Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • sniper7
    • By sniper7 3rd Feb 17, 8:15 PM
    • 28Posts
    • 21Thanks
    sniper7
    Draft POPLA Appeal - Gemini Parking Solutions
    • #1
    • 3rd Feb 17, 8:15 PM
    Draft POPLA Appeal - Gemini Parking Solutions 3rd Feb 17 at 8:15 PM
    Hello,

    I wondered whether you good people would be able to check over my draft POPLA appeal please? I plan to appeal to POPLA early next week.

    Many thanks in advance!


    PCN Number: x x February 2017
    POPLA Verification Code: x
    Dear POPLA,

    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle x. I wish to appeal the £100 windscreen issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by Gemini Parking Solutions for ‘Parking In No Parking Area.’

    I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge and would be grateful if you would respectfully consider my appeal:-

    1. Gemini Parking Solutions' Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) as no Notice To Keeper (NTK) has been issued.
    2. Gemini Parking Solutions has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    3. No contract was entered into between Gemini Parking Solutions and the Driver or Registered Keeper
    4. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-BPA-compliant signage.
    5. The required charge for staying in the car park was paid.


    1. Gemini Parking Solutions' Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) as no Notice To Keeper (NTK) has been issued.

    Gemini Parking Solutions’ PCN fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, for the creditor (Gemini Parking Solutions) to have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle (myself), certain conditions must be met. These are stated in schedule 4, paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to fulfil the conditions of paragraph 6; which states that it must have provided myself, as the registered keeper with a notice in accordance with paragraph 9. Paragraph 9 states:-

    The notice must be given by

    (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

    (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

    The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. No such Notice To Keeper has ever been received since the Penalty Charge Notice was issued on 10th December 2016.

    This means that Gemini Parking Solutions have failed to act within the 56 day relevant period.
    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver. Whilst I am the registered keeper of the car, the driver has never been identified or proven and there is no evidence as to the identity of that individual.


    2. Gemini Parking Solutions has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.

    I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to do this.

    The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


    3. No contract was entered into between Gemini Parking Solutions and the Driver or Registered Keeper.

    As Gemini Parking Solutions does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require them to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what Gemini Parking Solutions is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to produce evidence that it has the authority to form contracts with drivers on this land or to pursue charges. The signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. Gemini Parking Solutions clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract.

    I contend that Gemini Parking Solutions merely holds a basic commercial licence to supply and maintain confusing signage and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users.

    In my email appeal to Gemini Parking Solutions on 4th January 2017 I asked them to provide me with a copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner to entitle it to perform the aforementioned actions. This was so that I could be satisfied that the contract permits Gemini Parking Solutions to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in its own name.

    Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to produce any such document in the time period since the PCN was issued on 10th December 2016, despite my request under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 on 4th January 2017.

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:-

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    Furthermore, for the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms. Such a witness statement would not comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice as the definition of the exact services provided by Gemini Parking Solutions would not be fully stated.
    It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs with such poorly displayed terms, putting the onus clearly on drivers to search carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of Gemini Parking Solutions to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require Gemini Parking Solutions to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to examine how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ‘vehicles are to park within a marked bay only…..vehicles causing an obstruction may be issued with a parking charge.’ The use of the word may, in itself is extraordinarily ambiguous and is entirely inappropriate to enforce terms and conditions of parking.

    I request that Gemini Parking Solutions provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific detail including an agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.


    4. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-BPA-compliant signage.
    The signs around the car park detail the terms and conditions of parking. They contain letters in very small writing that are above head height for the average person (this would be around 1.7 metres according to latest research for adults).

    I appealed the PCN to Gemini Parking Solutions via email on 4th January 2017. In their email reply to me on 20th January 2017 rejecting my appeal, they included seven (7) photographs apparently showing locations of signage within the car park and one (1) digital image apparently showing specifics of the signage. Please see appendix A.

    I have numbered the Appendix A photographs 1-7 in pencil to the left hand side for ease of reference. You will agree they are not dated or timed and you’ll agree that it is not possible to confirm what they display as they were taken from too far away. It is therefore reasonable to suggest this does not prove anything as it is not possible to view what the signs actually display.

    I have numbered the digital image 8. This was not the sign on display at the time of the incident on 10th December 2016. I can say this with absolute confidence because I have identified a total of eight (8) inconsistencies between digital image 8 and photograph X that I provide, which was taken in the car park in the aftermath of the PCN being issued. Please see appendix B for the photographs I provide numbered x to y.

    The eight (8) inconsistencies are:-

    1. ‘3 Hours Free Parking’ rather than ‘2 Hours Free Parking.’

    2. ‘0-3 hours FREE’ rather than ‘0-2 Hours FREE.’

    3. ‘3-4 hours £1.50’ rather than ‘2-3 Hours £1.50.’

    4. ‘4-5 hours £3.00’ rather than ‘3-4 Hours £3.00.’

    5. ‘Over 5 hours £4.00’ rather than ‘Over 4 hours £4.00.’

    6. ‘vehicles parked beyond the 3 hour free period must pay for their duration of stay.’ rather than ‘vehicles parked beyond the 2 hour free period must pay for their duration of stay.’

    7. ‘Pay by mobile….’ rather than ‘No coins?’

    8. ‘Charges Apply Monday-Sunday 6am - 7pm (Including Bank Holidays.’ rather than ‘Charges Apply Monday - Sunday 06:00 to 20:00 (Including Bank Holidays).’

    I have established from Gambado’s (a children’s soft play area, who are tenants on the site) that the parking arrangements (the amount of initial free parking) were amended on 6th January 2017 - from 2 hours free parking to 3 hours free parking. It is clear that Gemini Parking Solutions have provided the digital image of the car park signage post 6th January 2017 rather than the signage which was displayed in the car park at the time of the incident on 10th December 2016.

    This means the continuity and integrity of the images produced by Gemini Parking Solutions cannot be relied upon in any way, to prove any facts whatsoever. The onus is clearly on Gemini Parking Solutions to provide evidence of what the signage was AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED INCIDENT, which they have clearly failed to do.

    This lack of signage runs counter to section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice which states:

    18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

    Gemini Parking Solutions contended in their appeal rejection email that the PCN was issued for “Parking in A No Parking Area”. It argued that the ticket was issued because:

    - The vehicle was not parked within a marked bay

    As Registered Keeper of the vehicle, I contend that:

    * The signage states in very small yellow lettering against a white background (see photo x) that ‘Vehicles are to park within a marked bay only.’ I respectfully suggest the POPLA adjudicator will agree that the words are exceptionally difficult to read and understand, on the photograph I have provided and therefore breach Section 18.3 of the BPA CoP as listed previously.

    * The signage states in very small blue lettering against a white background (see same photo) that ‘vehicles causing an obstruction may be issued with a parking charge.’ This implies that there is discretion applied and that even vehicles that do cause an obstruction may not be issued with a PCN. Again, I submit that this breaches the same BPA CoP Section 18.3.

    * There are no yellow hatchings or no parking markings on the road surface to indicate that no vehicle can be parked there (see photo x). This is counter to the BPA Code of Practice 18.6 which states that:

    “The wording you include on your specific parking terms signage is your decision. However, you should try to use plain and intelligible language in all your signs and information.”

    The signage information provided by Gemini Parking Solutions fails the test of being “plain and intelligible.” The question one should be asking is, why warn motorists using tiny yellow writing against a white background?

    Furthermore, the vehicle was parked adjacent to another vehicle as if it was in a bay (see photo x). It was parked in such a way that it was impossible for it hinder the egress or ingress of any other vehicle in the car park.

    As a POPLA assessor has said previously in adjudication:

    ‘Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.’ Gemini Parking Solutions have failed to do this.

    The alleged breach occurred during a fairly bright day and the tiny lettering was not visible (readable) to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day. This is not mitigating circumstances but failure by Gemini Parking Solutions to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible.

    The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:

    Signs should be readable and understandable at all times.

    Furthermore, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. Gemini Parking Solutions has not provided evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.


    5. The required charge for staying in the car park was paid.

    As Registered Keeper I contend that at the beginning of the use of the car park facilities, the correct ANPR procedure was adhered to, to ensure full compliance. This is not in dispute.

    I therefore respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

    Yours faithfully
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Feb 17, 9:50 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 3rd Feb 17, 9:50 PM
    • #2
    • 3rd Feb 17, 9:50 PM
    You'll win! Nice one, nailed it. Only one change from me:

    If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 Consumer Rights Act 2015.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sniper7
    • By sniper7 4th Feb 17, 7:48 AM
    • 28 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    sniper7
    • #3
    • 4th Feb 17, 7:48 AM
    • #3
    • 4th Feb 17, 7:48 AM
    Noted, thanks very much!!
    • sniper7
    • By sniper7 28th Feb 17, 6:10 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    sniper7
    • #4
    • 28th Feb 17, 6:10 PM
    POPLA Advice Sought
    • #4
    • 28th Feb 17, 6:10 PM
    Hello,

    I received the below email today from Gemini Parking Solutions, which is their response to my POPLA appeal. I find a number of their points absolutely laughable! The email attached a number of photographs which I can’t attach, but in my opinion, they don’t add anything whatsoever. I still haven’t received a NTK!

    Shortly after, I received an email from POPLA advising me I have 7 days to provide comments on file in response, after which they will complete their assessment.

    I would really appreciate any advice as to how to proceed now. Is it best to pick their response apart point by point? Or just refer POPLA to my appeal?

    The email is as follows, many thanks in advance…


    Email: -----------
    POPLA Evidence: ---------
    POPLA Verification: -------------
    Please explain your case summary based on the ground for appeal, provide comments specific to the motorist case and evidence. Please add any comments on the motorist evidence here


    A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the driver of vehicle registration ------- on the 10/12/2016 at the location Beckenham Gym, Former Natwest Playing Fields, Copers Cape Road, Beckenham, London BR3 1NZ for the contravention “Parking in No Parking area” and additional contravention “Obstructive Parking”.

    There are a number of clearly displayed signs at the entrance and throughout the location advising on the site regulations and parking restrictions in place. It stipulates within the signage that all vehicles must be parked within marked bays only and vehicles causing an obstruction will be issued with a PCN.

    I have noted appellant`s comments that the Parking Charge Notice does not comply with POFA as no Notice to Keeper has been issued. I am however satisfied that the PCN does comply with POFA. The parking charge notice was issued to the driver of the vehicle on the date of contravention. The PCN was issued and attached onto the windscreen of the vehicle. We provided driver with 28 days time frame to submit an appeal or make a payment. It is unclear whether the appellant is the driver or the registered keeper or whether he submitted the appeal on behalf of them however; as the appeal was received within 28 days time frame provided, the Notice to Keeper has not yet been issued. As stated in the Code of Practice: The Notice to Keeper: (2) The notice must: (b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; (c) describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable.

    As stated above, it is unclear who the appellant is, driver or registered keeper or someone else making the appeal on their behalf, however; I am satisfied that the driver is liable for the parking charge notice as he/she parked the above vehicle outside of the site terms and conditions.

    The appellant has stated that the driver or registered keeper did not enter into any contract with Gemini however; when parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park.

    In regards to appellant`s comments that the signage does not comply with BPA requirements, please, see the site images. There are a number of clearly displayed signs at the entrance and throughout the location advising on the site regulations and parking restrictions. All the signs are retro-reflective and are displayed evenly throughout the location. We are satisfied that the signage does comply with BPA requirement. It is motorist`s responsibility to be aware and comply with the site regulations at all times.

    Please, see the photographic evidence. It is clear that the above vehicle was parked outside of a marked parking bay on the date of contravention and I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly.

    The motorist failed to recognise the parking terms and conditions and made an assumption without checking regulations set out. It is the responsibility of the driver to be aware and comply with the restrictions at all times. That the appellant feels she has good reason to ignore the terms and conditions displayed is not a reason which we can the appeal.

    The above location is private property and is managed by Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd on behalf of the land owner. Motorist has parked within restricted area which is owned by our client. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is therefore the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by the conditions of parking at all times.

    As displayed within the signage by staying at the location, the motorist accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of the parking contract including the charges for the breach of that contract. These signs offer the parking contract to the motorist and sets out the terms and conditions of the parking and upon which by remaining at the location, the motorist has agreed to be bound by these terms and conditions clearly show the amount which will become payable if the terms and conditions are breached.

    Gemini Parking Solutions fully complies with the guidelines set by that of the British Parking Association who are the regulating body for the parking industry.

    We find that, by failing to comply with the site regulations, the motorist became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed and we are satisfied that this charge has been issued correctly.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Mar 17, 1:02 AM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 1st Mar 17, 1:02 AM
    • #5
    • 1st Mar 17, 1:02 AM
    Is it best to pick their response apart point by point?
    Yes.

    it is unclear who the appellant is, driver or registered keeper or someone else making the appeal on their behalf, however; I am satisfied that the driver is liable for the parking charge notice as he/she parked the above vehicle outside of the site terms and conditions.
    Hahahaha!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • sniper7
    • By sniper7 7th Mar 17, 8:59 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    sniper7
    • #6
    • 7th Mar 17, 8:59 PM
    Successful POPLA Appeal
    • #6
    • 7th Mar 17, 8:59 PM
    I received this email from POPLA today - thanks CM for your help, I really appreciate it.

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Gemma West
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant parked in a no parking area.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal which I have listed below: • The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedom’s Act (PoFA) 2012. • The appellant states the signage does not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • He explains the driver or the registered keeper entered into a contract with the operator. • The appellant states the operator has not shown who it is pursuing as liable for the charge. • The appellant states the parking amount was paid.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park which state “Vehicles are to park within a marked bay…All vehicles that are not authorised or not parked in accordance with the site terms and conditions will be issued with a parking charge notice”. The operator states it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant parked in a no parking area. In this instance the driver has not been identified and as such the operator is attempting to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As a result I must ensure the operator has met with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) in order for it to have transferred liability of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper. Schedule 4 of the PoFA, Paragraph 9 states: “(4) The Notice must be given by – (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. (5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” In this instance the operator has not provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper, therefore I am unable to identify if the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012. As a result I am not satisfied the PCN was issued correctly. I must allow the appeal. As I have allowed the appeal on this ground, I do not need to address the further points raised by the appellant.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Mar 17, 9:49 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 7th Mar 17, 9:49 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Mar 17, 9:49 PM
    In this instance the operator has not provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper, therefore I am unable to identify if the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012.
    Some of these parking firms are so dumb, they couldn't find their way to Parkex if you gave them a pre-programmed self-driving car!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Laura Anne
    • By Laura Anne 3rd Oct 17, 5:34 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Laura Anne
    • #8
    • 3rd Oct 17, 5:34 PM
    • #8
    • 3rd Oct 17, 5:34 PM
    Hi, I wonder if you can advise what is the best procedure to follow. A PCN incurred at Stepping Hill Hospital from GEMINI on 13/11/2016. No Notice to Keeper/Driver received, only communications from a third party solicitor. The latest communication is from County Court Business Centre in Northampton which now includes charges for court fee and legal representative's costs.

    I am struggling to decide what form of defence to choose.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 17, 9:24 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 3rd Oct 17, 9:24 PM
    • #9
    • 3rd Oct 17, 9:24 PM
    Hi, I wonder if you can advise what is the best procedure to follow. A PCN incurred at Stepping Hill Hospital from GEMINI on 13/11/2016. No Notice to Keeper/Driver received, only communications from a third party solicitor. The latest communication is from County Court Business Centre in Northampton which now includes charges for court fee and legal representative's costs.

    I am struggling to decide what form of defence to choose.
    Originally posted by Laura Anne
    Start your own thread and confirm you've done the AOS as per the NEWBIES thread post #2.

    How about copying/adapting from another Gemini Hospital claim, all you had to do was search:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5641148

    New thread please, AFTER you've read the NEWBIES thread post #2 & done the AOS (please don't ask what that is...). You have a court claim and you MUST deal with this proactively, to win.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,420Posts Today

6,908Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin