Free Traffic Legal Advice

Subject: Formal Complaint & Appeal – PCN [PCN ref] – Cockhedge (Rear Visitor)

Dear Complaints Team,

I write as the registered keeper.

This remains a formal complaint which, under Section 11.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), must also be treated as an appeal and handled to the Clause 8.4 timescales. If you disagree, please identify the precise PPSCoP wording that permits you to refuse to treat a complaint as an appeal.

1. NtK service and contradictory dates

Your email claims first “postal correspondence” was issued on 16/07/2025, yet I hold a ParkingEye “Reminder” dated 25/06/2025. Please reconcile these inconsistent dates and provide strict proof of posting for the original NtK (e.g. Royal Mail certificate/manifest). Without admissible posting evidence within PoFA Sch 4 para 9(5)’s 14-day window, keeper liability fails.

2. Disability & failure to make reasonable adjustments (Equality Act 2010; PPSCoP Sections 4.1–4.2)

A disabled occupant was set down/collected from a disabled bay late evening. No readable terms or terminal were visible from the bay/approach, and your system expects a VRM entry in a remote “reception”. Please disclose:

• A dated, scaled site plan showing every sign and the terminal location relative to the disabled bays used;
• Dated approach/bay-eye photos showing exactly what is visible from that bay;
• Your disability adjustments at this site (e.g. low-level in-bay terms, alternative registration methods, additional time/assistance).

3. Unclear allegation & “0 hours 0 minutes”

Your paperwork states a charge applies for remaining longer than a “0 hours 0 minutes” max stay and also lists multiple possible breach reasons (overstay/no payment/no VRM in reception). Identify the single allegation relied upon and the exact term allegedly breached. A “0:00” max stay is void for uncertainty and, if not actually on the signs, your notice is misleading contrary to the CRA 2015 transparency requirements.

4. Forbidding signage/patrons-only window

You say “parking is for Buzz Bingo patrons only between Mon–Sat 6pm–2am” and that patrons must enter their VRM to obtain a 3-hour permit. If the sign is truly prohibitive to non-patrons, it makes no contractual offer to them. If the driver was a permitted user, then the issue is signage/terminal accessibility and disability adjustments; if not, your claim sounds in trespass (not a contractual charge). Please provide the exact sign wording relied upon.

Given the above, please cancel. Failing that, as required by PPSCoP 11.2/8.4, issue a POPLA verification code within 7 days of this letter. Any continued refusal to treat this as an appeal or to supply a POPLA code will be raised with the BPA and DVLA as a Code breach, and relied upon as unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

[Postal address]
[Email]

4.1. The parking operator must ensure that at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking can be viewed without the driver needing to leave the vehicle, in order for drivers with a disability to be able to make an informed decision on whether to park at the premises.

Your first appeal was rejected because they said it was too late. So you were advised to send a formal complaint, which they are obliged to also treat as an appeal. I drafted it and told you what to do.

Have you sent it or not? Reply #16 refers.