Gemini Parking Solutions Chase Farm

cossied

Hi All

Many thanks for your responses.
I have just emailed PALS and informed them of the distress caused by Harassment.
Hopefully this works.

cossied

Hi All

Just received the following response for PALS. Looks like I will need to POPLA code to cancel this ticket.

Dear Mr Demetriou

Thank you for your e-mail. As you are aware, the parking at Chase Farm hospital is manage by Gemini Parking Solutions. The Trust does intervene on a number of occasions where circumstances allow. Unfortunately, due to a lack of mitigating circumstances I must advise you that, in this instance, it would be appropriate for the Trust to intervene. In the first instance it would be appropriate for you to contact Gemini Parking Solutions directly.

I am sorry for any anxiety caused and hope the following comments alleviate your concerns and explain the rationale for our changes.

On 23 August 2014 the Department of Health issued specific guidance on NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles. The new car parking policy for the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust includes a provision for every individual principle identified within the guidance. I enclose a summary of the guidance for your information.

The aim of the new policy is to ensure that, within the resources available, the trust provides appropriate, adequate and easily accessible parking for disabled badge holders, patients, visitors and eligible staff.

The main objectives of the new policy are to:
 Manage the site effectively and reduce congestion.
 Ensure access and egress is maintained at each hospital for all vehicles.
 Improve access for disabled badge holders, patients and visitors.
 Prevent unauthorised parking in areas not designated for parking.
 Protect the environment by preventing parking on soft landscaped areas.
 Implement sensible local rules to manage all aspects of on-site parking.
 Create a fair and equitable staff parking permit scheme.
 Encourage a range of options to reduce single occupancy car use.
 Encourage the use of alternatives to the car, for example a shuttle bus and the use of motorcycles and bicycles.

An automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system, supported by regular patrols, provides a safe and managed car park for all users. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate and we will continue to monitor the feedback received and the number of staff deployed in the car park areas. The car park system also allows us to use the statistics produced to manage the flow of parking on a regular basis and consider changes going forward.

The ANPR system is deemed appropriate for a hospital environment, as it ensures that patients can pay for the parking that they use without having to guess how much time they will need. It also enables payment to be made by various methods including cash, card, via text, over the internet and the nationally recognised ‘pay by phone’ parking app. This parking facility allows patients to pay for what time they use during their stay, and they can choose to pay for their parking at arrival, departure or even once they have left the site until midnight the same day.

As with the previous policy, there is allowance within the system for 20 minutes’ free parking in designated areas to enable drop off/pick up of patients. Weekly parking permits are available for patients and visitors to reduce the cost. There are also arrangements in place for those patients who stay or attend the hospital on a long-term basis, and a stay of over one month will be free of charge.

Blue badge holders
There is no requirement to provide free parking to blue badge holders under the Equalities Act, only provision to assist with ease of access and to provide a minimum of 10% blue badge parking, which we exceed on all our sites. Blue badges are issued for mobility needs and not financial needs and charges have been introduced for blue badge holders who park on site for longer than four hours i.e. disabled parking spaces are free for users with a limited stay of four hours. However, if a blue badge holder is on benefit e.g. income support, pension credit, employment support, tax credit, they would be entitled to claim back some of their parking charges from the cashiers office.

At each attendance, the blue badge holder needs to register their details on arrival to ensure that they receive free access. Registration will be at the main reception desk or via the security office at the Royal Free Hospital, at the main reception at Barnet Hospital and there is a unit based in the front of Highlands to input disabled vehicle details for those parked in the multi-storey at Chase Farm Hospital. The blue badge holder must take their government issued disabled permit with them to register. Where possible, the clock card should be placed on the dashboard to assist parking attendants in identifying blue badge spaces that may be about to become free, but they will not be required to return to their car to display it.

The new processes will prevent drivers from using other people’s blue badges and denying access to those who genuinely need the disabled space. Limiting the free time to four hours will also help prevent these spaces from becoming used by patients and other drivers for longer than their stay at the hospital. However, if a blue badge holder has gone over their four hour allotted time due to significant delays in clinic or additional diagnostic tests being required that were not expected, outpatients staff have a form that can be completed for the patient, presented to reception on their way out and there will be no charge.

We do recognise the additional requirements and needs of blue badge holders which is why we allow the four hours of free parking. This free time is provided on the understanding that blue badge holders generally need more time to get in and out of their vehicles and generally visit hospital more often than non-blue badge holders. Disabled badge holders who attend site regularly for a period of four weeks or longer to receive treatment may obtain an exemption certificate, which entitles them to free parking.

Signage
The signage displayed by the trust sets out the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a parking charge will be payable, if the conditions are not met.

We do recognise that this represents a significant change for a number of our longer term patients, particularly those with blue badges, but we believe the signage to be clear and visible and can assure you that it is in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. There is also comprehensive information on the trust’s website about all of the above.

We believe that the parking system provides an efficient and convenient service to our patients, visitors and staff and will also help free up spaces and prevent them from being misused. That said, we will of course continue to monitor the statistics, as well as the feedback received from our visitors, and will consider changes going forward.

Yours sincerely


Peter Hebden
Complaints Manager – Barnet & Chase Farm Hospitals
Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
Barnet Hospital
Wellhouse Lane
Barnet
EN5 3DJ
rf-tr.bcfcomplaints@nhs.net

Coupon-mad

Not Peter Hebden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posters here have often had rubbish responses from that guy, you will not get him to help you AT ALL. IMHO he should not be doing these responses as he seems to take no account of the Equality Act nor the Government Guidance for car parks at NHS sites. Certainly we've never seen a hint of help nor understanding of the Equality Act 'reasonable adjustments' requirement, ever, from him.

That's a standard rubbish template fob off.

So appeal it is, then.

But personally I WOULD continue the email complaint and ask to escalate it as you do NOT accept the template reply fobbing you off and putting the profits of a private company (who are acting OUTSIDE the Government policy which states clearly that regimes with fines like this are 'not acceptable') before the needs of disabled patients. He will disagree. You disagree back. Ask for escalation of the complaint to the CEO of the Trust.

Peter Hebden thinks he's got rid of you. I would not accept that because he always seems to do this and it is shocking that Barnet and the Royal Free are still getting away this this daylight robbery of patients...it's not even as if the NHS Trust gets the PCN money!

Umkomaas

He seems to have (conveniently?) missed the fact that there were more recent guidance issued by the Department of Health on 29 October 2015, in particular this section

Contracted-out car parking

NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf.

NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice where applicable.

Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, eg ‘income from parking charge notices only’.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

cossied

Hi Guys

Many thanks for the responses.
I have sent a response back to Peter stating I cannot accept his template reply and used some of your points listed.
Lets see what he replies with.

Coupon-mad

Good.

Do not miss also appealing with the template appeal from the NEWBIES thread (add a line enclosing a copy of the Blue Badge but without revealing whether that patient was passenger or driver) online or emailed to Gemini if that's an option given. It is a 2 pronged attack, complain and appeal without saying who was driving.

cossied

Hi Guys received the following reply from Gemini parking solutions by email.

I have put all the information as blanks as previously advised.

Do I now need to send a letter to POPLA with what they call verification code.
Is there a template of what I need to appeal to POPLA with.
Also if I appeal am I likely to lose and have to pay £100 or is it better to pay the £60 as I only have 14 days to pay the £60 but have 28 days to appeal to POPLA.

Dear Motorist,
Parking Charge Number: ______
Vehicle Registration: ______
Date PCN Issued: ______
Incident Date:
Location: Chase Farm Hospital, the Ridgeway, Enfield, Middlesex EN2
8JL.
Contravention: Failure to Pay for Duration of Stay
Verification Code: __________
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to vehicle registration ______ on the ______ at
the location Chase Farm Hospital, The Ridgeway, Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 8JL for the
contravention “Failure to Pay for Duration of Stay”.
When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of
parking in return for permission to park. We have noted your comments regarding the signage is
unclear however; please, see the site images below. We can confirm that there is a clear signage at
the entrance and throughout the location advising motorists on the site regulations, parking fees and
location of the payment machines. Unfortunately, we are unable to take your mitigating comments into
account.
Please note, there are two parking machines available to motorists in the multi-storey car park, one is
right outside the car park and another one in the stairwell. Both machines accept payments by card
and cash. Motorists are also given the option to pay by phone until midnight of the day using the
RingGo facility or online on paytopark] within 48 hours.
In regards to your comments on POFA 2012 let us quote BPA Code of Practice: 20.4 The parking
charge notice is the document you: • give to drivers, or attach to their vehicle windscreen, to tell
them they have broken your terms and conditions and are now liable for parking charges, or • send
to vehicle keepers asking them to pay the parking charges, if you do not have the driver’s details, or •
send to vehicle hirers, asking them to pay the parking charges, if you discover that the vehicle was
rented.
Also regarding the Notice to keeper: 20.11 The Notice to Keeper serves three purposes: • it invites the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge • if the keeper was not the driver it invites the keeper to tell
you who the driver was, and • it starts the 28-day time period after which the keeper may become
liable to pay the unpaid parking charge
Please, be advised, motorists must pay for parking on exit by entering their vehicle registration into
the payment machine. As the car park is operated by ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition)
the payment machine then shows the exact duration of stay and amount due.
On the date of contravention, there was no payment allocated to the above vehicle registration. This indicates that 1 hour and 6 minutes of your stay remains unpaid for, hence the PCN was issued. The above location is private property and is managed by Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd on behalf of the land owner. You have parked within restricted area which is owned by our client. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist‟s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking. Gemini Parking Solutions fully complies with the guidelines set by that of the British Parking Association who are the regulating body for the parking industry. We ensure that photographic evidence is taken with every PCN that is issued in case of disputes. You have 14 days from the date of this letter to pay at the discounted rate of £60.00. Payment after this period will be for the full amount of £100.00. Failure to pay the amount will result in further costs being incurred and may also result in Gemini Parking Solutions Ltd, Instructing a Debt Collection agency to collect any sum due.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. Should you wish to make a second appeal, this can be made to POPLA on that provides an independent appeals service. All representations to POPLA will need to be received within 28 days from the date of this letter. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of £60.00, and should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.’ Yours faithfully, Appeals Centre
How To

Coupon-mad

Do I now need to send a letter to POPLA with what they call verification code.

No.

You appeal online to POPLA like the NEWBIES thread post #3 tells you, after working out a decent POPLA appeal, getting the nod from here, and saving it as a PDF to attach under 'other'.

Is there a template of what I need to appeal to POPLA with.

Search the forum! Obvious search keywords: 'Gemini POPLA Hospital'

Also if I appeal am I likely to lose

No, if you follow the advice you get after you read recent examples and copy one here for comments. We know how to win.

or is it better to pay the £60 as I only have 14 days to pay the £60 but have 28 days to appeal to POPLA.

No.

And more - NO.

And thrice - NO.

cossied

Thanks coupon-mad

How is this for a reply, I found this draft letter and was wondering if it needed any tweaking.

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: Gemini Parking Solutions, parking charge notice number: ____________
Vehicle registration number: ____________

POPLA Reference number: ____________

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with the above registration number and this is my appeal:

1. The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Gemini Parking Solutions claims that the charge is for ‘failure to comply’ with its ‘terms of parking’ and that the vehicle was ‘in breach’, so this operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park is a free car park that has no charging facilities whatsoever.

Therefore, Gemini Parking Solutions cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back-office functions, debt collection, etc., cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. Gemini Parking Solutions would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

The charge of £100, being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms, namely ‘parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit’, is disproportionately high. Consequently I contend and the BPA code of practice states, a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.

Christopher Adamson stated in a POPLA appeal against VCS Ltd stated: ‘the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed... that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.’

The case at hand involves a private parking area for visitors. The vehicle was parked in an allocated visitor’s bay, which incurs no fees for parking at any point. Therefore, there is no loss to anyone. As the charge in this case is the same lump sum charged for any alleged ‘breach’ (irrespective of whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes or 24 hours or had received permission from the individual entitled to authorise parking in this parking bay, etc.), it is clear the charge is a punitive measure and no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre-estimate of loss in this case.

In addition, POPLA Assessor Christopher Adamson stated in June 2014 upon seeing Vehicle Control Services’ effort at a loss statement – likely to be broadly similar to any effort made by Gemini Parking Solutions – that:

‘I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach.’

In another upheld POPLA appeal, Marina Kapour did not accept a submission by the operator that the inclusion of costs that were made up of general business costs was commercially justified. She said:

‘the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.’

This case is the same and Gemini Parking Solutions is at best an agent, with a bare contractor’s license to put up signage and ‘issue tickets’. The vehicle was clearly parked in a visitors bay and it is therefore clear that this parking charge is punitive and no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case. Therefore, I require the operator to submit a full breakdown of its genuine pre-estimate of loss to show how the loss is calculated in this particular parking area and for this particular alleged breach. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and can neither be commercially justified nor proved to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. No contract exists with landowner to pursue charges
The operator does not own the land in question and has provided no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. It owns neither proprietary nor agency rights and holds no title or share of the land. I do not believe that it has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in its own name as creditor. I believe that at best it may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that it provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent).

In order to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, this contract must specifically grant the operator the right to pursue parking charges in its own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

a) Some parking companies have provided ‘witness statements’ instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract nor that the Landowner employs them. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the operator, which would obviously affect any ‘loss’ calculations. Furthermore, it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practice to allow the operator to pursue charges in its own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was ‘not valid evidence’. If Gemini Parking Solutions provides a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency.

Even if a basic contract is produced that mentions parking charge notices, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between the operator and the Landowner containing nothing that Gemini Parking Solutions can lawfully use in its own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

3. Unreasonable/Unfair Contract Terms.
There is no contract between Gemini Parking Solutions and I but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. According to the Office of Fair Trading, Guidance re Unfair Contract Terms:

‘It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...’

I believe Gemini Parking Solutions is in breach of the Unfair Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR):

Schedule 2, paragraph 1:
...terms may be unfair if they have the object or effect of:
(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

Unfair Terms
5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

This is confirmed in the Office of Fair Trading’s extensive guidance on the UTCCRs 1999. The guidance includes the following advice:

‘The Regulations are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism. If a term has the effect of an unfair penalty, it will be regarded as such, and not as a core term. Therefore a penalty cannot be made fair by transforming it into a provision requiring payment of a fee for exercising a contractual option.

‘The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term, or which purports to define what the consumer is buying, will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.’

This charge is not exempt from the test of fairness then. It represents an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says: ‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’ I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. This charge caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, which renders the terms unenforceable. It's clearly a penalty and there is no case law to make such a charge commercially justifiable against a consumer of lesser bargaining power. By contrast, there is plenty of case law to support the UTCCRs and evidence that points to this charge being a penalty, and penalty clauses are unrecoverable in consumer contracts. For example, in Lordsvale Finance Plc v. Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, 762G, it was stated that:

‘whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty is a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provision was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent party for breach. That the contractual function is deterrent rather than compensatory can be deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if breach occurred.’

This statement has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] IRLR 946. Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket.

4. Unclear and non-compliant signage not forming a contract
There are no clear sings in the parking area near the space the vehicle was photographed in. I believe that Gemini Parking Solutions places its signs so high or low that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car to try to read them. Any photographs supplied by the operator to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera and flash and the angle may well not show how high the signs are. As such, I require Gemini Parking Solutions to state the height of each sign in its response and to show contemporaneous photographic evidence of these signs in the dark without the aid of flash photography. The operator also needs to show evidence in the way of a signage map on this point – specifically showing the location of the signs and whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed do not alter the contract, which must be shown in full at the entrance.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the 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 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. Any alleged contract would be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

There was no agreement to pay. No consideration/acceptance flowed to and from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third-party ‘charge’ foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not ‘customers’ of Gemini Parking Solutions but visitors of the very buildings that are home to these parking spaces; they are not expecting to read a contract when they park to visit the stores. I contend the extortionate charge was not ‘drawn to his attention in the most explicit way’ (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal):

‘The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it – or something equally startling.’

5. Notice to Keeper not properly given under POFA 2012 – no keeper liability
Further to the above points, the notice I have received, as the registered owner of the vehicle, makes it clear that Gemini Parking Solutions is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the ‘Creditor’. This may, in law, be Gemini Parking Solutions or its client, its debt-collecting agent, or the landowner or indeed some other party. Schedule 4 of the Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have the words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is...’.

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not just indicate that the creditor must be named/assumed, but ‘identified’. The owner of the vehicle is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom the driver has allegedly contracted. In failing to specifically identify the ‘Creditor’ in its Notice to Keeper, Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to establish keeper liability. In this case, the Notice to Keeper has not been correctly ‘given’ under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so it is a nullity. In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is ‘fundamental to establishing liability’ for a parking charge, stating: ‘where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.’

As per the above points, Gemini Parking Solutions’ charge has no legal basis and I ask that the assessor nullify the parking charge notice issued by Gemini Parking Solutions. The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal be adjourned pending the Beavis case.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

cossied

I may have to remove point 4 about signage as they have attached images of the sign posts?