GEMINI Parking Solutions

luke123456

Great thanks C-M

Can I just say Yes the NTK did arrive after the 28th, but how do we prove this to POPLA and do I need to say anything else to make it clear??

Are you assuming they will look at the calendar and see that as the 24th was Xmas eve and a friday and then the 28th was also a bank holiday, it must have arrived after the 28th?
Do you think this is clear enough in my appeal?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

luke123456 wrote: »

Great thanks C-M

Can I just say Yes the NTK did arrive after the 28th, but how do we prove this to POPLA and do I need to say anything else to make it clear??

Are you assuming they will look at the calendar and see that as the 24th was Xmas eve and a friday and then the 28th was also a bank holiday, it must have arrived after the 28th?

Yes I'm making assumptions; soon as I saw the date was just before Christmas I guessed the NTK was unlikely to have hit the doormat by 28th. You do not need to prove it and have said enough there. Gemini must disprove what you say and they won't, they don't get it about the importance of the POFA.

luke123456

Great thanks C-M

Last question I promise....I will attach the PDF letter under 'other' should I send any of the photos I took (The ones I took) or this is not needed?

Does POPLA come back and ask me to send further evidence (If so I will take pics to show if that sign is actually present or not)? Last year when I appealed against Iceland they asked the PPC for evidence and then they made a decision in my favour without asking me for further evidence, have things changed now?

Coupon-mad

You can certainly also attach your photos, they were good.

POPLA doesn't ask you for further evidence but they provide you with a Portal to log in and see the progress of the case. When it changes to show Gemini have submitted their evidence (sometimes you get an email from POPLA giving you a heads up, but they are hit and miss!) you should expect to receive that evidence pack from Gemini within days.

Then you can rebut the evidence like this person is doing right now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5398548

A fun exercise, shooting down all Gemini's ducks (which are not placed in a row by them but are more thrown at POPLA!) until you win.

luke123456

OK I will submit now

Many thanks for all your help, Initially I wasn't very hopeful at all when I received the rejection to the second invoice appeal as they sent lots of pictures

But you guys have given me a lot of hope! Many thanks

Coupon-mad

You will nail it with both. Have a laugh at that other person's evidence pack and what Gemini said about keeper liability!

luke123456

Haha I just had a look and seems they have nothing relevant to come back with. Lets keep fingers crossed I am dreading telling my friend she has to pay £200 as opposed to £120 haha I may have to chip in with her, it will make my day if they are really both cancelled. Thanks C-M!

luke123456

Update;

1st Invoice- Popla appeal submitted, Still at POPLA stage where they have requested info from GEMINI.

2nd Invoice- I have 5 days left to submit POPLA appeal- I was hoping to await the others side's response to POPLA for the 1st invoice before submitting my POPLA appeal to the second invoice- to help formulate a better POPLA appeal to the second invoice but I don't think POPLA will make a decision in the next 5 days....

Shall I draft a POPLA appeal to the second invoice the same as the POPLA appeal i submitted to the first invoice, and just edit out the bit about the 28 days thing.....

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes, I would.

You could also email POPLA at the end of this week about that first one (if it was submitted more than 21 days ago) and tell them you have not received any evidence pack and 21 days has passed, so you hope to hear shortly that the appeal is upheld.

luke123456

Funnily enough I just received a reply from POPLA this eve, they sent a letter and a few other attachements that GEMINI sent to POPLA to support their claims.....obviously the pictures are very exaggerated and they have sent clear images of the signage which isn't as obvious in the car park...

I find the bit in the letter which they ask POPLA to try and report the driver to the DVLA very funny.... :rotfl:

This is GEMINI'S written response to POPLA;

A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to vehicle registration xxxxx on the 13/12/2015 at the location Chase Farm Hospital, The Ridgeway, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 8JL for the contravention “Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay”.

On the date of contravention, there was no payment allocated to the above vehicle registration; this indicates that 1 hour and 6 minutes of the motorist’s stay remains unpaid for, hence the PCN was issued.

I refer to point 1: “The operator/landowner has not complied with provisions of the Equality Act 2010”

We are confident that the appellant’s claims in point 1 are ludicrous and do not have any relevance to the reason the PCN was issued. We feel the appellant is using this as an excuse not to read signage which applies whether a driver is disabled or not.

Some signage states concessions do apply, and some signage stated signage does not apply. In this case, as displayed on signage, blue badge holders must register their blue badge using the verification machine either in the multi-storey car park or on the touch pad in the Highlands wing in order to qualify for 4 hours free parking.

All the disabled bays are also located on the ground floor. As the multi-storey car park is operated my ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition), motorists are not required to display their blue badge within the windscreen of the vehicle, nor does the signage state that blue badges must be displayed.

With regards to the appellant’s comments on the construction work, whilst we can confirm that there is construction work taking place on the grounds of the above location, the works are not taking place within the car park itself nor do they interfere with the signage so unfortunately we are unable to take this comment into consideration.

With regards to the appellants comment “the disabled person will struggle to read the signage, understand and retain the instructions necessary to park and then to locate a machine located further than the pay and display machine and then input the required details from their disabled badge then return to the car to put the badge back on display and then leave the car park”.

Motorist who has such severe problems with the eyesight and struggle to read any signage, understand and retain instructions should not be using the vehicle in the first place. This is irresponsible, hazardous and life threatening for other road users and motorists and passersby. I feel it should be investigated further and reported to DVLA due to health and safety purposes.

Please be advised: “You must notify the Licensing Authority if your vision does not meet the standard or if you have been specifically advised that it is likely to fall below it (Road Traffic Act 1991). The maximum penalty for driving with defective sight is £1000, three penalty points or a discretionary disqualification.”

“The police have the power to require a driver, at any time, to undertake an eyesight test in good daylight. The maximum penalty for driving with defective sight is £1000, three penalty points or a discretionary disqualification.”

Furthermore, the appellant seems to be speaking on behalf of all disabled people visiting the above location however we have not received such complaint from any other motorist with the same concerns.

With regards to the appellant’s comment on barriers, we can confirm that there have been no barriers in place at the above location since August 2014.

I refer to point 2: “Non-Compliant and late Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”

Please be advised that the area in which the vehicle was parked is managed by Gemini Parking Solutions London ltd. As advised on signage “All vehicles that are not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions for this site will be issued with a parking charge notice. If you park on this land and contravene the indicated parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge to the sum of £100 but discounted the £60 if paid within 14 days.”

Also, Please see attached the Release of information from DVLA’s registers P.10 + P.11 “The protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). One of the conditions for Keeper Liability is that the parking company must issue the parking charge/notice to keeper within 14 days of the alleged contravention. If that timescale is not met, the keeper liability powers do not apply; however, the company is still able to pursue payment of the charge through the means open to them prior to the introduction of PoFA.” This is contractual law.

I refer to point 3: “No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers”

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. Please see the signed contract between Gemini Parking Solutions London ltd and our client, the landowner.

Also please see attached the contract between the managing agent (Gemini Parking Solutions London ltd) and the landowner (our client).

I refer to point 4: “Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers”

There are a large number of signs both at the entrance and throughout the site which offers the parking
contract to the motorist and sets out the terms and conditions of the parking area upon which the operator will rely, 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. It is too late now for the appellant to indicate unhappiness with the parking charge – if the appellant was not prepared to pay such charges and was unhappy with the contract terms then should not have remained at the location.

I refer to point 5: “Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Fails the ‘Aziz test’.”

I refer to point 4 that as advised on the displayed signage, “All vehicles that are not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions for this site will be issued with a parking charge notice. If you park on this land and contravene the indicated parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge to the sum of £100 but discounted the £60 if paid within 14 days.”

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.

I refer to point 6: “No genuine pre-estimate of loss”

I confirm that the judgments on the Parkingeye v Beavis case came out on 04.11.2015 and the highest Court
in this country decided that ParkingEye’s parking charge of £85 is enforceable on the basis that it protected a legitimate interest (to deter parking overstays) and was not extravagant, exorbitant nor unconscionable. The parking charge is not an unenforceable penalty and does not breach the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is an important clarification (and change) of the law and one which you can now refer to in your responses to appeals and with POPLA.
At para 107 of the ParkingEye judgment the Court said that ParkingEye has:
“... a legitimate interest in imposing a liability on Mr Beavis in excess of the damages that would have been recoverable at common law. ParkingEye had an interest in inducing him to observe the two-hour time limit in order to enable customers of the retail outlets and other members of the public to use the available parking space”.

The appellant can read the full script using the following link: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

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 parking restrictions, 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. The motorist parked outside of the set terms and conditions of the site and as a result the appeal was unsuccessful as the representations did not make sufficient grounds.