-
Hi all,
I’ve received a parking charge from Bank Park Parking Management for 20/08/2025. I was using a PoGo Charge EV station on their car park. Total time on site: 51 minutes 37 seconds; charging time: 40 minutes (the charger had issues starting).
I’m disabled and hadn’t opened my post until recently. Any advice would be hugely appreciated.
Questions:
1. Can I argue that I wasn’t “parked” as I stayed in the car?
2. Can Bank Park issue fines for bays owned/operated by PoGo Charge?
3. I’m under a Debt Relief Order—does that affect anything?
4. If letters were posted later than their issue date, can deadlines be pushed back? Could this make the notice invalid (if not issued within 14 days)?
Sorry for the long post—just want to get everything right. I really don’t want this going to court and don’t know what to do next.
Letters Received:
Initial letter: Stated breach was “present on site in excess of time paid for/without making payment” and referenced the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, warning of possible debt recovery after 28 days.
13/09 letter: Claimed continued breach, said 14 days had passed, warned of liability and possible County Court proceedings if unpaid.
27/09 letter: “Notice of Debt Recovery” – payment increased, appeal rights ended, warned of possible court action raising total payable to around £255.
05/10 letter: “Final Debt Recovery Notice” – balance £170, stated that case may go to debt recovery and legal action, possibly increasing costs to £255+.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated — this has been very stressful and I’m unsure how to proceed. -
-
Please post the PCN (remove personal details, and PCN / vehicle reg). Is this a Motability car? Was it in England / Wales?
You are now too late to appeal, so will have to weather the Debt Collectors letters till they issue a County Court claim, which should be defendable. -
-
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
What was the date of the alleged contravention? What is the 'issue' date of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)? That will determine whether they NtK was given within the relevant period. However, there are many other points that we would need to know about, which is why we need to see the original NtK. Any reminder is not relevant.
As for useless debt recovery letters, you can safely ignore those. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
For now, the answer to your four questions is as follows:1. “Not parked because I stayed in the car” generally fails. In private parking, “parking” covers waiting/stopping unless the written terms say otherwise. Keep it as a secondary point only. Stronger points are EV charging, machine faults, disability adjustments, and grace/consideration periods.
2. Possibly, but only if Bank Park has contractual authority over those bays. Many EV bays are licensed to the chargepoint operator. Put them to strict proof that (a) their contract covers PoGo bays and (b) the signs at those bays form Bank Park’s terms. If their contract doesn’t cover PoGo’s bays, they have no standing.
3. Debt Relief Order: it helps only for qualifying debts included in the DRO. This PCN is dated 20/08/2025. If your DRO was approved before that date, this is a post-DRO debt and usually not covered. If your DRO was approved after that date, it may be covered; check your DRO schedule and moratorium dates. Either way, while a DRO is active creditors must not enforce covered debts—so confirm timing.
4. Keeper liability under PoFA requires the Notice to Keeper to be delivered by Day 14 (day 0 = 20/08/2025). “Deemed” delivery is two working days after posting. If they back-dated letters or posted days later than the issue date, keep envelopes/franking as evidence and rebut the presumption. Late delivery kills keeper liability. Also check that the NtK states a “period of parking” (not just ANPR in/out times) and includes the mandatory PoFA wording; omissions defeat keeper liability. -
-
Thank you so much for the detailed replies! So much more help than other forums I’ve posted on which are just telling me to pay. Please excuse me if I’m not using this forum correctly when replying as I’m new here and getting the hang of things. I will do my best to post a copy of the PCN letter as requested. Please do let me know your thoughts on the above points. Side note - I didn’t know to keep envelopes so unfortunately don’t have them
-
-
Don't worry about the envelopes, as they were probably not franked anyway. Presumption of delivery is rebuttable and the burden of proof falls on the operator to prove that the NtK was posted or delivered. As they don't use signed for delivery, they must prove the item was posted.
We still need to know all the dates of the alleged contraventions and the days of issue of the NtKs. -
-
-
Before I continue, can you confirm that you have not responded or appealed this PCN to date?
It is too late to appeal and in any case, this is an IPC member and any secondary appeal to the IAS would have been futile anyway.
Where this will be won is once they issue a county court claim. It may depend on who they use as their bulk litigator of choice. In general, they use DCB Legal, which you can guarantee, will be discontinued as long as the claim is defended.
The defence is based on the statutory failures that DCB Legal make. You also have the added defence that if you were engaged in permitted use (e.g., waiting for a charger to activate, troubleshooting a fault), you can argue that the time spent was not in breach of terms—even if technically “parked”.
If the bay was not under Bank Park’s enforcement authority (e.g., PoGo Charge bay), then even if parked, no breach occurred.
Also, the NtK fails to distinguish between time spent driving, waiting, or charging, therefore the “period of parking” is not properly specified under PoFA 9(2)(a).
Additionally, private parking operators are service providers under the Equality Act. They are legally required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled users. If the EV charger was malfunctioning and you needed extra time, failure to accommodate that need may constitute unlawful discrimination.
If the signage doesn’t clearly explain how disabled users can extend time or seek assistance, that’s a procedural failure. If the operator escalated the charge without considering your disability, they may have breached their duty of care, although, they would not know that if you have not yet appealed or had any communication with them.
As a disabled motorist, you were using the EV charger in good faith. The equipment malfunctioned, requiring extended time on site. You remained in the vehicle throughout. At no point did the operator provide any mechanism for disabled users to report difficulties, request assistance, or seek reasonable adjustments.
Their system is designed to penalise without inquiry or accommodation, in breach of their duty under the Equality Act 2010. The failure to anticipate and provide for disabled users renders this charge procedurally and legally defective. -
-
Thankyou so much for your detailed reply. Sorry if this is a silly question but it’s my first time using this forum, as well as dealing with a PCN to this stage.
Are all of the points in your response, arguments I have against the charge?
I did attempt to contact Bank Park Management by submitting an online form on their website. I told them I was trying to get legal advice and asked them to give me more time, and informed them that I’m disabled. I don’t remember exactly
if I mentioned anything other than this as you don’t get sent a copy of the form you submit, and my memory isn’t great (a side effect of one of my health conditions along with medication side effects). I didn’t receive a response from them.
I’ve received another letter which is from ZZPS Limited (I’ll link it below), so I assume that means they won’t use DCB legal? Are you saying that with DCB Legal, if you defend your case regardless of the reasons, they tend to drop the case? Would this now not apply as it seems they’re using a different legal provider (ZZPS)?
What do you mean that the defence is based on the statutory failures of DCB Legal?
How do I find out if the space was/wasn’t under Bank Park Management’s enforcement authority?
You mention the NtK, what is this? I understand your point about “period of parking”, but can you please explain what you mean by “is not properly specified under PoFA 9(2)(a)?
I’m not sure how long it took us to actually get the charger to start working. It wasn’t a huge amount of time if my memory serves me correctly. Would this mean that the defence for extra time as a reasonable adjustment would be null and void?
I do not believe the signs explained how disabled users could extend time or seek assistance. As mentioned, I informed them via the online form that I’m disabled and there’s been no response, and they have continued with escalating the charge. Can I still argue this despite having no proof I’ve informed them that I’m disabled?
Would I now have no choice but to make all of these defences in court?
I’m so sorry for so many questions! I really appreciate your help; it is invaluable to me.
Thanks again.
Most Recent Letter - ZZPS Limited -
-
Please don't associate the useless ZZPS with a firm of legal representatives. ZZPS are a powerless debt collector All they are able to do is try and intimidate the flow-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out if ignorance and fear. You can next expect a follow on letter from the equally powerless GCTT, which is just another moron sitting on the other side of the desk used by the ZZPS idiots.
When you say you "tried to contact them" using their online for on their website, I am assuming that was your appeal.
Regarding a defence, that will come. You are not at that stage yet. I can guarantee that DCB Legal will fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and the defence temple;ate we provide will cover all that.
In the defence, you will put Bank Park to strict proof of a valid and contemporaneous contract flowing from the landowner that gives them standing to operate, issue PCNs and to sue in their own name. That is how you will find out their 'authority' over the charging location.
Any "reasonable adjustment" cannot be "null and void". If you have a recognised disability according to the Equality Act 2010, then you have protected characteristics that cannot just be ignored.
The operators Code of Practice requires them to allow a minimum of 5 minutes as a consideration period. If they cannot evidence that the vehicle was parked for at least that amount of time, then there is no evidence that the driver entered into any contract with the operator. As PoFA 2012 paragraph requires the operator to specify the "period of parking", if they have only provided a single timestamp, that is not a "period" but a "moment". However, if you identified as the driver, that point is moot as far as PoFA is concerned.
The signage is a very powerful defence point. Any problems with the signs, especially if they are not clear or have ambiguities or are not prominent and, in the case of drivers with disabilities, are not readable from within the vehicle, are further winning points.
As I already mentioned, the odds of this ever actually reaching a hearing in court are slim to none. Any defended claim, when it comes, is most likely going to the either struck out or discontinued in due course.
They are relying on you being the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree. Follow the advice and you won't be. -
-
Ah ok, I thought it may have been another scare tactic letter - thanks for confirming! Funny as the letter prior to that said legal action would be the next step. But the next step has actually been the ZZPS letter. It makes me wonder whether they are trying to simply use other companies which are powerless in the hope you think it’s legal proceedings and are pushed into paying.
As for me contacting them, I filled in an online form on the Bank Park Management’s website; I simply said I’m disabled and have been unwell hence my delay dealing with the matter and that I was seeking legal advice. I asked them for more time, but this was totally ignored and they continued their threat letters in line with their previous threatened dates for these (so no extra time given). So I wouldn’t say this was an appeal?
Ok so I can expect to hear from DCB Legal and you’ll provide a template for me to respond with my defence, is that correct? What is the CPR 16.4 that they won’t comply with? I have read about letters not following the right format and therefore it gives the vehicle user the right to be released from any charges purely based on that alone, is that what you’re referring to? Sorry I’m just trying to understand everything
Thankyou for explaining about the authority over the charger location and reasonable adjustments.
I’m so sorry but I’m not sure I’m following the section about the consideration period etc. Would they not be able to evidence that the vehicle was parked for at least 5 minutes because they have proof of the times I entered and left the car park? As for the “period” vs “moment” can you explain this please?
I’m also unsure what you mean in relation to identifying as the driver and what point PoFA considers moot as a result?
Would you suggest I travel back to the location and take photos of the signs from where I was parked? Or do they only have to be readable from the vehicle itself, whilst you are stopped next to the signs to read them?
Thankyou so much. I absolutely will follow the advice I’m being given and I’m still so grateful for all of your time and help! I’m just so sorry I’m asking so many questions. I want to make sure I’m getting this right that’s all.
Can I ask how does this forum work, are you a general user of the forum that answers as many posts as you can, or do you own the forum and you’re legally qualified etc? Just curious 😊 -
-
Google gives you
@b789 gives good advice, but everyone who contributes here does it for nothing because they want to counter these parking companies who prey on peoples’ ignorance and fear.
Qualifications don’t matter, results do. You are welcome to pay for a solicitor with lots of formal qualifications, but you’re almost certainly going to get better advice here, which is free, and which you’re free to ignore also.
But you do need to help yourself a little bit by looking things up or searching the forum for similar cases to yours.
You can also see the number of posts each person has made, and the positive/negative ratings each has been awarded subjectively. -
-
Hi,
Thank you for the clarification.
I’ve received another letter, from GCTT this time, which I’ve linked.
Thanks in advance!
GCTT Letter -
-
Ignore it. Await a "Letter of Claim"
-
-
Did you not read the first paragraph in reply #8 ?
-
Like x 1
View List
Agree x 1
Like x 1
View List
Love x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
justice.gov.uk