GEMINI Parking Solutions

Coupon-mad

I would REALLY Appreciate an urgent response and help as I HAVE to submit this in the next couple of hours before midnight.

No you don't, as I mentioned above!

Coupon-mad

In fact under the Equality Act Chapter 2, the operator would be considered to be showing direct discrimination

should be:

In fact under the Equality Act Chapter 2, the operator would be considered to be showing indirect discrimination

and that paragraph is a wall of text that needs breaking up. Make it easy to read for POPLA, 3 paragraphs there surely as point #1, not a single paragraph of text.

luke123456

Thanks C-M

Will make the above changes

I remember when I had a POPLA appeal a year ago for another invoice, POPLA refused to consider it as was a couple of days late I had to tell them the reasons why and they luckily accepted my reasons, considered my appeal and cancelled the invoice.
So I am just keen to submit it today as a little worried....?

You think they won't give me the same problem if I don't submit it today?

luke123456

Dear POPLA

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Gemini. 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) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
3) Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
4) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Fails the ‘Aziz test’.
5) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
6) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers


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 walk 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. 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.

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. The Act also says ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces and include lowered payment machines. 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.

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

This is a crucial point in which this appeal will be directed to PALS who are responsible for patients experiences in the hospital. As the disabled person attended a hospital appointment on that day and this clearly is a barrier.

2) 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.

3) 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, it 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.

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) 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 un-redacted, 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 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.


This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,

luke123456

Would you say the rest of it looks good?

Have I mentioned all the necessary?

Should I add anything else?

Thanks!!

Fruitcake

Minor typo here needs clarifying. (In the second long paragraph of section 3.)


The red sign adjacent to the disabled bays asks the driver to use the intercom, it this is hardly visible as there is a large misleading blue disabled logo and very small sized white words.


Also, somewhere in the BPA CoP it mentions that a PCN should be cancelled once a PPC has been made aware that one of the occupants was a blue badge holder.
More work for you to include I know, but you are throwing the kitchen sink at them you might as well include the dirty water as well.


Just spotted another minor point. I am being picky here but you have used the word walk when referring to a disabled person in section 1.
... expects the disabled person to leave their parking bay in the multi storey car park and walk through 2 doors to exit the car park and then reach the paying booth ...
This may be correct in your case and thus perfectly valid, but other disabled visitors may be using a wheeled mobility aid, so walk would not therefore quite relevant to them. You could therefore change "walk" to "pass" as the former may imply to the parking scumpany that the hospital visitor finds walking easy. Anyway, just a thought and only minor considering everything else.

Coupon-mad

Is it worth you adding this map as another attachment for POPLA to show them the car park on the top left and the fact that disabled people are expected to cross the road and enter the other building, then cross back again to display the Badge they've been asked to take over the road, etc.:

http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/files.royalfree.nhs.uk/CFH_redevelopment/Map_of_CFH.pdf

Do you believe that the 'P' blue entrance sign behind the girl with the umbrella on the left of one of their photos is there? I don't, it looks photoshopped on at a weird angle and they've covered the location up. It's not at the right angle for where they've suggested it is placed and it seems the pole holding it disappears behind the girl's leg but has no base in the grass at the right angle to match the sign.

Is it just me?

Coupon-mad

Point 2 is repeated in point 6, so you don't need both but you appear to have missed out 'no keeper liability'? I thought this was the keeper appealing, no driver admitted, so the slam dunk obvious first appeal point is always going to be about the POFA.

luke123456

Thanks C-M, I will definitely include that map!
I will also mention that between the car park and Highlands wing, there is currently a lot of construction going on (in the grey building behind the highlands wing, but also the road works extend into the junction between the highlands wing and the car park), which makes it very unsafe for them to expect the disabled person to do all this walking.....

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Point 2 is repeated in point 6, so you don't nee both but you appear to have missed out 'no keeper liability'? I thought this was the keeper appealing, no driver admitted, so the slam dunk obvious first appeal point is always going to be about the POFA.

Perhaps make it point 2 rather than point 1. I personally would love to see a PoPLA appeal win on breach of EA 2010.