Basin Road, Southwick Beach, Portslade - NOT PARKED CORRECTLY WITHIN THE MARKINGS OF A BAY OR SPACE

QrizB

Beeblebr0x said:

QrizB said:

Beeblebr0x said:

I've seen other disabled parking bays with yellow hatching just on one side. How is the OP supposed to grant sufficient access to their car on the driver's side, as it will be too close to the van?

Driver lets their passengers out *before* parking? Then there's only one occupant and space is only required on one side.

A needless faff. 

On the contrary, it avoids blocking access for the neighbouring vehicle (also a disabled space, I note), means you don't get annoying letters from parking leeches and their pet debt firms. And then don't need to deal with the CCBC.

Beeblebr0x

QrizB said:

Beeblebr0x said:

QrizB said:

Beeblebr0x said:

I've seen other disabled parking bays with yellow hatching just on one side. How is the OP supposed to grant sufficient access to their car on the driver's side, as it will be too close to the van?

Driver lets their passengers out *before* parking? Then there's only one occupant and space is only required on one side.

A needless faff. 

On the contrary, it avoids blocking access for the neighbouring vehicle (also a disabled space, I note), means you don't get annoying letters from parking leeches and their pet debt firms. And then don't need to deal with the CCBC.

All of which could also be avoided by designing the bay with 1.2m spaces on both sides.

Gr1pr

Beeblebr0x said:

Gr1pr said:

Beeblebr0x said:

Castle said:

Beeblebr0x said:

prowla said:

Beeblebr0x said:

I've seen other disabled parking bays with yellow hatching just on one side. How is the OP supposed to grant sufficient access to their car on the driver's side, as it will be too close to the van?

Not endorsing the parking scammers, but the OP's car is close to the adjacent car on the passenger side - what if they needed to get a passenger in a wheelchair in?
(Though they're across their line too...)

The way that the OP has parked is understandable under the circumstances. I think the design of that disabled bay is flawed in my opinion.

It's flawed; because, there should be 1200mm access on both sides of the vehicle.

Does that mean the fine is unenforceable?

Only a judge in civil court could decide that aspect, either it is, or it isn't,  but not for us to say, only a judge 

If the design of the bay is incorrect then I don't see how the OP can be fined.

They cant,  only magistrates issue them,  not private parking companies  ( its a common misconception   )

But because its currently an unregulated industry,  they can issue a Parking Charge Notice,  an Invoice,  for the alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property , and have done so  !

The victim can challenge the Invoice on various grounds,  including reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010,  with a judge in civil court having the final say,  that location would be where it would be deemed to be either enforceable,  or unenforceable,  same as all the other cases

So a judge can decide on the legality of the bay,  which could be down to the landowner,  not the parking company 

The pcn invoice is an allegation,  so can be challenged and nobody owes a penny unless a judge says so 

prowla

QrizB said:

Beeblebr0x said:

I've seen other disabled parking bays with yellow hatching just on one side. How is the OP supposed to grant sufficient access to their car on the driver's side, as it will be too close to the van?

Driver lets their passengers out *before* parking? Then there's only one occupant and space is only required on one side.

Since it was a disabled bay, the supposed other occupants could've been disabled - would the driver stop before the bay, get their wheelchair out, help them out of the car and into it, then find a safe place to wheel them to (or just leave them in the road), then park, and then go back to them to continue on?

Oh, and the same on returning to the car...

They'd probably then get ticketed for not stopping within the marked bay anyway!

Beeblebr0x said:

Gr1pr said:

Beeblebr0x said:

Castle said:

Beeblebr0x said:

prowla said:

Beeblebr0x said:

I've seen other disabled parking bays with yellow hatching just on one side. How is the OP supposed to grant sufficient access to their car on the driver's side, as it will be too close to the van?

Not endorsing the parking scammers, but the OP's car is close to the adjacent car on the passenger side - what if they needed to get a passenger in a wheelchair in?
(Though they're across their line too...)

The way that the OP has parked is understandable under the circumstances. I think the design of that disabled bay is flawed in my opinion.

It's flawed; because, there should be 1200mm access on both sides of the vehicle.

Does that mean the fine is unenforceable?

Only a judge in civil court could decide that aspect, either it is, or it isn't,  but not for us to say, only a judge 

If the design of the bay is incorrect then I don't see how the OP can be fined.

They can't be fined.

Coupon-mad

GXS don't do court so the OP can relax.

QrizB

prowla said:

QrizB said:

Beeblebr0x said:

I've seen other disabled parking bays with yellow hatching just on one side. How is the OP supposed to grant sufficient access to their car on the driver's side, as it will be too close to the van?

Driver lets their passengers out *before* parking? Then there's only one occupant and space is only required on one side.

Since it was a disabled bay, the supposed other occupants could've been disabled - would the driver stop before the bay, get their wheelchair out, help them out of the car and into it, then find a safe place to wheel them to (or just leave them in the road), then park, and then go back to them to continue on?

Yes.     .

Beeblebr0x

QrizB said:

prowla said:

QrizB said:

Beeblebr0x said:

I've seen other disabled parking bays with yellow hatching just on one side. How is the OP supposed to grant sufficient access to their car on the driver's side, as it will be too close to the van?

Driver lets their passengers out *before* parking? Then there's only one occupant and space is only required on one side.

Since it was a disabled bay, the supposed other occupants could've been disabled - would the driver stop before the bay, get their wheelchair out, help them out of the car and into it, then find a safe place to wheel them to (or just leave them in the road), then park, and then go back to them to continue on?

Yes.     .

So needless, but I'm sure you'll disagree 🙄

tannoy_2

Thanks all. I have made the appeal. I have also drafted this complaint letter (with the help of Claude AI) to Shoreham Port Authority, taking inspiration from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6493237/gxs-services-shoreham-port-final-demand-bw-legal/

Complaint Letter to Shoreham Port Authority

To: Commercial Director, Shoreham Port Authority
Date: [date]
Subject: Formal Complaint - Unacceptable Conduct by GXS Services at Basin Road, Southwick Beach

I am writing to make a formal complaint about your parking contractor, GXS Services Limited, at Basin Road, Southwick Beach, Portslade. I am deeply concerned about the harassment that GXS appears to routinely inflict on drivers, including blue badge holders.

The Incident

On [insert date], I parked in a disabled parking bay at Basin Road with multiple disabled passengers, including one displaying extremely distracting behavior that required my immediate attention. There was a large piece of rubbish in the parking bay which forced me to adjust the vehicle position to avoid it while dealing with the challenging situation.

GXS issued a parking charge for "NOT PARKED CORRECTLY WITHIN THE MARKINGS OF A BAY OR SPACE" - showing complete disregard for the practical realities of the situation and reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

My Serious Concerns

Disability Discrimination: The parking bay design appears fundamentally flawed and non-compliant with government accessibility standards. According to the Department for Transport's "Inclusive Mobility" guide (Section 8.3), accessible parking spaces should provide "an additional width of 1200mm on each side" for perpendicular spaces and "an additional zone of at least 1800mm to enable access from the side" for parallel spaces. Your current bay design, with vehicles parked closely on both sides, makes compliance with these standards impossible. Combined with the rubbish obstruction and the need to attend to distressed passengers, it was impossible to park perfectly "within the markings" while dealing with the immediate situation. As valid blue badge holders, we had every right to use this bay, yet this seems designed to trap drivers rather than facilitate legitimate parking.

Inevitable Escalation: I submitted a formal appeal explaining the disabled passengers and bay obstruction. However, based on extensive research into GXS's practices, I fully expect this appeal to be rejected regardless of merit. I anticipate receiving debt collection letters with inflated charges, aggressive demands, and threats of court action - this appears to be GXS's standard operating procedure.

Systematic Harassment: Online forums and reviews reveal a clear pattern of GXS behavior:

• Appeals routinely rejected without proper consideration
• Immediate escalation to debt collectors with added fees
• Threatening letters designed to intimidate payment
• Aggressive tactics that amount to harassment

Damage to Your Reputation: Your association with GXS is causing serious reputational damage. Potential visitors consistently mention avoiding Shoreham Port due to the "parking scam," directly harming local businesses and the Port Kitchen.

What I Require

1. Immediate intervention to ensure my appeal is properly considered and the charge cancelled
2. Written assurance that no debt collection action will be taken while this complaint is being resolved
3. Review of disabled parking provision to ensure bays are practical and not designed as deliberate traps
4. Serious consideration of terminating your relationship with GXS Services

The Bigger Picture

As a community-focused organization, I'm sure you're horrified that your parking contractor:

• Targets blue badge holders with impossible parking requirements
• Operates what appears to be a systematic intimidation scheme
• Damages your reputation with every aggressive letter sent
• Creates genuine fear and anxiety for legitimate visitors

Local MPs have described such practices as "rip-offs from car park cowboys," "bloodsuckers," and called the industry "an absolute disgrace." Is this really the image you want for Shoreham Port?

I expect this matter to be resolved promptly before it escalates into the debt collection harassment that so many others have experienced. If not, I will pursue this complaint through all available channels, including my MP, local media, and regulatory bodies.

This is not a parking appeal - this is a complaint about the systematic harassment of customers by your contractor, particularly targeting blue badge holders.

[Name]
[Email]

---

Attachments:

• Photographs showing parking bay with rubbish obstruction

I doubt it'll go anywhere but will send nonetheless. Let me know if anything is worth changing.

Coupon-mad

Remove any Americanisms: (replace z with s) e.g. organisation doesn't have a z.

I would also change this sub-heading

Disability Discrimination

to

Inadequate markings of accessible bay

Le_Kirk

QrizB said:

Beeblebr0x said:

I've seen other disabled parking bays with yellow hatching just on one side. How is the OP supposed to grant sufficient access to their car on the driver's side, as it will be too close to the van?

Driver lets their passengers out *before* parking? Then there's only one occupant and space is only required on one side.

What if it is the driver that is disabled and requires the additional space?