Parkingeye PCN - Merlyn Vaz Health Centre

Zorkthepotato

Hi,

So the driver had mistakenly driven into the staff car park, for a grand total of 9 minutes.

Things I have already done:

Asked the reception for it to be cancelled - they said the site manager doesn't want to deal with it anymore so they won't forward it on.

Seen the car park again - there is no barrier separating the patient/visitor car park and the staff car park, but there are signs. I've uploaded these. Please excuse the spelling mistakes on the PCN, Gemini bugged out.

The driver does have a blue badge I do not know if that would make any difference

What are my options here?

Thank you in advance

Edit: Replaced the first page

Zorkthepotato

This is what I have come up with, I would be grateful if someone could review it.

Thanks

I am writing as the registered keeper of the vehicle above to challenge this Parking Charge Notice issued in relation to Merlyn Vaz Health Centre, Leicester on (date here).

I request that this charge be cancelled immediately on the following grounds:

Non-Parking Event & Mandatory Consideration Period: The vehicle entered the site at (time here) and departed at (time here)—a total duration of only 9 minutes. Under Section 13 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, operators must allow a reasonable consideration period for motorists to enter, read the terms, and decide whether to accept them. The vehicle was never parked or left unattended; the driver entered, assessed the restrictions, decided not to park, and exited promptly.

Site Layout & Inability to Read Signage from the Approach: As shown in the attached site photos, there is no physical barrier separating the general patient parking area from the staff-only section. The terms and conditions are printed in small font and cannot be read from the driving lane or roadway approach. Driving past the painted boundary was strictly necessary to approach and read the signs. Given the narrow, single-lane dead-end layout, safely turning the vehicle around accounted for the brief 9-minute duration.

Conflicting & Misleading Signage:

The site contains contradictory signage from different parking management companies (including Parkingeye and Comprehensive Management Services Ltd), creating unfair confusion as to which terms govern the land.

The Parkingeye signage explicitly displays a Blue Badge symbol directly alongside text stating "Health Centre Staff Only", creating genuine ambiguity regarding whether disabled non-staff visitors may use the bays.

Equality Act 2010 (Reasonable Adjustments): An occupant of the vehicle is a valid Blue Badge holder. Under the Equality Act 2010, operators and landowners are legally required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals. Allowing a 9-minute window for a vehicle with a disabled occupant to enter, read ambiguous signage, and safely turn around to leave falls squarely within the scope of a reasonable adjustment.

Please cancel this charge and confirm in writing. If this appeal is rejected, please issue a POPLA verification code so this matter can be escalated to independent adjudication.

Yours faithfully,

Zorkthepotato

Any advice will be appreciated :')

Coupon-mad

• Asked the reception for it to be cancelled - they said the site manager doesn't want to deal with it anymore so they won't forward it on.

They must. Go back and complain.

I think your appeal is a bit long and I'd remove the bit about the blue badge symbol being confusing.

Please remove the redactions on the left which are covering the time in/out, and re-post that front page showing those times.

MrJenkinsEsq

CMS dissolved in 2023 so don't worry about them.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07939812

Coupon-mad

Nobody is worried about them but the presence of that contradictory sign could win this case!

Zorkthepotato

Hi

Thank you so much for the advice, I have reuploaded the front page of the PCN and removed the part about the blue badge being confusing. New draft below

I am writing as the registered keeper of the vehicle above to challenge this Parking Charge Notice issued in relation to Merlyn Vaz Health Centre, Leicester on (date here).

I request that this charge be cancelled immediately on the following grounds:

Non-Parking Event & Mandatory Consideration Period: The vehicle entered the site at (time here) and departed at (time here)—a total duration of only 9 minutes. Under Section 13 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, operators must allow a reasonable consideration period for motorists to enter, read the terms, and decide whether to accept them. The vehicle was never parked or left unattended; the driver entered, assessed the restrictions, decided not to park, and exited promptly.

Site Layout & Inability to Read Signage from the Approach: As shown in the attached site photos, there is no physical barrier separating the general patient parking area from the staff-only section. The terms and conditions are printed in small font and cannot be read from the driving lane or roadway approach. Driving past the painted boundary was strictly necessary to approach and read the signs. Given the narrow, single-lane dead-end layout, safely turning the vehicle around accounted for the brief 9-minute duration.

Conflicting & Misleading Signage:

The site contains contradictory signage from different parking management companies (including Parkingeye and Comprehensive Management Services Ltd), creating unfair confusion as to which terms govern the land.

Equality Act 2010 (Reasonable Adjustments): An occupant of the vehicle is a valid Blue Badge holder. Under the Equality Act 2010, operators and landowners are legally required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals. Allowing a 9-minute window for a vehicle with a disabled occupant to enter, read ambiguous signage, and safely turn around to leave falls squarely within the scope of a reasonable adjustment.

Please cancel this charge and confirm in writing. If this appeal is rejected, please issue a POPLA verification code so this matter can be escalated to independent adjudication.

Yours faithfully,

Zorkthepotato

Recieved my reply from parkingeye today, and to no surprise, it has been rejected :)

Coupon-mad

That's fine. As expected.

These (below) are your two main points for POPLA, with images of the other sign and a copy of the Blue Badge, and add the wording from the Code of Practice about operators having to allow more time on arrival for disabled persons, who may take longer to find a suitably accessible bay and then need longer to read the terms.

The site contains contradictory signage from different parking management companies (including Parkingeye and Comprehensive Management Services Ltd), creating unfair confusion as to which terms govern the land.

Equality Act 2010 (Reasonable Adjustments): An occupant of the vehicle is a valid Blue Badge holder. Under the Equality Act 2010, operators and landowners are legally required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals. Allowing a 9-minute window for a vehicle with a disabled occupant to enter, read ambiguous signage, and safely turn around to leave falls squarely within the scope of a reasonable adjustment.

Oh, and one more thing:

You have all month to gather evidence before submitting a POPLA appeal so I would add in your point about seeing a disabled bay and being confused by that.

I think on reflection, I'm wrong to say remove that bit. That bay could prove useful.

So, go get pics of the supposed staff only disabled bay if - as I suspect - there are no full t&cs signs visible from the bay and nothing to say AT THE BAY ITSELF that the space was only for use by disabled staff … go prove it… that's another Code of Practice breach.

Is this the nearest full t&cs sign to the disabled bay? Get a good angled photo to show that it is. Ideally go at 7pm, after the place closes but before dark so there aren't staff cars in the way, or on a Sunday to get good angles of this sign and the empty disabled bay both in view:

Zorkthepotato

Thank you for your reply, I have looked at the car park again, there is a sign in front of the disabled bays which are at the beginning of the staff car park.

Another thing is, the ANPR entrance image doesn't actually show us the driver entering the car park if that makes any difference.

Image 2 shows us where the staff car park disabled bays are in relation to the closest patient car park

I will write the appeal soon, and thank you for your help it is very much appreciated

Coupon-mad

OK. Don't use either of those images.

Would it be true to say that the two ANPR images don't actually show where the car was exactly? Can the surface marked words 'STAFF ONLY' be seen on those images, or not?