should also note that the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) was never received, and the first correspondence I received was a so-called “Reminder Notice” dated just 15 days after the parking event. Given that the statutory period to make payment is 28 days, this early reminder raises legitimate suspicion that the original NtK may never have been sent at all. When ParkingEye finally sent what they claimed was the original NtK via email attachment (only after my complaint), it attempted to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, under Schedule 4 of PoFA, where no Notice to Driver was issued at the time of the event, a Notice to Keeper must be actually delivered within 14 days of the alleged contravention in order to create Keeper liability. If the original was not served within that period—and I maintain that it was not—then ParkingEye cannot rely on PoFA, and no Keeper liability arises. This further undermines the basis of the PCN and should have been sufficient reason for it to be cancelled outright, even before the Equality Act breach was considered.

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. I have already been informed 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, you 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,

XXXXXXXX

 XXXXXXXXX
 XXXXXXXXX
 XXXXXXXXX
 XXXXXXXXX
 XXXX XXX

 24th March, 2025

3-1-5 Health Club
Mannin Way
Lancaster
LA1 3PE

Dear Ms Sarah Dack McGuniess,

Thank you for your response dated 18th March 2025. 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 health club facilities themselves.

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.

For completeness, I should also note that the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) was never received, and the first correspondence I received was a so-called “Reminder Notice” dated just 15 days after the parking event. Given that the statutory period to make payment is 28 days, this early reminder raises legitimate suspicion that the original NtK may never have been sent at all. When ParkingEye finally sent what they claimed was the original NtK via email attachment (only after my complaint), it attempted to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, under Schedule 4 of PoFA, where no Notice to Driver was issued at the time of the event, a Notice to Keeper must be actually delivered within 14 days of the alleged contravention in order to create Keeper liability. If the original was not served within that period—and I maintain that it was not—then ParkingEye cannot rely on PoFA, and no Keeper liability arises. This further undermines the basis of the PCN and should have been sufficient reason for it to be cancelled outright, even before the Equality Act breach was considered.

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. I have already been informed 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, you 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,

XXXXXXXX

I would not include the section you have added about the NtK. You are not corresponding with ParkingEye and your assertion is wrong. A "reminder" is not debt recovery or enforcement.

The "reminder" is simply informing the Keeper that any discount period has expired and that the full amount of the charge will be due by the expiry of the "relevant period". The statutory period of 28 days you refer to is the number of days counting from the day after the date the notice is given, before the creditor can attempt to recover the charge from the Keeper, subject to all the requirements of PoFA being fulfilled.

The original NtK may or may not have actually been sent and ParkingEye have provided no evidence to prove the date the notice entered the postal system as required by the PPSCoP and therefore cannot establish service according to the requirements of the Interpretation Act 1978.

The requirements of PoFA only need to be established on the original NtK. Any reminder is irrelevant. As you saw on the copy of the original NtK, ParkingEye do include reference to PoFA. However, their NtK is flawed and is not fully compliant with all the requirements and can be argued should it ever get to a court hearing.

You are correct in your assertion that these PCNs, reminders and all debt recovery correspondence is designed to make the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out of ignorance and fear. Consider that over 40,000 private PCNs are issued EVERY DAY!!!! These parasitic, unregulated private parking companies are raking in well over a £billion a year in profits, never mind actual revenue. Between them, they overwhelm the county courts with automated claims and they ruin many peoples finances without a care.

Anyway, I suggest you remove the highlighted section from your response to 3-1-5 Gym as it is not relevant to the main point you are making. You are requiring them to get their agent to have the PCN cancelled and to respond to your discrimination complaint.

When you consider that most of the unregulated private parking companies stated out as clampers and all the thuggery and illegality that was associated with that, you get an idea of why the industry is what it is.

The trough that these swine now have their snouts firmly ensconced in is deep and, when you think about it, they don't even have to pay VAT on the actual charges they recover. A series of incompetent governments and ministers who conveniently bow to the well funded lobby that these parking operators have in place and a refusal to give a date for implementation the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 (yes, it received royal assent 6 years ago) but has not yet been introduced, the DVLA raking in £2.50 per DVLA KADOE data request at a rate that I will leave you to work out but consider that these rogue companies issue over 40,000 PCNs a DAY, is all evidence of a malaise within government to actually act and, although I do not have evidence, but this suggests to me that with the amounts of money being taken about (£billions) you can see why it is not changing for the better (for the consumer).

I am mindful that the purpose of this thread is to help you fight a specific parking charge, and I don't want this topic to stray too far from that, but I noticed this:

I have joined the Sovereign Project

From a quick glance, they seem to be a 'Sovereign Citizen' / Freeman on the Land type group. Many of their arguments are legal bollox - and following them can cause you all kinds of issues.

We have a pinned thread on such arguments: FOTL and Other Misguided Folk

Thank you for that, I shall have a look. I am sorry - it is because I am interested and curious as to how things work. I don’t want to stray away from the parking topic.

Thank you very much for that thread, I shall have a look. I am so glad I found this website!

Please can I just ask - why do the DVLA sell our data, when it is so protected by various things such as GDPR, to private companies without our permission? I am sure many people would be concerned about this, and would like to know how this is possible and legal.

Best wishes!

They don't sell data in the strictest of senses - they have a process, KADOE 'Keeper at date of event' that allows operators to access data in order to pursue legally issued parking charges.

The problem is that they don't follow the rules (in order to maximise profits) and the government are practicing wilful ignorance to this issue (potentially in part due to the revenues generated through the process).

I think most people would agree that private parking schemes can be fair and effective, thus the KADOE process could be fair and effective, but alas they rarely are.

GDPR doesn't offer blanket protection against sharing of individuals' private data - it simply lays a framework of legal reasons for doing so.

Hello everyone,

I have not heard from 3-1-5 after sending the email on 24/03/2025, however Parkingeye have uploaded information to POPLA.

It shows the following:

"Case History
18/12/2024 Date of event
System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
24/12/2024 DVLA response received - Success
24/12/2024 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-260
02/01/2025 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter2 - Ltr02-259
07/01/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
07/01/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
10/01/2025 Letter Issued - GDPR Request - With Appeal
10/01/2025 Letter Issued - Disabled Blue Badge Evidence Request (w/ Att)
01/02/2025 Letter Issued - Website Appeal Response
01/02/2025 Website Appeal received for this case and is queued for processing.
14/02/2025 Letter Issued - Unsuccessful POPLA - Signage (w/ Att)

Rules and Conditions
We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated next to the Blue Badge bays within the car park and confirm the terms & conditions for these specific bays. These signs confirm that the bays are to be used by Blue Badge Holders only. Blue Badge holders must enter full, correct vehicle registration using the Blue Badge button at the terminal in reception, and present a copy of their Blue Badge, to obtain a permit for the duration of stay.

The ANPR equipment is installed within the bollards at the front of the bay and these cameras capture
photographs of the vehicle entering and exiting the individual bay. The bays also have clear floor markings to show they are for the use of Blue Badge Holders.

Authority
We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract.

Additional Information
Our records confirm that no vehicle registration details were entered on the date of the event. Section 17.4 of the BPA code of Practice references different types of keying errors that could take place and instances of when a reasonable fee to cover processing costs could be offered by the Operator. In this instance, this section of the code is not applicable case as there had been no attempt to input the vehicle registration into the machine/terminal.

The appeal was rejected on the basis that the terms and conditions as outlined on the signage were breached."


It then shows the photos of the car etc, the emails to and fro, etc. It shows the original appeal, which I had no copy of. I have attached this below.

Interestingly, they have not provided POPLA with the letter of complaint I sent to Parkingeye, it has been omitted. This was included and then TWO parking charge notices - the original (which I never received) and the reminder, which I did. And this:

"Whitelist Lookup – XX XXX
Whitelist Name Plate Description Start Date/Time End Date/Time Input Date/Time Duration

No results

The above system extract displays all permits, payments for parking, and terminal entries relating to the vehicle on the date of the parking event.

Please note, if no results are displayed, this confirms that no permit, payment, or terminal entries were recorded."


On the POPLA website, when I was submitting my appeal, I could not upload my disabled badges - my server wouldn’t allow it (technical problems) however, I told POPLA this and asked them if I could have an email address so that I could send a copy of the badges. They didn't get back to me on that matter. 3-1-5 definitely had an email copy of the disabled badges.

I received this from POPLA on Friday and I have 7 days to respond, but I have been away and I was unable to, immediately. I am not sure what to do. I am going to try and copy the original appeal.

Best Wishes

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Dear b789,

This is the link to dropbox - it has taken me ages - I do hope it works. I shall also put another link so you can see what they left out! Best wishes,

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dqmk1llxbxjv8m9tu972y/POPLA-SCAN-COMPLETE.pdf?rlkey=t509yd0j0wm90asq39tg7vfce&st=ovdy3gec&dl=0