Gemini Parking Solutions

Quentin

Ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you.

You need to edit #11 to make it anonymous and untraceable to you

Redx

select post #11 that YOU posted and use the edit button to remove the personal info and save it , I told you this earlier in post #12

then select your draft popla appeal post and EDIT that one and save it too

the BLUE edit button is the left hand one at the bottom of the post

ie:- use the edit function to edit what you have typed (this will only work on your own posts, it wont allow you to edit anyone elses post)

its not just people reading your posts , some fool could do a dastardly deed and submit a moronic popla appeal using the info you provided

its not as if they need your shoe size , mothers maiden name , date of birth , bank account number - sort code - pin code etc , put please feel free to type them in your next reply ( joking of course )

here it is with the bits to edit highlighted and in red , plus edited out

Dear Motorist,
Parking Charge Number: 11111111
Vehicle Registration: M11111Z
Location: Stepping Hill Hospital, Poplar Grove, Hazel Grove, Stockport.
Date PCN Issued: 05/07/2016 xxxxxxx
Contravention: “Parking in No Parking Area”
Additional Contravention: “No ticket”
POPLA Verification Code: 1111111111
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to vehicle registration M11111Z on the 05/07/2016 at the

so thats a minimum of 5 errors on your part , possibly more so double check your posts and edit accordingly

here is an example of a popla appeal that the PPC didnt wish to argue against , not GEMINI but goes you an idea on some of the wording and bullet points

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5475032

paul1971paul

Hello Redx
OK get you now - sorry for this silly mistake.
Edited now.

I will prepare a draft like you suggested and see what you think.

Thank you again
William

paul1971paul

Hello
Sorry iam finding this difficult to work out what to use and what not to use and not understanding some of the legal wordings.
I have tried to re work the original template but re reading it really confused me and numerous points did not apply to this current case and iam struggling to find another POPLA template that is closer to our circumstances.
Hope you can help me further.
Thank you
William

Redx

there are no POPLA templates on here or anywhere else m8

each appeal is bespoke , which is why you are told to draft your own based on legal arguments seen in other recent popla appeals by other members here

nobody expects you to understand legalese speak, if you did you wouldnt be asking and I am certainly no expert and not legally trained either (this isnt legal beagles , its MSE)

all you can do is base your own legal based appeal on other appeals that show you the way

the one you posted may need more work but you had the basis of a draft for your appeal, keep working on it

nobody said it was easy, but the advice given is free and many others have already trodden the same path as you, but nobody will do it for you , as its a self help forum , meaning we point you at the info you need to know and to read, after that its down to you , or get a family member to help you , like I did a few years ago

people on here give free advice, its not a paid for service and people give up their free time as volunteers to try to help out as much as possible

the problem is that those who are helped rarely come back and help others, much too selfish so they leave it to less than half a dozen people to deal with dozens of queries per day

paul1971paul

Hello Redx
Your help is very much appreciated i can assure you, from reading the site i can see your name and others keep coming up so can only applaud you all !

OK understand will give it a go again and post back on here to hopefully pick your experience again.

Thanks William

paul1971paul

Hello
OK here goes, my attempt at the POPLA appeal - i have removed any mention of the Barry Beavis reference and changed to relate to circumstances at Stepping Hill hospital to the best of my knowledge.
Hope to get your feedback.

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Gemini issued at Stepping Hill Hospital. 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) Non-Compliant and late Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
4) Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
5) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £60.00. Fails the ‘Aziz test’.
6) No genuine pre-estimate of loss


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.

In the BPA CoP it states that; 16.1 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.
16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine. 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.

Furthermore , Gemini has no regard for Department of Health guidelines for parking on NHS sites and this cannot be deemed acceptable. gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

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

2) Non-Compliant and late Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

As the parking company have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was I submit that I am not liable to any charge.

I would like to point out that Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates that some mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and a parking company can only potentially pursue the (unidentified) driver.

The following points may be observed as failures in this Notice to Keeper, making this non-compliant under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4 paragraph 9:

a. A notice to keeper has never been sent. No transfer of liability from driver to keeper as no NTK issued between day 29 and day 56 as detailed in POFA

A Notice to Keeper is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and the mandatory detail and wording to ensure a Notice to Keeper is compliant are prescriptive, unequivocal and a matter of statute, not contract law. Any omission or failure to set out or send the mandatory Notice to Keeper renders it non-compliant and a late serving of a NTK beyond day 15 from the parking event is incapable of establishing keeper liability in law.

3) 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.


4) 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".
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.
The requirement to pay £60.00 is not clear on any of the signs that are directed to the disabled driver and are not prominent. 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.

5) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £60.00. Fails the ‘Aziz test’.

I also wish to reference the Aziz test 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 £60.00 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 Stepping Hill 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 £60.00 to this parking firm especially since they discriminate against the disabled person, no clear contracts especially for the disabled person, and as such this unjustified and discriminatory charge should not be upheld.
6) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

The charge of £60.00 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.


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. Gemini fail on a number of occasions and as such I would respectfully request that this appeal is upheld.


Yours faithfully,

Redx

looks reasonable to me apart from 6) which was blown out of the water 9 months ago at the Supreme Court in the widely publicised Barry Beavis case

your point 6) should be about why this case is not the same as the Beavis case , as he overstayed on a free for 2 hours car park pharmed by PE , NOTHING LIKE A HOSPITAL CAR PARK

so find a recent appeal that states these details and rework it as required

then edit your last post and change the wording in 6)

plus anything others can find need amending or adding or whatever

a good start though with plenty in it to give POPLA something to chew over

bod1467

6) is pointless unless you get your Beavis retaliation in first.

1) needs expanding to make it clear WHY Gemini are in breach of the Equality Act and the BPA CoP. On reading what you've put you've simply made this assertion - you need lead the POPLA assessor by the hand. (Being careful not to "out" the driver).

2) "As the parking company have neither named identified the driver nor "

Also, I'm getting a mixed message ... Day 15 is irrelevant if there was a windscreen notice; Days 29-56 are irrelevant if there wasn't

paul1971paul

Hello

OK i have made some more adjustments, would again appreciate some help if this is now suitable to send to POPLA?
Regards
Willaim

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Gemini issued at Stepping Hill Hospital. 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) Non-Compliant and late Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
4) Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
5) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £60.00. Fails the ‘Aziz test’.



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.

In the BPA CoP it states that; 16.1 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.
16.2 ‘Reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example, paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine. 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.

Furthermore , Gemini has no regard for Department of Health guidelines for parking on NHS sites and this cannot be deemed acceptable. gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

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

2) Non-Compliant and late Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

As the parking company have neither identified the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was I submit that I am not liable to any charge.

I would like to point out that Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates that some mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and a parking company can only potentially pursue the (unidentified) driver.

The following points may be observed as failures in this Notice to Keeper, making this non-compliant under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4 paragraph 9:

a. A notice to keeper has never been sent. No transfer of liability from driver to keeper as no NTK issued.

A Notice to Keeper is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and the mandatory detail and wording to ensure a Notice to Keeper is compliant are prescriptive, unequivocal and a matter of statute, not contract law. Any omission or failure to set out or send the mandatory Notice to Keeper renders it non-compliant.

3) 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.


4) 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".
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.
The requirement to pay £60.00 is not clear on any of the signs that are directed to the disabled driver and are not prominent. 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.

5) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £60.00. Fails the ‘Aziz test’.

I also wish to reference the Aziz test 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 £60.00 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 Stepping Hill 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 £60.00 to this parking firm especially since they discriminate against the disabled person, no clear contracts especially for the disabled person, and as such this unjustified and discriminatory charge should not be upheld.
6) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

The charge of £60.00 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.


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. Gemini fail on a number of occasions and as such I would respectfully request that this appeal is upheld.
Please note a complaint has also been recorded and made direct to Stepping Hill Hospital via PALS, ref FC23517, awaiting reply.


Yours faithfully,