Advice re blue badge owner

Coupon-mad

That is getting better, except you keep referring to the BPA CoP but PPS have been in the IPC for years.
Send it to BW Legal and to PPS by email and by post as well (2nd class will do).

I would suggest this, attaching a copy of your Blue Badge and filling in the xxxxxxx to add BW Legal's reference into the title, and lower down, add in the detail about your medical condition(s):

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM (or counterclaim)

Dear Sirs, 

Re: BW Legal's letter dated xx/xx/20 : ref xxxxxxxxxx

This letter complies with the applicable pre-action protocol and has been sent to both BW Legal (requiring you to revert to your clients to consider the following facts and basis of my dispute and counter-claim) and a second copy has been sent to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd ('PPS'), who will be the Defendants to a claim, or if they proceed with court action against me, the following will form the basis of my counter-claim.  The words 'you' and 'your' refer to PPS:

1. The correct sum was paid for an hour's parking licence as offered, commencing at 17:55

The sum of 70p was paid once the car was parked, and according to the single sign in the car park, this fulfilled to contract to buy an hour's parking commencing before 18:00.  Your ambiguous signage does not indicate a charge for partial hours and merely required a 70p charge for an hour's parking, for contracts made between 08:00 and 18:00.  There was no breach of contract and even if you believe there was, you have failed to consider my rights and have committed an offence under the Equality Act 2010.

2.  Signage was inadequate & ambiguous, causing an unfair pitfall or trap

The Consumer Rights Act (CRA) (2015)  provides that a term is "unfair" if "contrary to the requirements of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer". The contra proferentem rule provides that where any clause in a contract is ambiguous the term should be interpreted against the interests of the party who drafted the terms.    Further, the signs in this car park were woefully inadequate and the parking charge of £100 was in the smallest hidden print, and was not listed in the tariffs nor even in the same size font.  The parking charge of £100 was incapable of being read or agreed at the machine and any added 'operational or debt collection costs' (even if this was on the sign, which it is believed it was not) are disallowed by the County courts and represent an abuse of process/double recovery.

3.  Lack of appropriate grace period

You have failed to comply with the Independent Parking Committee’s Code of Practice as regards the grace period required before the parking contract commenced, and (separately) sufficient grace period for a driver to leave after the hour's parking licence expired.  The second period alone must be a minimum (not maximum ceiling) of ten minutes, and each period must be longer than this, when it comes to disabled car park users.  There is no justification in treating all drivers the same, regardless of their protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

4.  Breach of the Equality Act 2010

You must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ and ensure that you do not put disabled people at a disadvantage compared to an able-bodied person. You must provide a reasonable adjustment in terms of both increased legibility of signage, so that the terms and conditions are legible from within the vehicle, and in addition, you must allow suffient time for disabled service users to reach the machine, read the terms and pay, and also a further period of reasonable adjustment to board their vehicle and leave, after expiry of paid-for time.

It is no lawful excuse or justification for a car park operator to say, for example, that you operate ANPR for economic reasons yet you have made it impossible for yourselves to fairly (or at all) distinguish between disabled Blue Badge holders and other drivers.  You have by this conduct, illegally ignored your statutory duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' of policies in anticipation of the needs of the disabled population 'at large'.  As well as removing physical barriers, this duty includes factoring in flexibility to a 'fixed' time limit, knowing that these timings are likely to cause difficulty and detriment to disabled visitors.  

You are already aware from my appeal, that I am a disabled driver, but for the avoidance of doubt and in an effort to resolve this dispute without resorting to legal action, I am attaching a copy of my Blue Badge and I can state that my medical conditions are:

xxxxxxxx

and the effects that cause me to need longer to process information and physically use my car, are:

cognitive dysfunction

mobility impairment

xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

Based on the above, I believe that you have discriminated against me and I intend to claim for injury to feelings and harassment due to this discrimination and for your continued unlawful processing of my data. 

Should you proceed, my counterclaim will be for: 
(a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”).   
 
(b) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 

(c) damages for distress and harassment pursuant to the Equality Act 2010

Further explanation:

(a) Misleading actions   
If, which is denied, my decision to park constituted acceptance of an offer to park in exchange for the sum of £100 over and above the tariff paid, then it was a transactional decision within the meaning of the said Regulations. I was unwittingly drawn in and induced into making that decision to pay 70p, which otherwise, I would not have made, by your failure to bring to my attention properly or at all the following information:- 

 i) that by parking, I would be entering into a contract; 
 ii) that my 70p would be taken as payment for just five minutes, contrary to the offer of an hour's parking;
 iii) the onerous nature of the terms thereof, in particular the £100 parking charge to which unspecified costs might be added.  

It is averred that the overall presentation of the tariff and timing information, being wholly inadequate, was likely to deceive the average motorist, thus fulfilling the definition of a “misleading action” under regulation 5 (2)(a) of the Regulations. Since it would have been easy to present the information properly it is reasonable to presume that the deception was deliberate. Accordingly, your conduct amounted to:- 

 i) an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under Regulation 3 and
 ii) a misleading action within the meaning of Regs 5 & 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).  

 

(b) Breach of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 
Despite my full payment for an hour's parking and my reasonable responses to your alarmist letters, you have persisted in aggressively and unjustifiably pursuing exaggerated additional 'parking charges' over the course of several months.  This has included sending, either by yourselves or through your agents or legal representatives, debt collection notices threatening legal action.  This conduct is not part and parcel of the reasonable pursuit of a debt and amounts to harassment under section 1, Protection from Harassment Act 1997.   

 
(c) Breach of The Equality Act 2010 ('the EA') and the EHRC Statutory EA Code for Service Providers

Despite knowing about my protcted characteristics and my Blue Badge from the point of my appeal, you have failed to make reasonable adjustments by cancelling the parking charge and allowing sufficient periods of grace, given my needs, either side of my properly paid-for parking time.  Further, you took no account of my congnitive dysfunction in reviewing your ambiguous signage and you should have realised that your terms and specifically the 'tariff & time' wording at this location, was certainly ambiguous and unfair. This represents an offence of 'direct discrimination' from the point of your knowledge of my needs and protected status.

Further, even if you had not known about my individual protected characterisitics, service providers such as an operator making a car park available to the public, have a legal duty under the EA to consider in advance the needs of disabled drivers 'at large' (i.e. without specific knowlege of individual need).  This is 'indirect discrimination' as explained in the EHRC's Equality Act 'Services, public functions and associations' Statutory EA Code of Practice ('CoP') where it says: ''indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage''.   

You have failed in your anticipatory duty to make any provisions for any disabled person to claim more time for their money and/or an extended 'grace period'.  This is settled law and was most recently tested by a case involving DMUK and Mobilise; charities which you purport to support:

https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-car-park-case-settled-a-victory-for-blue-badge-holders/
Previously Lincoln Council was the first council to be taken to court over Blue Badge parking rules.  Then the above case was brought by Helen Dolphin against Norwich Council, who were forced to change their disabled policy in line with the applicable legislation as detailed in the EA, by introducing reduced rates for disabled drivers with every one hour paid for, entitling the Blue Badge holder to an additional hour free.

By allowing disabled drivers to park, and by referring to Blue Badge holders in your signage yet offering no additions parking time and no exhanced grace periods on appeal, you are placing yourselves in pole position to be the next case tested in court as regards a breach of the EA.  Pursuant to that Act, a disabled person can sue for injury to feelings caused by harassment and discrimination and a failure of a service provider/trader to make reasonable adjustments.  

My rights under the EA are in addition to, and stronger than rights under article 8 ECHR and I state that there has been discrimination under s15, s19 and s21 of the EA which permits of no reasonable explanation.  A service provider - using the definition as set out in the EHRC Equality Act CoP - would only be considered to have taken 'all reasonable steps' to avoid discrimination, says the CoP ''if there were no further steps that they could have been expected to take''.   This is not true at all in this case and the EA CoP goes on: ''Although reasonable business needs and economic efficiency may be legitimate aims, a service provider solely aiming to reduce costs...cannot simply argue that to discriminate is cheaper than not to discriminate''. 


Damages - should you fail to cancel the parking charge within 14 days of receiving this letter:
In the well-known case of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police No. 2 (2003) the Court of Appeal set guidelines on the amount of compensation to be given for injury to feelings (the so-called 'Vento bands'). The lower band is appropriate for less serious cases such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one off occurrence.

By reason of the matters aforesaid I have been obliged to deal with unjustified and aggressive correspondence from your for several months and as a Litigant in Person with no previous litigation experience I have suffered substantial damage and distress.  Due to my congitive dysfunction and medical conditions, as well as your choice of timing in threatening court at a time when people are already feeling very vulerable during the current coronavirus crisis, your conduct is worse and the damage more substantial, in its effect on my peace of mind, causing unnecessary distress.

Litigation is not risk-free for a parking firm pursuing a person without justification (unlawfully in this case), and should you decide to proceed as a Claimant despite the above facts, you know that I have protected characteristics and you certainly know about the current Worldwide crisis.  The current vulnerability of the beleaguered British public does not make us 'low hanging fruit' and potential victims for aggressive ex-clamper parking firms like yourselves to continue to threaten and rip off, by misusing the court system as a form of cheap debt collection.

I expect your legal advisers BW Legal might manage to come out of robo-claim mode and dust off a law book, to explain the 'thin skull' or 'egg-shell' rule.  It is a well-established principle in English law that a party must take his victim as he finds him, and this takes into account the physical, social and economic attributes of the other party, which might make them more susceptible to injury or distress, whether physical or mental injury is the result.  The principle requires the Claimant (should you proceed in this case) to compensate me to the full extent of my distress and injury to feelings even though they may be more serious than expected because of my pre-existing conditions, predispositions, and economic and other vulnerabilities in the current crisis.  In this respect I intend to ask that the Judge gives due consideration to a suitable percentage 'uplift' being applied to my Summary Costs Assessment, as the Judge will see fit, to send a message to this parking firm that they cannot breach consumer and disability laws. 

I will seek damages for distress and/or breach of statutory duty in the sum of £1250 (which is at the lower end of established 'Vento' bands) pursuant to the following, from which a consumer right to redress is available:

 i)   Regulation 27 (J) (b) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014;
ii) Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997;
iii) Equality Act 2010 - including but not limited to s15, s19 and s21 - offences of direct and indirect discrimination.

THE DEFENDANT WILL COUNTERCLAIM:- 

1. Compensation in the sum of £1250 plus estimated interest: £4.32

2. Court fee £70.00
3. Costs to be assessed. As a result of the Claimants’ unreasonable behaviour the Court is respectfully invited to order the Claimants to pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules, rule 27.14 (2) (g).   

What you should do now:

I have responded to your LBC, and now you must respond to mine. You are urged to end this potential claim, resolve the dispute, agree to 'drop hands' with no costs on either side and cancel the PCN.     

If you do that within 14 days of receipt of this letter (sent by post and email) I will not pursue my claim.

yours faithfully, 

YOUR NAME

Umkomaas

@Coupon-mad - do you think you should add a paragraph about them seeking debt advice?  😳

Coupon-mad

Not really in this case, unless they want it delayed by 30 days. 

I can't see the point when they are on the attack, not the defence!

Umkomaas

It wasn't the 30-day delay I was thinking about, it was the condescending paragraphs that are inserted in most LBCs about the debt/advice agencies with which victims might wish to consult. 

KeithP

@Coupon-mad, the words Independent Parking Committee need changing to International Parking Community.

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad said:

That is getting better, except you keep referring to the BPA CoP but PPS have been in the IPC for years.
Send it to BW Legal and to PPS by email and by post as well (2nd class will do).

I would suggest this, attaching a copy of your Blue Badge and filling in the xxxxxxx to add BW Legal's reference into the title, and lower down, add in the detail about your medical condition(s):

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM (or counterclaim)

Dear Sirs, 

Re: BW Legal's letter dated xx/xx/20 : ref xxxxxxxxxx

This letter complies with the applicable pre-action protocol and has been sent to both BW Legal (requiring you to revert to your clients to consider the following facts and basis of my dispute and counter-claim) and a second copy has been sent to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd ('PPS'), who will be the Defendants to a claim, or if they proceed with court action against me, the following will form the basis of my counter-claim.  The words 'you' and 'your' refer to PPS:

1. The correct sum was paid for an hour's parking licence as offered, commencing at 17:55

The sum of 70p was paid once the car was parked, and according to the single sign in the car park, this fulfilled to contract to buy an hour's parking commencing before 18:00.  Your ambiguous signage does not indicate a charge for partial hours and merely required a 70p charge for an hour's parking, for contracts made between 08:00 and 18:00.  There was no breach of contract and even if you believe there was, you have failed to consider my rights and have committed an offence under the Equality Act 2010.

2.  Signage was inadequate & ambiguous, causing an unfair pitfall or trap

The Consumer Rights Act (CRA) (2015)  provides that a term is "unfair" if "contrary to the requirements of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer". The contra proferentem rule provides that where any clause in a contract is ambiguous the term should be interpreted against the interests of the party who drafted the terms.    Further, the signs in this car park were woefully inadequate and the parking charge of £100 was in the smallest hidden print, and was not listed in the tariffs nor even in the same size font.  The parking charge of £100 was incapable of being read or agreed at the machine and any added 'operational or debt collection costs' (even if this was on the sign, which it is believed it was not) are disallowed by the County courts and represent an abuse of process/double recovery.

3.  Lack of appropriate grace period

You have failed to comply with the Independent Parking Committee’s Code of Practice as regards the grace period required before the parking contract commenced, and (separately) sufficient grace period for a driver to leave after the hour's parking licence expired.  The second period alone must be a minimum (not maximum ceiling) of ten minutes, and each period must be longer than this, when it comes to disabled car park users.  There is no justification in treating all drivers the same, regardless of their protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

4.  Breach of the Equality Act 2010

You must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ and ensure that you do not put disabled people at a disadvantage compared to an able-bodied person. You must provide a reasonable adjustment in terms of both increased legibility of signage, so that the terms and conditions are legible from within the vehicle, and in addition, you must allow suffient time for disabled service users to reach the machine, read the terms and pay, and also a further period of reasonable adjustment to board their vehicle and leave, after expiry of paid-for time.

It is no lawful excuse or justification for a car park operator to say, for example, that you operate ANPR for economic reasons yet you have made it impossible for yourselves to fairly (or at all) distinguish between disabled Blue Badge holders and other drivers.  You have by this conduct, illegally ignored your statutory duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' of policies in anticipation of the needs of the disabled population 'at large'.  As well as removing physical barriers, this duty includes factoring in flexibility to a 'fixed' time limit, knowing that these timings are likely to cause difficulty and detriment to disabled visitors.  

You are already aware from my appeal, that I am a disabled driver, but for the avoidance of doubt and in an effort to resolve this dispute without resorting to legal action, I am attaching a copy of my Blue Badge and I can state that my medical conditions are:

xxxxxxxx

and the effects that cause me to need longer to process information and physically use my car, are:

cognitive dysfunction

mobility impairment

xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx

Based on the above, I believe that you have discriminated against me and I intend to claim for injury to feelings and harassment due to this discrimination and for your continued unlawful processing of my data. 

Should you proceed, my counterclaim will be for: 
(a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”).   
 
(b) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 

(c) damages for distress and harassment pursuant to the Equality Act 2010

Further explanation:

(a) Misleading actions   
If, which is denied, my decision to park constituted acceptance of an offer to park in exchange for the sum of £100 over and above the tariff paid, then it was a transactional decision within the meaning of the said Regulations. I was unwittingly drawn in and induced into making that decision to pay 70p, which otherwise, I would not have made, by your failure to bring to my attention properly or at all the following information:- 

 i) that by parking, I would be entering into a contract; 
 ii) that my 70p would be taken as payment for just five minutes, contrary to the offer of an hour's parking;
 iii) the onerous nature of the terms thereof, in particular the £100 parking charge to which unspecified costs might be added.  

It is averred that the overall presentation of the tariff and timing information, being wholly inadequate, was likely to deceive the average motorist, thus fulfilling the definition of a “misleading action” under regulation 5 (2)(a) of the Regulations. Since it would have been easy to present the information properly it is reasonable to presume that the deception was deliberate. Accordingly, your conduct amounted to:- 

 i) an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under Regulation 3 and
 ii) a misleading action within the meaning of Regs 5 & 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).  

 

(b) Breach of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 
Despite my full payment for an hour's parking and my reasonable responses to your alarmist letters, you have persisted in aggressively and unjustifiably pursuing exaggerated additional 'parking charges' over the course of several months.  This has included sending, either by yourselves or through your agents or legal representatives, debt collection notices threatening legal action.  This conduct is not part and parcel of the reasonable pursuit of a debt and amounts to harassment under section 1, Protection from Harassment Act 1997.   

 
(c) Breach of The Equality Act 2010 ('the EA') and the EHRC Statutory EA Code for Service Providers

Despite knowing about my protcted characteristics and my Blue Badge from the point of my appeal, you have failed to make reasonable adjustments by cancelling the parking charge and allowing sufficient periods of grace, given my needs, either side of my properly paid-for parking time.  Further, you took no account of my congnitive dysfunction in reviewing your ambiguous signage and you should have realised that your terms and specifically the 'tariff & time' wording at this location, was certainly ambiguous and unfair. This represents an offence of 'direct discrimination' from the point of your knowledge of my needs and protected status.

Further, even if you had not known about my individual protected characterisitics, service providers such as an operator making a car park available to the public, have a legal duty under the EA to consider in advance the needs of disabled drivers 'at large' (i.e. without specific knowlege of individual need).  This is 'indirect discrimination' as explained in the EHRC's Equality Act 'Services, public functions and associations' Statutory EA Code of Practice ('CoP') where it says: ''indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage''.   

You have failed in your anticipatory duty to make any provisions for any disabled person to claim more time for their money and/or an extended 'grace period'.  This is settled law and was most recently tested by a case involving DMUK and Mobilise; charities which you purport to support:

https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-car-park-case-settled-a-victory-for-blue-badge-holders/
Previously Lincoln Council was the first council to be taken to court over Blue Badge parking rules.  Then the above case was brought by Helen Dolphin against Norwich Council, who were forced to change their disabled policy in line with the applicable legislation as detailed in the EA, by introducing reduced rates for disabled drivers with every one hour paid for, entitling the Blue Badge holder to an additional hour free.

By allowing disabled drivers to park, and by referring to Blue Badge holders in your signage yet offering no additions parking time and no exhanced grace periods on appeal, you are placing yourselves in pole position to be the next case tested in court as regards a breach of the EA.  Pursuant to that Act, a disabled person can sue for injury to feelings caused by harassment and discrimination and a failure of a service provider/trader to make reasonable adjustments.  

My rights under the EA are in addition to, and stronger than rights under article 8 ECHR and I state that there has been discrimination under s15, s19 and s21 of the EA which permits of no reasonable explanation.  A service provider - using the definition as set out in the EHRC Equality Act CoP - would only be considered to have taken 'all reasonable steps' to avoid discrimination, says the CoP ''if there were no further steps that they could have been expected to take''.   This is not true at all in this case and the EA CoP goes on: ''Although reasonable business needs and economic efficiency may be legitimate aims, a service provider solely aiming to reduce costs...cannot simply argue that to discriminate is cheaper than not to discriminate''. 


Damages - should you fail to cancel the parking charge within 14 days of receiving this letter:
In the well-known case of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police No. 2 (2003) the Court of Appeal set guidelines on the amount of compensation to be given for injury to feelings (the so-called 'Vento bands'). The lower band is appropriate for less serious cases such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one off occurrence.

By reason of the matters aforesaid I have been obliged to deal with unjustified and aggressive correspondence from your for several months and as a Litigant in Person with no previous litigation experience I have suffered substantial damage and distress.  Due to my congitive dysfunction and medical conditions, as well as your choice of timing in threatening court at a time when people are already feeling very vulerable during the current coronavirus crisis, your conduct is worse and the damage more substantial, in its effect on my peace of mind, causing unnecessary distress.

Litigation is not risk-free for a parking firm pursuing a person without justification (unlawfully in this case), and should you decide to proceed as a Claimant despite the above facts, you know that I have protected characteristics and you certainly know about the current Worldwide crisis.  The current vulnerability of the beleaguered British public does not make us 'low hanging fruit' and potential victims for aggressive ex-clamper parking firms like yourselves to continue to threaten and rip off, by misusing the court system as a form of cheap debt collection.

I expect your legal advisers BW Legal might manage to come out of robo-claim mode and dust off a law book, to explain the 'thin skull' or 'egg-shell' rule.  It is a well-established principle in English law that a party must take his victim as he finds him, and this takes into account the physical, social and economic attributes of the other party, which might make them more susceptible to injury or distress, whether physical or mental injury is the result.  The principle requires the Claimant (should you proceed in this case) to compensate me to the full extent of my distress and injury to feelings even though they may be more serious than expected because of my pre-existing conditions, predispositions, and economic and other vulnerabilities in the current crisis.  In this respect I intend to ask that the Judge gives due consideration to a suitable percentage 'uplift' being applied to my Summary Costs Assessment, as the Judge will see fit, to send a message to this parking firm that they cannot breach consumer and disability laws. 

I will seek damages for distress and/or breach of statutory duty in the sum of £1250 (which is at the lower end of established 'Vento' bands) pursuant to the following, from which a consumer right to redress is available:

 i)   Regulation 27 (J) (b) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014;
ii) Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997;
iii) Equality Act 2010 - including but not limited to s15, s19 and s21 - offences of direct and indirect discrimination.

THE DEFENDANT WILL COUNTERCLAIM:- 

1. Compensation in the sum of £1250 plus estimated interest: £4.32

2. Court fee £70.00
3. Costs to be assessed. As a result of the Claimants’ unreasonable behaviour the Court is respectfully invited to order the Claimants to pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules, rule 27.14 (2) (g).   

What you should do now:

I have responded to your LBC, and now you must respond to mine. You are urged to end this potential claim, resolve the dispute, agree to 'drop hands' with no costs on either side and cancel the PCN.     

If you do that within 14 days of receipt of this letter (sent by post and email) I will not pursue my claim.

yours faithfully, 

YOUR NAME

I didn't understand most of that but I just want to say a massive THANK YOU.

This is over and above what I could expect and thanks again from the bottom of my heart.

D_P_Dance

If you  did not understand it, keep reading it until you do, these companies can seriously damage your credit.

1505grandad

Para 3:-

As per KeithP post above IPC = International Parking Community.

[Deleted User]

I've amended and sent coupon-mad's letter by email to both recipients and will post momentarily. 

I got an autoreply by from parking@bwlegal.co.uk , the email address on their letter head, saying the message has been blocked (550 permanent failure for one or more recipients (parking@bwlegal.co.uk:blocked)

I got an autoreply from PPS saying:
"Please be advised that appeals against parking charge notices are no longer accepted via this email account. Appeals must now be made via our online portal http://pps.zatappeal.com/

If you have submitted an appeal to this email account, you will need to resubmit it via the portal. Your appeal will not be lodged or considered if you do not use the portal as stated on the parking charge notice or Notice to Keeper/Hirer you have received."

Can I consider these emails received or should I attempt to find another email address for them? Thanks again!

Redx

Assume they have failed and find alternatives , including royal mail