Gemini Parking Solutions Chase Farm

muslimahi

Thank you Coupon- mad. Deleted 4 and I have asked my friend to go and get pics if she can.

muslimahi

I had to submit the appeals without any pictures as my friend couldn't go down to the hospital but I did mention the construction work in point #1. I submitted the appeal on behalf of my friend (As popla allowed this option) as she isn't at all good with computers/emails.

I have today received emails from POPLA giving me Geminis response and giving me 7 days to respond. Please can any one have a look through their response and help with any points.

A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the driver of vehicle registration XXXXX on the XX/01/2017 at the location Chase Farm Hospital, The Ridgeway, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 8JL for the contravention “Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay”. On the date of contravention, there was no payment allocated to the above vehicle registration; this indicates that 2 hours 8 minutes of the motorist’s stay remains unpaid for, hence the PCN was issued. I have noted appellant`s comments regarding No Evidence of Landowner Authority, The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself and No legitimate interest. The appellant has stated within the appeal that he is the registered keeper however; the name of the registered keeper provided by DVLA is different from the appellant`s one. As no evidence of the appellant being the registered keeper has been provided, unfortunately, I am unable to consider this claim. In regards to appellant`s comments that there is no evidence of landowner authority, please, see the client agreement which proves that we do have the right to manage the car park on behalf of the landowner. Please be advised that due to confidentiality reasons, we are unable to provide a copy of the agreement to the appellant. In regards to appellants comments on the unclear and insufficient signage, please, see the site images file. There are a number of clearly displayed signs advising on the site regulations and parking restrictions in place. The signage is displayed clearly at the entrance and throughout the location. It is the motorist`s responsibility to be aware and comply with the site regulations at all times. I am satisfied that the signage displays ANPR logo advising on camera system in place and also BPA logo. The signage is retro-reflective and complies with BPA requirements. With regards to the appellant’s comments on construction, whilst I can confirm that there are building works taking place on the grounds of the above location, the works are not taking place within the car park nor do they interfere with the signage or car park in which the vehicle was parked. In regards to appellant`s comments on No Legitimate Interest, although the appellant believes that this charge is not the same as in the case ParkingEye v Beavis, I am satisfied that the judgment of that case does apply onto this PCN too. The signage was displayed prominently at the entrance and throughout the car park. The PCN is a parking charge, not a penalty and the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss is not relevant. The charge is £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. I believe that this is neither extravagant nor unjustifiable. The appellant is not the registered keeper and it is unclear whether he was the driver of the vehicle on the date of contravention or not. However; the appellant appealed this PCN on behalf of the registered keeper who have not provided driver`s details yet. The appellant has not denied within the appeal that the contravention took place but has instead given excuses as to why the parking restrictions were not complied with.

The above location is private property and is managed by Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd on behalf of the land owner. Motorist has 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 therefore the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by the conditions of parking at all times. As displayed within the signage by staying at the location, the motorist accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of the parking contract including the charges for the breach of that contract. These signs offer the parking contract to the motorist and sets out the terms and conditions of the parking and upon which by remaining at the location, the motorist has agreed to be bound by these terms and conditions clearly show the amount which will become payable if the terms and conditions are breached. 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 find that, by failing to comply with the site regulations, the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of parking displayed and we are satisfied that this charge has been issued correctly.

---

"The appellant has stated within the appeal that he is the registered keeper however; the name of the registered keeper provided by DVLA is different from the appellant`s one. As no evidence of the appellant being the registered keeper has been provided, unfortunately, I am unable to consider this claim"

I don't understand what they mean here and who they refer to as the HE? My friend is Mrs XXX and I (Mrs too) have submitted the appeal on her behalf.


They have also submitted a pdf with all the pictures from the site which I have uploaded here

https://www.scribd.com/document/340453126/Chase-Farm-Multi-Storey-Site-Images

Finally along with the initial PCN, they have submitted my friends initial appeal to them which is below and also a screenshot from their computer system showing her details/offence and how much was due on the day (£3)

---

Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing to appeal my parking ticket issued on the XXXX for my car XXXXX

On the day of parking, I have been to the urgent care for an emergency chest pain that the 111 had referred to and asked me to stay and wait for the ambulance to come, as my situation was deteriorating by then. And I would like to mention that the car parks gates were open with no one working at sight, I was not even sure whether the car park is still under the same pay and display order since the whole place looked like a building site where I have not visited for a long time.

I would truly appreciate your understanding regarding this matter where I have no intentions at all to park irresponsibly, I had chest pain thought to be heart problems where the para medics invited to keep me for a while to check while I was not able to drive home alone with my son until later on.

Looking forward to hear from you soon.
Mrs XXX

Coupon-mad

The appellant has stated within the appeal that he is the registered keeper however; the name of the registered keeper provided by DVLA is different from the appellant`s one. As no evidence of the appellant being the registered keeper has been provided, unfortunately, I am unable to consider this claim.

Yes but she admitted who was driving in her first (weak) appeal, so the above doesn't help. ''No keeper liability'' was pointless in the POPLA appeal, seeing as she had already blown that.

Did they include proof of a contract with the Hospital? Or a witness statement confirming they have authority as per your appeal point? If not, point that out in rebuttal this week, urgently.

muslimahi

In regards to appellant`s comments that there is no evidence of landowner authority, please, see the client agreement which proves that we do have the right to manage the car park on behalf of the landowner. Please be advised that due to confidentiality reasons, we are unable to provide a copy of the agreement to the appellant.

That's all there is about landowner authority. Are they allowed to submit things to POPLA which can be kept from us for confidentiality?

I think this is the only point I can hold on to for now and hope for a win for her as too much damage done with her initial appeal? 😞

Coupon-mad

Are they allowed to submit things to POPLA which can be kept from us for confidentiality?

No. So tell POPLA on the portal as your comments that there is no landowner contract in the evidence pack you have, so they have failed to show landowner authority under section 7 of the BPA CoP.

muslimahi

Thank you Coupon-Mad. The appeal has been successful. I just wanted to update the post incase anyone is following the same process.

Decision Successful
Assessor Name: Ms Butler
Assessor summary of operator case
The appellant did not make an appropriate payment for parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • No evidence of landowner authority. • The signs are inadequate. • No legitimate interest, the charge is not like that in ParkingEye-v-Beavis.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that: “2) The notice must – f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— The Notice to Keeper states “We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf; If within 28 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle”. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012 when outlining the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given. I can only conclude that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Umkomaas

Well done you, and (a guarded) well done POPLA on seemingly starting to get the hang of PoFA (or at least this Assessor has!).

Coupon-mad

The Notice to Keeper states “We now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf; If within 28 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle”. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has met the minimum requirements of PoFA 2012 when outlining the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given. I can only conclude that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued incorrectly.

Nice - a definitive decision about Gemini Notice to Keeper letters not being compliant. Could you tell us the date of decision and the POPLA code please so others can quote it on their appeals v Gemini?

muslimahi

POPLA assessment and decision: 09/03/2017

Verification Code :4160317097

Hope this helps others.

Coupon-mad

muslimahi wrote: »

POPLA assessment and decision: 09/03/2017

Verification Code :4160317097

Hope this helps others.

Thanks!

A definitive decision about Gemini Notice to Keeper letters not being compliant.