GEMINI Parking Solutions

luke123456

Thanks C-M

Would appreciate someones advice as I say will submit it before midnight today and just eliminate points 2a and 2b as they aren't relevant but surely the other points are strong enough.

luke123456

Ive submitted that POPLA appeal. Will update you as to how it goes.

luke123456

Hi Guys

quick question, for the first invoice i received i submitted my final POPLA Appeal in response to the PPC comments on 18/2/16.

I am still to hear back, is this normal? What do you think?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

It could be. Might be a hard one so they keep putting it back on the pile!

luke123456

OK thanks. They may then realise there are 2 invoices being challenged and the other (the second one) was submitted on 16/3/16....

Maybe they will look at both and say YES or NO to both for the same reason....?

Coupon-mad

I don't think POPLA are that joined up in their systems. I doubt they've noticed. I reckon you will get two different assessors!

luke123456

UPDATE: GOOD NEWS! The first invoice has been cancelled, I will also upload this on the POPLA results thread but I wanted to thank everyone here. This is the POPLA decision.

DecisionSuccessful
Assessor NameAdele Brophy
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator advises that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to failure to pay for the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has not complied with the equality act 2010 and has issued a non-compliant Notice to Keeper. The appellant states that the terms and conditions are unfair and the operator has no standing authority to pursue charges or form contracts with drivers. The appellant further advised that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is not a genuine pre – estimate of loss, and the signage at the site was not clear.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Whilst the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus on genuine pre-estimate of loss as this supersedes all other grounds for appeal. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, it is evident that I must consider whether the signage at the location was sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who may wish to park. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “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”. Within its response, the operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the location.. Upon close inspection of these photographs, I note that the parking charge is noted on several of these. However, the Supreme Court stated that the parking charge must be “clear”. Based on the evidence provided, I can only conclude that the signage in place does not meet the standards outlined by the Supreme Court in that the “wording of the notices” are not sufficiently “clear” to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who use this car park. In light of this, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to demonstrate it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and so while I note the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, these do not require any further consideration.

Ralph-y

well done ..... :j



please post this up in the POPLA decisions thread so it can help others .....

" Based on the evidence provided, I can only conclude that the signage in place does not meet the standards outlined by the Supreme Court in that the “wording of the notices” are not sufficiently “clear” to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who use this car park."

perhaps Adel should have a chat with fellow assessors

Ralph:cool:

Umkomaas

Whoaaaa! Beavis bites a PPC on the bum, proving it is not the green light they thought it was to allow them to pick the pockets of any parking motorist they cared to harass!

I expect the decision will knock Gemini back a peg or two! I wonder if they even understand where it's gone wrong for them!

Well done Luke.

luke123456

Thanks! I couldn't have done it without the support from you guys here and especially Coupon-mad!

I am still awaiting a response to the second invoice.
I am worried that POPLA did not cancel it on the basis of discrimination against the disabled driver, so I am hoping the second invoice will be cancelled on the poor signage point if not the discrimination issue....