GEMINI Parking Solutions

luke123456

Also with that response, Gemini sent
- DVLA document entitled 'RELEASE OF INFORMATION FROM DVLA REGISTERS

-Copy of Notice to Keeper

- 'Chase Farm - multi storey images' - funnily enough they didn't include a copy of the picture of the girl walking which looked like it was photoshopped....

So What do you guys think? Should i write back to POPLA? What do you think of GEMINI's response...? I feel it isn't very strong, and that they are attacking me by asking POPLA to get the police and DVLA involved....

I will need to send my POPLA Appeal to the second invoice early next week.

Many thanks!!

Coupon-mad

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.”

That's desperate - in fact quite malicious and derogatory. Treat it with the contempt such rubbish deserves.

You do not have to repeat yourself to POPLA but we do always recommend you do submit some comments (by the way this is not POPLA who have emailed you, it's Gemini).

The main comment would be to state that in their evidence they have failed to show keeper liability and have not rebutted your appeal point but just used obfuscation to cloud the issue. I would remind POPLA of which days over Christmas were Bank Holidays and state which day the NTK actually arrived and hammer it home that this means keeper liability cannot apply.

I would also point out to POPLA that point #6 makes no case whatsoever to show any legitimate interest IN THIS CASE to justify charging more than the tariff. It's all very well to regurgitate the Beavis case but all Gemini have done is literally repeat a condensed version of that judgment for a ParkingEye charge of £85. Gemini have not even added a single line to try to draw similarities or justify their charge, so in this case, the penalty rule remains engaged (as it was in the Beavis case until PE unlocked that with specific justification for that charge at that site in those circumstances).

Here, Gemini are silent on any 'justification' for their unconscionable and disproportionate charge at a hospital to a disabled person, which certainly breaches the Equality Act and the POFA 2012 and the Government Guidance on NHS Hospital charges. In the absence of even a line or two about 'legitimate interest' - which POPLA cannot assume exists nor write the case for the operator to twist the Beavis judgment to suit when Gemini have made no effort to do so, so a template paragraph about Beavis is clearly not relevant here - and in view of the unclear signage, this charge in these circumstances remains a penalty and is therefore, unenforceable.

luke123456

This sis my proposed reply to POPLA please advise and let me know do you think I still have a good chance? thanks

Dear POPLA,

I write in response to the comments made by Gemini in relation to this unenforceable invoice.

In their evidence, Gemini have failed to show keeper liability and have not rebutted my appeal point but have just simply used obfuscation to cloud the issue.

I would like to remind POPLA that starting from Friday 25th December to Monday 28th December 2015 this was a bank holiday weekend. The 1st January 2016 was also a bank holiday. The NTK did not arrive until after the New Year in early 2016. This therefore makes this invoice invalid and unenforceable.

Several flaws in their signage and the overly complicated need for the disabled person to park has been highlighted. This is including the need to cross the road to enter the Highlands wing (as can be seen in the map sent to POPLA previously) and then enter some details then go back to the car and then re-enter the hospital this is clearly discriminatory and breaches the Equality Act and POFA 2012 since the same procedures and steps are not required for the able bodied person. The able bodied person has a payment machine located closer to the car park than the machine for the disabled person. This is clearly discriminatory and seeks to make it easier for financial gain for Gemini. Furthermore, this is against Government Guidance on NHS Hospital charges.

Gemini have made quite malicious and derogatory remarks. Asking POPLA to report the registered owner of this vehicle to the DVLA suggesting that the registered owner 'should not be using the vehicle in the first place’ simply because several flaws exist in their parking mechanisms and they are clearly discriminating against the disabled person, I feel this should not be taken lightly. Making threats and also reminding POPLA and the registered owner of the laws and consequences of not meeting the vision requirements has nothing to do with the flaws in their signage, their discrimination and their non-compliance with several regulations.

Gemini also include in their evidence pack several images which show the signage in large clear print. I would refer POPLA to the images I took of the signage of the site. This clearly shows the poor quality of clarity in steps necessary for the disabled driver to park, several inconsistencies and discrepancies exist, with different signs suggesting different things. Gemini have clearly exaggerated the size of the signage to mislead and portray their signs as being clear and consistent when this is not the case.

I would also point out to POPLA that point #6 makes no case whatsoever to show any legitimate interest IN THIS CASE to justify charging more than the tariff. It's all very well to regurgitate the Beavis case but all Gemini have done is literally repeat a condensed version of that judgment for a ParkingEye charge of £85. Gemini have not even added a single line to try to draw similarities or justify their charge, so in this case, the penalty rule remains engaged (as it was in the Beavis case until PE unlocked that with specific justification for that charge at that site in those circumstances).

Here, Gemini are silent on any 'justification' for their unconscionable and disproportionate charge at a hospital to a disabled person, which certainly breaches the Equality Act and the POFA 2012 and the Government Guidance on NHS Hospital charges. In the absence of even a line or two about 'legitimate interest' - which POPLA cannot assume exists nor write the case for the operator to twist the Beavis judgment to suit when Gemini have made no effort to do so, so a template paragraph about Beavis is clearly not relevant here - and in view of the unclear signage, this charge in these circumstances remains a penalty and is therefore, unenforceable.

Kind regards

Registered keeper

Coupon-mad

luke123456 wrote: »

This is my proposed reply to POPLA please advise and let me know do you think I still have a good chance? thanks

I have just made some suggestions in red (change them back to black before emailing POPLA of course). If your comments fit in the 'Portal' comments box and it is still 'open' then put them there too, or failing that, put on the Portal a line referring to your emailed comments date/time and drawing their attention to them).

If the Portal comments box isn't open, just email POPLA.



Dear POPLA,

I write in response to the comments made by Gemini in relation to this unenforceable invoice.

1. Keeper liability
In their evidence, Gemini have failed to show keeper liability and have not rebutted my appeal point but have just simply used obfuscation to cloud the issue.

I would like to remind POPLA that starting from Friday 25th December to Monday 28th December 2015 this was a bank holiday weekend. The 1st January 2016 was also a bank holiday. The NTK did not arrive until after the New Year in early 2016. This therefore makes this invoice invalid and unenforceable because it was served too late to meet the deadline set out in Schedule 4.

2. Equality Act (EA) breaches now compounded by a derogatory attack - a further breach of the EA.
Several flaws in their signage and the overly complicated need for the disabled person to park has been highlighted. This is including the need to cross the road to enter the Highlands wing (as can be seen in the map sent to POPLA previously) and then enter some details then go back to the car and then re-enter the hospital this is clearly discriminatory and breaches the Equality Act and POFA 2012 since the same procedures and steps are not required for the able bodied person. The able bodied person has a payment machine located closer to the car park than the machine for the disabled person. This is clearly discriminatory and seeks to make it easier for financial gain for Gemini.

Furthermore, this is against Government Guidance on NHS Hospital charges.

Gemini have made quite malicious and derogatory remarks. Asking POPLA to report the registered owner of this vehicle to the DVLA suggesting that the registered owner 'should not be using the vehicle in the first place’ simply because several flaws exist in their parking mechanisms and they are clearly discriminating against the disabled person, I feel this should not be taken lightly. Making threats and also reminding POPLA and the registered owner of the laws and consequences of not meeting the vision requirements has nothing to do with the flaws in their signage, their discrimination and their non-compliance with several regulations.

3. Unclear terms/charge not legible/not seen
[STRIKE]Gemini also include in their evidence pack several images which show the signage in large clear print.[/STRIKE] I would refer POPLA to the images I took of the signage of the site. This clearly shows the poor quality of clarity in steps necessary for the disabled driver to park, several inconsistencies and discrepancies exist, with different signs suggesting different things.

Gemini also include in their evidence pack several images which appear to show the signage in large clear print. Gemini have clearly exaggerated the size of the signage to mislead and portray their signs as being clear and consistent when this is not the case.

4. No case put forward to show any legitimate interest/commercial justification
I would also point out to POPLA that point #6 makes no case whatsoever to show any legitimate interest IN THIS CASE to justify charging more than the tariff. It's all very well to regurgitate the Beavis case but all Gemini have done is literally repeat a condensed version of that judgment for a ParkingEye charge of £85. In that case, ParkingEye only saved the charge from being penal by detailed arguments about a commercial justification for charging more than the usual nominal sum for damages arising from any alleged breach.

Gemini have made no such arguments in support of their case, not even added a single line to try to draw similarities or justify their charge, so in this case, the penalty rule remains engaged (as it was in the Beavis case until PE unlocked that with specific justification for that charge at that site in those circumstances).

Here, Gemini are silent on any 'justification' for their unconscionable and disproportionate charge at a hospital to a disabled person, which certainly breaches the Equality Act and the POFA 2012 and the Government Guidance on NHS Hospital charges. It cannot be justified and in fact the Beavis case considered the point of unfairness (which has to be considered by courts in every case of consumer contracts/disputes).

At 107 the Supreme Court Judges mentioned that Parking Eye had not excluded any rights that consumers enjoy under statute: ‘’In our opinion the term imposing the £85 charge was not unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute.’’

By contrast, in this case the disabled person DOES enjoy rights under the EA and these were breached and the charge in the circumstances of this case remains unconscionable for that reason.

I would point out that the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, when adjourning cases for the Beavis outcome, stated in 2015:

''It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.''

Gemini have not shown any reason to rely upon the Beavis case as an authority in this particular matter being determined. In my appeal to POPLA, I stated my case differs from the Beavis case and that the charge must therefore relate to the loss, as restitutionary damages. It is up to the operator to show otherwise but Gemini have failed to rebut this. They have made no attempt to explain how the Judgment they have blindly adduced can relate to THIS case about a completely different, very basic financial (standard) contract. In the absence of even a line or two about any relevant or similar 'legitimate interest' - which POPLA cannot assume exists [STRIKE]nor write the case for the operator to twist the Beavis judgment to suit when Gemini have made no effort to do so, so a template paragraph about Beavis is clearly not relevant here[/STRIKE] - and in view of the unclear signage, this charge in these circumstances remains a penalty and is therefore, unenforceable.

Kind regards

name of appellant goes here

luke123456

Thanks so much C-M thats very helpful!

luke123456

The comments box is still open but the text is too much so I will email POPLA but I can't see any email for them other than complaints@popla.co.uk and info@popla.co.uk.... what should I do?

luke123456

Regarding the SECOND Invoice I received, I have to submit my POPLA appeal by Tomorrow night, please advise, I am going to submit the same POPLA appeal I submitted for the FIRST invoice (Not sure if theres anything to add based on the response received from Gemini in regards to the first appeal..?)

One problem, I don't think that points 2a and 2b are relevant.
This is the POPLA appeal I will submit. Please advise again. thanks


I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Gemini issued at Chase Farm Hospital. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) The operator/landowner has not complied with provisions of the Equality Act 2010
2) Non-Compliant and late Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
4) Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
5) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Fails the ‘Aziz test’.
6) No genuine pre-estimate of loss


1) The operator/landowner has not complied with provisions of the Equality Act 2010

The operator/landowner has not complied with provisions of the Equality Act 2010 In fact under the Equality Act Chapter 2, the operator would be considered to be showing indirect discrimination and discrimination due to disability.

The Operator has put in place measures which prove more difficult for a disabled person to park rather than an able-bodied person with no disability! In fact the operator asks the disabled person to cross the road in order to register their car to park. As seen in the images attached the unclear signage which is located outside the car park, expects the disabled person to leave their parking bay in the multi storey car park and pass through 2 doors to exit the car park and then reach the paying booth which has the sign which then directs the disabled person to cross the road and register their car with a touch screen device in order to state the VRM and the disabled badge number. Then the disabled driver is to cross the road again, re enter the car park and then probably to display their badge (unless they are expected to memorise their VRM and disabled badge numbers) and then to leave the car park and enter the hospital for whatever reason they chose to attend in the first place. Please see the attached map as proof. This is discriminatory.

The able bodied person would just be expected to pay and display and not expected to cross the road to enter the highlands wing and complete this troublesome process. The signage and instructions are difficult for a disabled person to read, to access and the ‘touch screen console’ that requires the disabled person to input their VRM and disabled badge number is located far from the point of parking.

As such 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. This seems to be an excessive, unnecessary and troublesome process for the disabled person. Please see all images attached that explain the great deal of stress and effort the disabled person is expected to undergo. This is enough to mislead and confuse the able bodied person.

In the BPA CoP it states that; 16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.
16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine. In fact Gemini has clearly decided to do the opposite of this and has not made any adjustments and has actually put in place further barriers for the disabled person compared to the able bodied person.

The CoP also stated ’16.5. If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid Blue Badge you must not issue it with parking charge notices.' The disabled badge was clearly displayed on the vehicle windscreen.

Gemini has not complied with any aspect of the Equality Act and certainly not complied with the BPA Approved Operator Scheme.

Furthermore , Gemini has no regard for Department of Health guidelines for parking on NHS sites and this cannot be deemed acceptable. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

This is a crucial point in which this appeal will be directed to PALS who are responsible for patients experiences in the hospital, reference will be made to BPA CoP and the DOH guidelines. As the disabled person in the vehicle attended a hospital appointment on that day and this clearly is a barrier to accessing healthcare.

2) Non-Compliant and late Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

As the parking company have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was I submit that I am not liable to any charge.

I would like to point out that Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates that some mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and a parking company can only potentially pursue the (unidentified) driver.

The following points may be observed as failures in this Notice to Keeper, making this non-compliant under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4 paragraph 9:

a. The Notice arrived in the first week of January which is too late for keeper liability because the alleged parking event was three weeks earlier on 13th December. It is apparent that the 'issued date' is not the date it was posted which is also a fatal flaw of any NTK (see b).

b. The ‘date on which the notice is sent’ is not explicit and as a point of fact, is certainly not the 'date issued' stated on the Notice. This 'date issued' is quite clearly just the date the Gemini office clerk put the details into the system to create the Notice because it cannot have been posted until their offices opened again after New Year's Day (due to it arriving in early January). However, Schedule 4 prescribes that a NTK 'must' include the actual 'date sent' or 'date given'. This NTK has neither.

c. The 'period of parking' is not shown, just two photographs with nothing to identify where the car was within the Hospital site at that time, in moving traffic. No visible signs or landmarks are in the background to show where the pictures were taken and there is more than one parking area within the Chase Farm Hospital site - which is fairly large - so this cannot be evidence sufficient to establish any period of parking.

d. The NTK fails to state the sum of the unpaid parking charge that the driver was alleged not to have paid on the day (which can only be the tariff and not the £100 which is not payable by any mechanism and cannot be deemed the 'unpaid' sum). To comply with paragraph 9, a NTK 'must' describe the parking charges which were due from the driver as at the day BEFORE the date of posting of the postal Notice. It does not mention those unpaid charges (the tariff).

e. This NTK does not identify the creditor, which may be Gemini, may be Chase Farm, may be the Royal Free Hospital Trust, or could certainly be another party altogether. The fact that some of this information may be able to be implied by a reader familiar with the legal context of parking does not mean that the Notice to Keeper is compliant. And (as was found by POPLA on many occasions in 2015) nor can the 'creditor' be assumed just because the NTK asks for payment to be made to Gemini. The NTK should have a statement to the effect that 'the creditor is'...and it does not.

A Notice to Keeper is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and the mandatory detail and wording to ensure a Notice to Keeper is compliant are prescriptive, unequivocal and a matter of statute, not contract law. Any omission or failure to set out the mandatory Notice to Keeper wording renders it non-compliant and a late serving of a NTK beyond day 15 from the parking event is incapable of establishing keeper liability in law.

3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Gemini must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Gemini to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Gemini and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Gemini

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.


4) Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 of the BPA code of practice. They were not clear and intelligible as required.

The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.

When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:

"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision". After inspecting the signs after the driver received the charge, I noted that the sign adjacent to the disabled bay is red with very small white text. The signs were also unlit which makes them very difficult to read, especially during winter. These were easily missed as they are on one end of the car park only adjacent to the disabled bays, with low height which could easily be concealed by cars, and not by any lighting.

There were no signs or road markings to indicate that the area was private property or in any way restricted, and no signage indicating the area was private before entering.

Furthermore, as the driver enters the car park a large sign states ‘PAY ON EXIT’ it states nothing else clearly as the driver enters the car park.

The 'sign’ beside the disabled parking space does not communicate fully the contractual terms & conditions. It does not state clearly the terms and conditions of parking and the complicated steps that Gemini have put in place and make it necessary for a disabled driver.
The red sign adjacent to the disabled bays asks the driver to use the intercom, this is hardly visible as there is a large misleading blue disabled logo and very small sized white words. The other white sign outside the car park with yellow text states the disabled person must cross the road and ‘authorise their stay by entering their VRM and disabled blue badge number on the touch screen console located within the entrance of the Highlands Wing’. Please see images attached.

The red sign with small white text is very difficult to read from a distance. The white sign outside gives different steps and the ambiguity in a contractual term must be read in such a way that is favourable to the driver, the principle of contra proferentem.

The requirement to pay £100 is not clear on any of the signs that are directed to the disabled driver and are not prominent as the Supreme Court commented on in Beavis. Such an onerous obligation should be the most prominent part of the sign, as is stated in Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule.


Any photos supplied by Gemini to POPLA will no doubt portray it with the signs in a clear picture without many pieces of information in the clutter of this Hospital car park. As such, I require Gemini to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, taken at the same time of day without photo-shopping or cropping and showing where the signs are placed among a myriad of other information bombarding the disabled person without the help of external lighting such as a camera flash or torch.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

5) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Fails the ‘Aziz test’.

I also wish to reference the Aziz test (as my case is different to that of Beavis v ParkingEye) in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.”

And as for whether average consumers 'would have agreed' to pay £100 had there been negotiations in advance, the answer here is obviously no. One could have parked free on road at this time of the day in the surrounding residential area (residential side roads with no restrictions at all surround Chase Farm Hospital). One could have also parked in other disabled bays in the hospital grounds, where such daunting, exhausting and discriminatory steps do not exist for the disabled driver. There would have been no justification or negotiation that could have possibly have persuaded an average consumer to pay £100 to this parking firm especially since they discriminate against the disabled person and do not accommodate for their specific needs by asking them to cross the road to simply park ’to register with the touch screen console located at the entrance of the Highlands wing…the highlands wing is located opposite this car park'. Their charge relies upon unseen terms to the driver entering let alone the disabled person, not clear contracts especially for the disabled person, and as such this unjustified and discriminatory charge should not be upheld.

6) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19.
Gemini must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so Gemini have no cause of action to pursue this charge. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

Gemini cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe Gemini Ltd are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown Gemini supply and must be shown in the contract, which leads me to appeal point 5 below.


In any case, even if POPLA consider signage to be relevant in this instance, the driver was not adequately informed of the terms nor warned 'prominently in large letters' of the actual sum of the parking charge anywhere, which fails 2(3) of Schedule 4 outright. Gemini fail on a number of occasions and as such I would respectfully request that this appeal is upheld.


Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

luke123456 wrote: »

The comments box is still open but the text is too much so I will email POPLA but I can't see any email for them other than complaints@popla.co.uk and info@popla.co.uk.... what should I do?

But you'll have had two emails from POPLA - you just reply!

luke123456

Thanks I have now submitted my comments for that.

Please could you advise me about the second invoice, I posted a draft POPLA appeal above but as I said points 2a and 2b aren't really relevant.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Bumped your thread for others to look at the second one above. Busy today.