Gemini Parking

Gimli59

Coupon-Mad
I am going to stick to the script. The driver had the good sense to take a photo of the parking log on the day after finding the ticket, and that is included in the appeal as Image 1. Thanks for your assistance.

Gimli59

Test post only

Gimli59

Apologies for the last; having issues with posting. I have received the evidence pack from Gemini;

I refer to point 1: “no parking event/contravention occurred”. The area in where this vehicle was found is a no parking area. There is clear signage stating that the area in which the vehicle was parked is a no parking area; vehicles are not permitted to stop there at any time. The motorist ignored the signage displayed and preceded to park here. With regards to the appellant’s comments that the motorist was advised to park in the service yard, we are not sure who advised the motorist it was ok to park there but the motorist was advised incorrectly. It is correct that motorists must register their vehicle however; as the vehicle was parked in a no parking area, this does not validate the stay.



I refer to point 2: “No Keeper liability”. 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.”

I refer to point 3: “Lack of legal standing”. Please see attached the signed agreement between Gemini Parking Solutions London ltd and our client.

Gimli59

I can't post the evidence as one item, here is the rest;

I refer to point 4: Inadequate signage/no contract formed”. Please see attached the site images which shows clearly displayed signage stating the parking terms and conditions. Motorist claims that signage was not clear enough and he wasn’t aware of the restrictions in place. Please see photographic evidence to verify this. Also, 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: Removed


I refer to point 5: “Unlawful Penalty”. I refer to point 2 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.”

Coupon-mad

Who is the client - the actual landowner or an agent? Is the contract dated and does it say Gemini have the authority from THE LANDOWNER (not managing agent) to pursue charges 'in the courts if necessary'.

This is hilarious! They don't understand keeper liability or the POFA:

I refer to point 2: “No Keeper liability”. 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.”

What other jokes have they said? This is funny.

What about the signs?

You need to rebut this rubbish to be sure POPLA spot that it is drivel. This rebuttal I wrote this week might help:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70151384#Comment_70151384

... it's actually a rebuttal to an evidence pack from UKPC and the very first paragraph covers the fact that a witness statement or agreement between two agents is not the same as showing authority flowing from the party with title in the land (landowner themselves).

It also has an attempt - by salmosalaris and myself - at a demolition of any similarity with the Beavis case and talks about unclear signs where the sum of the parking charge isn't in large lettering/prominent (unlike in Beavis).

Apart from the parts about UKPC's nortiness and the fact they were prepared to accept £15 in that case, the rest should all be stuff you can use and adapt in your latest rebuttals.

Show us what you come up with after reading that and you can use as much of it as you like.

Gimli59

Test Post only

Gimli59

For some reason the site keeps blocking my IP address, admin are hopefully looking into this.
Once sorted, I will post my response. Gemini didn't send me a copy of the contract!

“Please see attached the signed agreement between Gemini Parking Solutions London ltd and our client”
No copy of the agreement was attached to the evidence pack sent to the appellant. As Gemini has cynically abused the principle of disclosure, I contend that Popla should exclude any evidence re contract/agreement that may have submitted to Popla. If this evidence is to be considered by Popla, then I ask that this appeal be adjourned until such time that a copy is served on the appellant by Gemini, and that I be afforded a further 7 days thereafter to read and comment on the same before the appeal is considered.

Gimli59

Looks like I will need to post my response in segments, very sorry about this;
Point 1 No parking event/contravention occurred
“With regards to the appellant’s comments that the motorist was advised to park in the service yard, we are not sure who advised the motorist it was ok to park there but the motorist was advised incorrectly. It is correct that motorists must register their vehicle however; as the vehicle was parked in a no parking area, this does not validate the stay. “
My appeal makes it perfectly clear that the advice came from Copperbox staff. Evidence was also produced by way of photographs of the Centre’s Parking Logs, that this permission appears to be granted as a daily occurrence. The driver would have no reason to question or doubt the authority of the lawful occupiers of the land when they granted permission to park. The remainder of Gemini’s evidence is contradictory. Gemini state it is correct that motorists must register their vehicle. The question must be why? The only general parking area at the Copperbox is in the Service Yard. If there is no parking in that area, then there is absolutely no reason or need for a motorist to register their vehicle with the Copperbox Reception. I submit that in agreeing that vehicles must be registered, Gemini are admitting that parking is permitted at the venue for patrons using the Centre.
This is supported by events of the 2nd December 2015. The Copperbox were hosting a corporate event on the 3rd, and the main arena was not available for use. The service yard was being used by contractor’s vehicles. The gym was still in use. To prevent patrons parking in the service yard, the venue employed a security guard with a barrier at the start of the access road to stop vehicles entering the site. This would not have been required if, as Gemini are claiming, that there is no parking in the service yard.

Gimli59

Point 2 No Keeper liability
“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.””
Gemini Parking have completely failed to address the issue of Keeper Liability. This is determined by whether or not the parking operator has complied with the requirements of POFA 2012. The two points raised in my appeal were firstly, that as the venue is covered by the Olympic Park Byelaws 2013, it is not relevant land, and therefore Keeper Liability cannot apply. Secondly Gemini have not challenged my appeal that No Notice to Keeper has been served by the operator. It is noticeable that no copy of a Notice to Keeper is included in Gemini’s evidence. On this basis again, there can be no Keeper liability

Gimli59

Point 4 Inadequate signage/no contract formed
“Please see attached the site images which shows clearly displayed signage stating the parking terms and conditions. Motorist claims that signage was not clear enough and he wasn’t aware of the restrictions in place. Please see photographic evidence to verify this.”
My initial appeal to Popla shows clear photographic evidence of the lack of visible signs as you approach the Service Yard. My appeal also shows the relationship between the sign Gemini are relying on and the location where my vehicle was parked by the driver. It clearly shows that the driver would not have seen the sign, given the position of the sign and the vehicles position relative to the route taken by the driver to access the Service Yard and then retrace that route to enter the Arena. Gemini have not challenged this evidence. All they have supplied is a series of what I assume are “Library” images of random Gemini Signs. None are date/time stamped, and none are identified by location. The majority if not all are definitely not located at the Copperbox and are thus irrelevant to this appeal. The majority of what Gemini have submitted re my Point 4 has no bearing on the question of the adequacy or not of the signage.