We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Gemini Parking
Gimli59
Posts: 21 Forumite
Hi, I'm new to this forum. My car collected a "questionable ticket" from the above BPA member in November. I submitted an unaltered MSE appeal towards the end of the 28 day period, and received a template rejection earlier this month. I am writing my Popla appeal 58 days after the alleged incident, and no NtK has been served.
The driver visited the Copperbox to officiate on a sports event they were staging. They phoned the venue and were advised to park in the service yard at the rear of the premises, and then enter the vehicle details in a Parking Log held in the venue reception. This was done. The diver came out to find a windscreen ticket.
I've read as much as I can and have come up with this appeal.I would be grateful for any constructive comment on the below draft. The images aren't included but their nature should be obvious from the narrative. My Popla code is good till early February
POPLA Reference xxxxxxxxxx
I am appealing Parking Charge Notice Nos. xxxxxx, issued by Gemini Parking Solutions on xx/xx/2015, to my Vehicle Index XXXX XXX at the CopperBox Arena.
I am appealing as the keeper of the said vehicle. No admissions have been made at any time re the driver, and no assumptions should be drawn.
My appeal is based on the following points:
· No Parking Event Occurred
· No Keeper Liability
· Lack of Legal Standing
· Inadequate Signage/No Contract Formed
· Illegal Penalty
1 No Parking Event Occurred
The driver attended the venue to officiate on a sports event being held there. Before doing so, they phoned the venue to confirm parking arrangements. They were advised to park in the Service Yard at the rear of the premises, and then register the vehicle at the Venue Reception. This was done. Image 1 below is a photograph of the Parking Log for the day in question; showing that the vehicle was registered at 10.07am which is well below the Parking Notice was issued. Images 2 and 3 are photographs of the Venue Parking Log for 2 visits in January. I submit that these constitute compelling evidence that the venue permits parking for patrons on a daily basis in their service yard. The claim by Gemini that the vehicle was parked in a “No Parking Area” is clearly false.
2 No Keeper Liability
[FONT="]The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is covered by Byelaws signed in 2013. These can be viewed at[/FONT] hackey.gov/byelaws. Quoting:
“We adopted the following byelaws for the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in time for its opening in 2013.
Referencing the Protection Freedoms Act 2012
‘‘The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.’’
Therefore keeper liability does not apply - only the driver is potentially liable to parking charges on such land and the POFA 2012 does not apply at all.
Gemini have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper. It has been completely omitted, Gemini appear to have assumed it is not needed when a keeper sends communications regarding a windscreen ticket. But in the schedule it is clear that a NTK is a fundamental document where the Operator does not know who the driver was (and in this case there have been no admissions on that matter.) Therefore, even if this was a site where byelaws affecting parking did not take precedence, Gemini have failed to establish keeper liability by forgetting the NTK. This operator failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ at all, has never obtained the keeper's data from the DVLA and now it is too late (This appeal is being written 58 days after the alleged parking event) As there has been no admission regarding who was driving and no evidence of this has been produced, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper in the absence of a Notice to Keeper.
3 Lack of Legal Standing
Given that parking is covered by the aforementioned Bye Laws, I do not believe that Gemini Parking Solutions have authority to issue Parking Notices in their own name. I put Gemini to strict proof to produce an un redacted contract showing that they have the right to issue Parking Notices and pursue them in their own right. 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 Inadequate Signage/No Contract formed.
The recent Supreme Court Case re Parking Eye and Beavis, has placed significant importance on the Trade Associations’ Code of Practice. Quoting from the British Parking Association Code of Practice which applies to Gemini.
“Section 18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.
Images 4 and 5 show the access road leading to the Service Yard at the Copperbox, and Image 6 shows the entrance of said yard. It can be clearly seen that there is no entrance signage displayed. In rejecting my initial appeal to them, Gemini supplied three photographs. Images 7 and 8 show my vehicle and it can be seen that there is no signage visible in either picture. The only signage shown is in Image 9, which is a sign positioned around 8 feet up on a lamp standard. The wording is unreadable despite the picture being taken in front of the sign. Image 10 is an enlarged image of the actual sign, and is equally unreadable
Unfortunately for Gemini, all the lamp standards in the Olympic Park carry a prominent serial number. Consequently, a subsequent visit to the venue for evidence gathering purposes, enabled the location of the sign to be determined. Image 11 is a picture taken level with the sign looking back at where the driver parked my vehicle. It was positioned about Point A on the photograph which can be confirmed by reference to the red equipment box on the wall of the building visible in Images 7 and 11. It can be seen that the sign Gemini are relying on to form a contract is located some 25 metres beyond where the vehicle was parked. Gemini’s own photo (Image 7) shows that the driver turned left to park, and would therefore be looking in that direction. They would not be looking at a small sign set back on the opposite side of the yard well beyond where they parked.
The layout of the venue is such that access to the venue reception is reached by walking back along the access road used to enter the service yard. Thus on exiting the vehicle, the driver would have walked away from the identified signage. I therefore contend that there is no evidence that the driver saw the sign, and thus no contract could be formed.
5 Illegal Penalty.
Referring back to the Olympic Park Byelaws;
“Please note that parking at either site is only for visitors to the Copper Box Arena or London Aquatics Centre - if you are not visiting either of these venues, this will result in a parking fine of £35.”
It can be seen that the “Fine” specified for a parking violation is £35. Quoting from the Beavis judgement, “Thetrial judge, Judge Moloney QC, found that the £85 (in the Beavis case) charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable having regard to the level of charges imposed by local authorities for overstaying in car parks on public land. The Court of Appeal agreed and so do we.” Given that the Byelaw penalty for a parking violation at the Copperbox is £35, I contend that Gemini in claiming £100, are charging an “extravagant and unconscionable amount that constitutes an unlawful penalty. There can no justification for charging an amount greater than that specified in the Byelaws.
For all the above reasons, I submit that this appeal should be allowed.
The driver visited the Copperbox to officiate on a sports event they were staging. They phoned the venue and were advised to park in the service yard at the rear of the premises, and then enter the vehicle details in a Parking Log held in the venue reception. This was done. The diver came out to find a windscreen ticket.
I've read as much as I can and have come up with this appeal.I would be grateful for any constructive comment on the below draft. The images aren't included but their nature should be obvious from the narrative. My Popla code is good till early February
POPLA Reference xxxxxxxxxx
I am appealing Parking Charge Notice Nos. xxxxxx, issued by Gemini Parking Solutions on xx/xx/2015, to my Vehicle Index XXXX XXX at the CopperBox Arena.
I am appealing as the keeper of the said vehicle. No admissions have been made at any time re the driver, and no assumptions should be drawn.
My appeal is based on the following points:
· No Parking Event Occurred
· No Keeper Liability
· Lack of Legal Standing
· Inadequate Signage/No Contract Formed
· Illegal Penalty
1 No Parking Event Occurred
The driver attended the venue to officiate on a sports event being held there. Before doing so, they phoned the venue to confirm parking arrangements. They were advised to park in the Service Yard at the rear of the premises, and then register the vehicle at the Venue Reception. This was done. Image 1 below is a photograph of the Parking Log for the day in question; showing that the vehicle was registered at 10.07am which is well below the Parking Notice was issued. Images 2 and 3 are photographs of the Venue Parking Log for 2 visits in January. I submit that these constitute compelling evidence that the venue permits parking for patrons on a daily basis in their service yard. The claim by Gemini that the vehicle was parked in a “No Parking Area” is clearly false.
2 No Keeper Liability
[FONT="]The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is covered by Byelaws signed in 2013. These can be viewed at[/FONT] hackey.gov/byelaws. Quoting:
“We adopted the following byelaws for the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in time for its opening in 2013.
Referencing the Protection Freedoms Act 2012
‘‘The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.’’
Therefore keeper liability does not apply - only the driver is potentially liable to parking charges on such land and the POFA 2012 does not apply at all.
Gemini have failed to serve a Notice to Keeper. It has been completely omitted, Gemini appear to have assumed it is not needed when a keeper sends communications regarding a windscreen ticket. But in the schedule it is clear that a NTK is a fundamental document where the Operator does not know who the driver was (and in this case there have been no admissions on that matter.) Therefore, even if this was a site where byelaws affecting parking did not take precedence, Gemini have failed to establish keeper liability by forgetting the NTK. This operator failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ at all, has never obtained the keeper's data from the DVLA and now it is too late (This appeal is being written 58 days after the alleged parking event) As there has been no admission regarding who was driving and no evidence of this has been produced, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper in the absence of a Notice to Keeper.
3 Lack of Legal Standing
Given that parking is covered by the aforementioned Bye Laws, I do not believe that Gemini Parking Solutions have authority to issue Parking Notices in their own name. I put Gemini to strict proof to produce an un redacted contract showing that they have the right to issue Parking Notices and pursue them in their own right. 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 Inadequate Signage/No Contract formed.
The recent Supreme Court Case re Parking Eye and Beavis, has placed significant importance on the Trade Associations’ Code of Practice. Quoting from the British Parking Association Code of Practice which applies to Gemini.
“Section 18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.
Images 4 and 5 show the access road leading to the Service Yard at the Copperbox, and Image 6 shows the entrance of said yard. It can be clearly seen that there is no entrance signage displayed. In rejecting my initial appeal to them, Gemini supplied three photographs. Images 7 and 8 show my vehicle and it can be seen that there is no signage visible in either picture. The only signage shown is in Image 9, which is a sign positioned around 8 feet up on a lamp standard. The wording is unreadable despite the picture being taken in front of the sign. Image 10 is an enlarged image of the actual sign, and is equally unreadable
Unfortunately for Gemini, all the lamp standards in the Olympic Park carry a prominent serial number. Consequently, a subsequent visit to the venue for evidence gathering purposes, enabled the location of the sign to be determined. Image 11 is a picture taken level with the sign looking back at where the driver parked my vehicle. It was positioned about Point A on the photograph which can be confirmed by reference to the red equipment box on the wall of the building visible in Images 7 and 11. It can be seen that the sign Gemini are relying on to form a contract is located some 25 metres beyond where the vehicle was parked. Gemini’s own photo (Image 7) shows that the driver turned left to park, and would therefore be looking in that direction. They would not be looking at a small sign set back on the opposite side of the yard well beyond where they parked.
The layout of the venue is such that access to the venue reception is reached by walking back along the access road used to enter the service yard. Thus on exiting the vehicle, the driver would have walked away from the identified signage. I therefore contend that there is no evidence that the driver saw the sign, and thus no contract could be formed.
5 Illegal Penalty.
Referring back to the Olympic Park Byelaws;
“Please note that parking at either site is only for visitors to the Copper Box Arena or London Aquatics Centre - if you are not visiting either of these venues, this will result in a parking fine of £35.”
It can be seen that the “Fine” specified for a parking violation is £35. Quoting from the Beavis judgement, “Thetrial judge, Judge Moloney QC, found that the £85 (in the Beavis case) charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable having regard to the level of charges imposed by local authorities for overstaying in car parks on public land. The Court of Appeal agreed and so do we.” Given that the Byelaw penalty for a parking violation at the Copperbox is £35, I contend that Gemini in claiming £100, are charging an “extravagant and unconscionable amount that constitutes an unlawful penalty. There can no justification for charging an amount greater than that specified in the Byelaws.
For all the above reasons, I submit that this appeal should be allowed.
0
Comments
-
Well done on doing all of that before posting. It really helps the regulars here when people do their research first. :T
Being pedantic, I would say a parking event took place but a breach of parking conditions didn't.
This is civil not criminal law, so illegal should be replaced with unlawful.
I'm no expert though so wait for more knowledgeable posters to comment.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Fruitcake,
Many thanks; point taken. I will certainly change illegal to unlawful. My thinking with the initial point is probably looking to the complaints I will be making in due course re unwarrented ticketing. Does the fact that you park correctly give rise to a parking event that would allow a PPC to obtain keeper detail from the DVLA? Further views would be very welcome, as I have a few days to refine my submission0 -
Fruitcake,
Many thanks; point taken. I will certainly change illegal to unlawful. My thinking with the initial point is probably looking to the complaints I will be making in due course re unwarrented ticketing. Does the fact that you park correctly give rise to a parking event that would allow a PPC to obtain keeper detail from the DVLA? Further views would be very welcome, as I have a few days to refine my submission
The venue organiser gave permission to park, so the parking operator had no just reason to contact DVLA. However the organiser probably failed to tell the parking scumpany that fact so they were acting on the Venue organiser/owner's instructions.
Copperbox are the principle in this and it is their fault the driver got a ticket, so you should be asking them to intervene and get the ticket cancelled, quoting the 'phone call details.
This doesn't affect your statutory rights to appeal to PoPLA and cost the parking scumpany money for them to lose.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Fruitcake,
I suspect that Gemini may be contracted by the Olympic Legacy Board. Speaking to the reception staff whilst seeking background information, it appears that several staff members have also been scammed. Parking arrangements at the Copperbox have changed since the Olympics, and the scammers are probably taking advantage to issue a few tickets. Parking in the Service yard has certainly been taking place since October 2014 to my knowledge, and quite possibly before that.0 -
You made the point about no NtK being received. It might be worth adding a last paragraph saying that if the PPC tries to rely on POFA, then they have failed to follow the strict requirements of issuing an NtK within the required timescale.
You might even make that the first point!0 -
Thanks
Modification has been made, will repost the appeal before submission.0 -
Great stuff so far. Come back if Gemini submit some old drivel as evidence because you will need to rebut it and we can assist. You'll win.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad
Thankyou; I take it from your comment that you think the appeal is suitable to submit. Am I correct in thinking that as far as the POPLA web page is concerned, I enter the basic detail, then tick "Other" as my reason for appeal and refer to pdf which I attach?0 -
According to you, the driver parked in good faith pursuant to permission given by a person authorised to do so. This was recorded in a log book.
Why all the rest, or at least why all the rest with the same or higher prominence in terms of presentation? No breach because permission was given. As you've gone to all this trouble, I assume you've phoned the same people/persons who gave permission to confirm that they are/believe that they are able to give permission and have their details. Clearly this was not a one-off event (your references to January confirm this), so you should include this info up front.
Or won't they play ball?0 -
Coupon-mad
Thankyou; I take it from your comment that you think the appeal is suitable to submit. Am I correct in thinking that as far as the POPLA web page is concerned, I enter the basic detail, then tick "Other" as my reason for appeal and refer to pdf which I attach?
Yes that's right.
Be wary of postings from newbies with very few posts, you never know what aspect they are coming from.
Whilst it will be useful if you can get a copy of the logbook to prove permission to park was given (and you can try now, even after submitting the POPLA appeal) trying to suddenly add in more about that into your appeal could lead an appellant into the dangerous situation of accidentally implying who parked the car. We say, stick to the script, we know how to win. And you will get a final word opportunity when you see their evidence, if they contest it.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards