Author Topic: NO ORIGINAL PARKINGEYE PCN RECEIVED, REMINDER ONLY, 15 DAYS AFTER PARKING EVENT  (Read 3818 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hmm they don't look dodgy do they. I thought you had an issue with unregulated businesses? Shouldn't that apply even more so to a firm operating in a generally regulated sector who proudly proclaim "We are a leading unregulated law firm" on their website?

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://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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2025, 03:52:46 pm by Charitynjw »
The contents of any & all my posts are my views & opinions only. If you require legal advice, please contact a solicitor/barrister.
"They shoot horses, don't they?"

Jackson Yamba is 100% legit. He has a fantastic track record of suing private parking companies. You will see his name on many of the persuasive appeals that we now use against the claimants such as VCS v Edward 2023, Brennan v PPS 2023, CEL v Chan 2023, CPM v Akande 2024, VCS v Carr 2024 to name a few. These are appeal wins. He has many non persuasive wins and I suggest you have a read of the blog on the Contestor Legal website to see whether you think this is legit or not.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List

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
« Last Edit: April 10, 2025, 03:32:04 pm by Charitynjw »
The contents of any & all my posts are my views & opinions only. If you require legal advice, please contact a solicitor/barrister.
"They shoot horses, don't they?"

Why are we arguing this here? You can start a thread in the flame pit of the legal forum if you want to try and argue the point. For now, the only way an item posted can be deemed given within two working days is by first class post. If all the hybrid mail receipts say that a delivery service of 2-3 days is used, then there can be no guarantee that it can be delivered in two working days. Royal Mail states that first class post is 1-2 working days, therefore the only guaranteed postal method that can guarantee two working days must be first class post.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Is a view.

OP, I don't know where you're going with this..other than the more you write the more you are likely to identify the driver.

Also, as you received a 'reminder' well within the 28-day period attached to the NTK then you had all the time you needed to 'appeal'.

I suggest you get back to the essence of your 'appeal'. Remember, unless you can cause the assessor to conclude that a parking charge is not due from the driver then the only issue is whether they could hold you liable as keeper. You've seen the NTK, albeit late, and I suspect that a judge would be convinced that it was posted in time. The issues then revolve around its compliance with PoFA.

If you've got sufficient time and energy to attack on two fronts, fine, but if not then I suggest you focus on the NTK and the breach.

Cage rattling and name calling might make you feel better, but when it comes to the crunch .....!

Anyway, what do you know:
1. Use of the accessible parking bays is permitted by Blue Badge holders ONLY whilst using 3-1-5 Health Club.

But there's no evidence that the driver, whoever they were, was using the Health Club.

2. Parking Eye are acting as agents of the landowner and the contract is formed between the driver and the landowner. (this is stated in the sign)

What you don't know:
The exact relationship between the 'medical person' and 3-1-5 e.g. their customers were entitled to use the car park etc? In which case does being unable - did anyone try- to access the reception area and validation terminal equate to frustration of contract? Did anyone ask at the time?

I'm trying to tease out the essence of the issues but there's so much 'noise' that it's difficult.

So, who is pursuing the parking charge and with what authority?

Dear HC Andersen,

Thank you for your message. There is an electronic receipt for several hundreds of pounds from inside the premises, dated and time-stamped. Yes, the disabled person could not access the machine owing to a huge queue and no seating. The terminal is situated in the members only area, so one has to alert reception to tell them they’re there. This is not the case for the able-bodied, just the disabled bays - for these you have to enter the reg into the terminal on arrival, as the able bodied get 3h free parking without having to use the terminal. They only need to input the reg if they’ll be longer than 3h. The people visiting business within the club, are able to use the spaces in the same manner as the club members. It was appealed twice and rejected twice, and a letter of complaint was sent to Parkingeye. The club was contacted and asked to cancel the ticket, which was agreed, then management called the following day and said Parkingeye couldn’t let than and it had been taken out of their hands. This is not the “complete control and flexibility” of their car park, that their collaborated marketing material with Parkingeye boasts of. Having mentioned that to them in the last communication, 3-1-5 have not responded. A letter of complaint was sent additionally mentioning that this was discriminatory - it is a free car park after all, and Parkingeye didn’t take kindly to that point being made. They reiterated that money was owed or POPLA, so POPLA was appealed to, and this is the current situation. Today, POPLA asked for the disabled badges, which have been sent. The club themselves have copies of the disabled badges.

Best wishes
« Last Edit: April 11, 2025, 08:49:37 am by Layrex9 »

Please provide some context to the above post.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Please provide some context to the above post.

Dear b789,

Sorry - I was replying to HC Andersen, as some questions/thoughts were put forth. Thank you for your recommendation - I will get in touch with Jackson Yamba. I am going away today but shall take my computer with me - the WiFi might be ropey, but I shall phone and/or email him. Thank you for all your help so far. I’ll let you know how I get on.

Best wishes,