Free Traffic Legal Advice

I would be grateful for comments on the first draft letter to Parkingeye Ltd below.

The driver does not have a blue badge or any documentation evidence of the knee replacement but can provide photos of the scar on the replacement knee, and the knee brace worn on the other knee which also needs replacing.  Should these photos be sent with this appeal?

"I am appealing the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the registered keeper of the vehicle.  The driver of the vehicle has not been identified, and I decline to identify the driver as there is no legal obligation to do so.  The burden of proof lies with Parkingeye Ltd to demonstrate that I, as the keeper, was also the driver at the time of the alleged incident, and you have failed to do so.  I am appealing this charge on the following grounds:

1   Background

At the time of the alleged incident, the driver of the vehicle was attempting to park for a 48-hour period, having previously parked at this car park for a similar term a number of years ago.

The driver is mobility impaired as a result of having a knee replacement, needs a stick to walk and is currently in the process of arranging for a second knee replacement operation.  The driver therefore has difficulty getting into and out of a motor vehicle and is unable to walk as quickly as a person that is not affected by those mobility issues.

On arriving at the car park, the driver found the car park to be relatively busy and had few free parking spaces.  A first space was found and the driver pulled into that space, only to find that due to the size of the space it was not possible for the driver to get out of the vehicle.  The driver therefore left that space and drove around the car park again to find another free parking space.  Again, due to the size of the space it was not possible for the driver to exit the vehicle.  The driver then left that second space and continued to drive around the car park to find the third space.  The driver was able park and was able to exit the vehicle.  The driver, having retrieved their walking stick walked to the ticket machine to pay.  There were others at the machine in front of the driver, so the driver needed to wait until those others had vacated the machine.  Whilst the parking tariffs were displayed on the machine, including a rate for 24 hours, there did not appear to be any option to buy a ticket for multiple 24-hour periods.

As a consequence of it not being clear whether or not multiple periods of 24-hours could be purchased, the driver then walked to one of the signs to see if there was any further information relating to parking duration.  There was no further information and also no confirmation whether the maximum parking period was in fact 24 hours.  Additionally, there was no indication on the sign that drivers were to be allowed a limited time in the car park before parking charges applied, nor any signage to display how long that consideration period was.

Unable to confirm that it was possible to buy two 24-hour tickets to facilitate parking for a 48-hour period, the driver decided that it would be best to leave the car park and look for an alternative long-stay car park.

Incidentally, the driver did then park in the Frenchgate Centre Rail Parking car park which is also managed by Parkingeye Ltd and parked in that car park (and paid) for the required period.

The driver has subsequently learned that Parkingeye Ltd allows the minimum period of 5 minutes for the Consideration Period for drivers to decide upon whether to accept the parking contract.  For the driver this period was wholly inadequate as a consequence of the driver’s impaired mobility.

2. The PCN Was Issued Incorrectly: Failure to Comply with the Equality Act 2010 and BPA Code of Practice

Parkingeye Ltd has failed to comply with its legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 by not making reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals. This constitutes a breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice “The private parking sector single Code of Practice” (version 1) dated 27 June 2024, particularly Section 4 regarding disabled motorists requiring longer consideration and grace periods.

3. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability – Breach of PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)

Parkingeye Ltd is attempting to hold me, the registered keeper, liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), but has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA.

Specifically, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the conditions set out in Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, which mandates that the NtK must contain a clear "invitation" for the keeper to pay or provide the driver's details.  The NtK contains no such "invitation", nor any synonym of the word. Partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA is not sufficient.  Parkingeye Ltd has failed to include the required wording in the NtK, and as such, has not transferred liability from the driver to the keeper.

As the operator has not complied with PoFA, they cannot assume that the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.  Parkingeye Ltd must provide strict proof that the registered keeper was the driver.  Without such proof, Parkingeye Ltd has no legal grounds to hold the keeper liable, and the PCN must be cancelled.

4. Inadequate Signage and Failure to Provide Clear Terms and Conditions

Parkingeye Ltd relies on signage to convey the terms and conditions of parking, yet the signage at this site is unclear and does not adequately inform drivers or passengers of the parking rules, including consideration and grace periods and any necessary adjustments for disabled individuals.

The BPA Code of Practice requires that signage must be clear, legible, and positioned in such a way that drivers can make informed decisions. The signage at this site does not clearly mention consideration and grace periods or provide any notice of reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists or their passengers. This lack of clarity invalidates any supposed contract with the driver, and the PCN has therefore been issued incorrectly.

5. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Parkingeye Ltd's signage, which forms the basis of their alleged contract with the driver, contains unfair terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).  Section 62 of the CRA prohibits unfair terms in contracts, and Parkingeye Ltd’s signage fails to accommodate reasonable consideration and grace periods or make provisions for disabled motorists or passengers. This amounts to an unfair and unenforceable term.

Additionally, the CRA 2015 protects consumers from unfair treatment. Penalising an individual or any occupant of the vehicle for a situation caused by their disability, and for which the operator failed to make reasonable adjustments, amounts to a breach of the CRA. The terms enforced by Parkingeye Ltd place disabled individuals at a disadvantage and therefore cannot be legally upheld.

Conclusion
To summarise, this PCN has been issued incorrectly for several reasons:

Failure to comply with the Equality Act 2010 by not making reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists or passengers.

Failure to allow an appropriate consideration period as required by the BPA Code of Practice.

Breach of PoFA 2012 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), as the Notice to Keeper fails to meet the conditions required to transfer liability to the keeper.

Inadequate signage, which does not clearly communicate the terms or consideration and grace periods for disabled individuals, whether drivers or passengers.

Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, due to unfair terms and failure to make necessary adjustments for disabled users.

In view of the above I request that Parkingeye Ltd cancels this PCN. 

If you do not cancel this PCN, please provide the appropriate POPLA code and take notice that the driver will be defending this matter in Court if you fail to cancel the PCN to then seek to escalate the matter to recover the alleged “debt”.

Yours faithfully,"

First until you appeal you can't claim they've not taken any disability issues into account. They don't know about the drivers alleged issues so how can they make adjustments to accommodate them.

This point can be fairly easily reworded... Instead of saying they haven't made a reasonable adjustment, turn it instead to point out that due to their disability the driver requires a reasonable adjustment, set out what that adjustment is (in this case, a longer consideration period), provide evidence of the driver's need for such adjustments, then ask that they make one.

If they reject your appeal, then the case can be made that they have failed to make reasonable adjustments.

Second draft:

I am appealing the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the registered keeper of the vehicle. 

The driver of the vehicle has not been identified, and I decline to identify the driver as there is currently no legal obligation to do so.  Your letter attempts to hold me, the registered keeper liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), but has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of that act.

Background

At the time of the alleged incident, the driver of the vehicle was attempting to park for a 48-hour period, having previously parked at this car park for a similar term a number of years ago.

The driver is mobility impaired as a result of having a knee replacement, needs a stick to walk and is currently in the process of arranging for a second knee replacement operation.  The driver therefore has difficulty getting into and out of a motor vehicle and is unable to walk as quickly as a person that is not affected by those mobility issues.

On arriving at the car park, the driver found the car park to be relatively busy and had only a few free parking spaces.  A first space was found and the driver pulled into that space, only to find that due to the size of the space it was not possible for the driver to get out of the vehicle.  The driver therefore left that space and drove around the car park again to find another free parking space.  Again, due to the size of the space it was not possible for the driver to exit the vehicle.  The driver then left that second space and continued to drive around the car park to find the third space.  The driver was able park and was able to exit the vehicle. 

The driver, having retrieved their walking stick walked to the ticket machine to pay.  There were others at the machine in front of the driver, so the driver needed to wait until those others had vacated the machine.  Whilst the parking tariffs were displayed on the machine, including a rate for 24 hours, there did not appear to be any option to buy a ticket for multiple 24-hour periods.

As a consequence of it not being clear whether or not multiple periods of 24-hours could be purchased, the driver then walked to one of the signs to see if there was any further information relating to parking duration.  There was no further information and also no confirmation whether the maximum parking period was in fact 24 hours.  Additionally, there was no indication on the sign that drivers were to be allowed a limited time in the car park before parking charges applied, nor any signage to display how long that consideration period was.

Unable to confirm that it was possible to buy two 24-hour tickets to facilitate parking for a 48-hour period, the driver decided that it would be best to leave the car park and look for an alternative long-stay car park.

Incidentally, the driver did then park in the Frenchgate Centre Rail Parking car park which is also managed by Parkingeye Ltd and parked in that car park (and paid) for the required period.

The driver has subsequently learned that Parkingeye Ltd allows the minimum period of 5 minutes for the Consideration Period for drivers to decide upon whether to accept the parking contract. 

For the driver this period was wholly inadequate as a consequence of the impaired mobility.

The events leading up to the driver staying at the site for 9 minutes were entirely reasonable and consistent with the fact that the car park was busy, had few free spaces wide enough to park, and signage that confused the driver.

I am attaching photographs of the driver’s replacement knee and the knee brace used for the knee for which an operation is awaited. 

I would therefore ask that you reconsider whether the minimum Consideration Period at this car park is appropriate for a mobility impaired driver and cancel the charge.

If you do not cancel this PCN, please provide the appropriate POPLA code so that a full appeal can be prepared and take notice that the driver will be defending this matter in Court if you fail to cancel the PCN to then seek to escalate the matter to recover the alleged “debt”.

Good advice from DWBM2 about how to word the appeal. Keep it to the point.

So, the attached letter was received today.  No acknowledgement of the driver's mobility issues raised in the initial latter but a continued request to try to get the driver's identity from the keeper.  Any advice on the next step anyone please?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

no the appeal was by the keeper who confirmed that the driver was mobility impaired, asking that Parkingeye to reconsider the consideration period in view of that.  given the potential defects in the NtK the keeper wanted to first mention the driver's mobility impairments.  should the keeper now divulge the driver's identity and so rely entirely on the disability?  one poster was going to draft a letter but did not post.  the driver does not want to trouble his GP at this stage for correspondence confirming that the knee has been replaced because this can be evidenced by scars confirming the fact that the knee has in fact been replaced.

So did you appeal as the Keeper and not identified the driver? I am not absolutely clear whether you are the Keeper and you are appealing as the Keeper because you were not the driver, or whether your friend is the Keeper and a different driver is the subject of this.

I really hope you or your friend or whoever sent the appeal didn't just attach some random photos of the knee as "evidence" of the drivers disability. I already told you that a photo of the knee or a brace is not going to do the job!!!

The response from ParkingEye is a standard template letter that appears to:


However, evidencing a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 requires more than a photo of a scar or brace. For the mitigation to be properly considered under the Equality Act, the Keeper (on behalf of the driver) should ideally provide a written statement from a medical professional, such as:


The strongest grounds lie in the Equality Act mitigation, and it is strategically cleaner for the Keeper to now name the driver and transfer liability, since:


This is my suggested response to the letter from ParkingEye:

Subject: Re: Parking Charge Notice [Insert Reference]

Date of Issue: [Insert Date]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to your recent correspondence, I now confirm the identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged incident.

The full name and current address for service of the driver is:

[Full Name of Driver]
[Driver’s Postal Address]

In accordance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, I am no longer liable for this Parking Charge Notice, and you are now required to pursue the driver directly.

For the avoidance of doubt, this transfer of liability is made within the applicable time limits set out in Schedule 4, and the information provided is accurate. Please confirm that I will receive no further correspondence regarding this matter.

Yours faithfully,

[Full Name of Keeper]
Registered Keeper

This shifts the matter to the driver, allowing the full Equality Act mitigation to be developed on their behalf in any subsequent appeal. The driver can then prepare a disability-based mitigation case supported by GP evidence, if necessary.

Unless you can get the driver to obtain a letter from their GP or Consultant that confirms their disability and that has lasted or is going to last for over 12 months, then they ParkingEye are not going to care and neither will they be obliged to unless the evidence it put before them.