Gemini/Gladstones - Small Claim

Le_Kirk

FJ1000 wrote: »

There's a couple of complaints about the parking (when it was only 2 hours free) on tripadvisor and Facebook - worth including in the evidence?

Not sure I would, isn't it evidence that you know/knew about the change of hours? C-M will advise better than me.

FJ1000

The car was parked there under the assumption there was 5 hours free - but this was only the case if you entered your registration in a tablet by the front desk to evidence you're a Gambado customer and so entitled to 5 hours instead of 2 hours for customers of other units in the leisure park (only discovered this after the event).

The free period was changed from 2 hours to 3 hours (and no longer extendable) a month after the incident. I wouldn't have thought that looking up complaints now would be evidence of any prior knowledge?

I intend to show that:

- The parking at the time was up to 5 hours free for Gambado customers
- We were paying customers of Gambado (I have an invoice for the party) and so should have been entitled to 5 hours .
- £160 fine for >2 hours was not representative of any damages to the landowner, especially as it changed to £100 for >3 hours a month later

I'll also be evidencing that I wasn't driving, and that the notice to keeper is deficient (no images of car parked - time on the notice refers to car entering/leaving the site, no consideration of time loading/unloading)

Unfortunately - I have no images of the signage from December 2016, as it had all changed when I went back onsite. I do have a Facebook post and tripadvisor post where the Gambado General Manager lays out the parking terms, and I'm trying to get them to confirm on email. Incidentally; Gladstones don't seem to have images of the old signage in-situ either. The evidence pack has images of the new signage (3 hours free), and the image they sent through subsequently is just a flat image of a sign (making no mention of the extension to 5 hours), not shown in-situ (could be generated after the fact on a PC quite easily).

System

The Gamado site says this

All visitors MUST be registered prior to visiting any Gambado site. Why? We take the security of all our visitors very seriously at Gambado and our registration process is a key part of this. Our enhanced security procedures include the manned entrance and exit gate at reception !!!8211; this system ensures that children can only leave the centre accompanied by the adult(s) they arrived with. We know you!!!8217;ll understand how important that is.

· You can Pre-Register your family online before you come to visit us. This will save you time at check in!

· All visitors must be registered.

· Please note when registering online a child is aged 0-12 and adult is 13 years and over.

· The head person (first details you complete) MUST be an adult. We will send future offers and discounts to this person.

Was the visit registered or pre-registered even if the car registration was not.

Coupon-mad

Good question, and Gambado will have to provide that in a SAR, if your name appears in a book for that day. It was your son's birthday party so they MUST have a record of the family booking.

And press them to confirm in writing or by email, that the time used to be 5 hours!

I WOULD use this as it is evidence that 5 hours was allowed for customers:

https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g2549055-d4259912-r363859112-Gambado-Beckenham_Greater_London_England.html

''As a valued Gambado customer, you are entitled to 5 hours free parking when visiting our play centre.''

How would the driver know to put the car VRN in, when concentrating on hosting a birthday party? Gambado should have asked for the car reg as they would have known that the host family whose party it is, would come by car (with cake, kids, party bags et al) and that they would be on site for more than 2 hours what with the meet & greet of friends at the start, right through to tidying up and collecting presents and bags & kids up and waving goodbye to all the friends at the end.

This is CLEARLY Gambado's fault, as well as Gemini unfairly processing data and relying upon a complicated system that is not drawn to the attention of drivers. This poster, who was caught within weeks of you, says:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71681992#Comment_71681992

The party info says you need to be there 30 mins before the start time so pretty much a slam dunk that you will get a parking penalty unless you are aware of the time restrictions.

Print that thread out as well, as more evidence of this trap. And it is useful because later in the thread the poster quotes the NTK which is non-POFA in wording and cites the reason for issue (the contravention) as ''Exceeded Maximum Stay Period''. But in fact, the driver did not because the maximum stay period for Gambado patrons was 5 hours, FACT.

And that thread shows the case was uncontested, so WON at POPLA, and the OP says:

In the appeal rejection letter Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd state !!!8220;There is clear signage at the entrance and throughout the location advising on the site regulations and parking fees. All motorists are entitled to 2 hours free parking, vehicles parked beyond this period must pay for the duration of the stay. Goals, Gambados and Gym customers can extend the stay by up to 3 hours by registering their vehicle at the reception.!!!8221; Neither of the images of the signage provided by Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd show any such instruction to inform car park users that there is a facility for extending the free period of parking.

NO POINT contacting that poster for his/her photos as they haven't logged in for over a year!

But:

Gemini have not done enough to draw the terms about the iPad/VRN keypad to the attention of visitors, so it is unfair and a breach of the DPA to run two data streams ('ANPR image' data versus 'iPad VRN input') and not properly inform drivers of the existence of either...

This breaches the ICO rules on ANPR and Surveillance camera data processing, as explained in this defence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74254129#Comment_74254129

And, there was no 'relevant obligation' nor 'relevant contract' as required for keeper liability in the POFA, so the charge is baseless, as we all know. Just need to convince your Judge if Gladstones don't discontinue (I think they might, with your case, due to lack of evidence & signs).



P.S. I found a thread telling me this so excuse me while I throw up a bit:

The car park serves 3 businesses, Cr***a* P***** Football Club

FJ1000

Wow - hadn't logged in for a couple of days! Thanks very much IamEmanresu and Coupon-mad!

The manager at Gambado has changed since the incident, and the new manager does not know first-hand what the parking regulations were in December 2016, and so will not confirm on email. I've spoken to a couple of other staff members on the phone who tried to be helpful (going to ask the neighbouring gym), but they haven't worked there long either.

I'll go with the tripadvisor thread and facebook post where gambado mention the 5hrs free.

Good thinking on the SAR to Gambado to ask if they have our visit registered - although, is this necessary if I can produce a booking form we submitted to them a couple of weeks in advance, along with payment for the party? If a SAR is still necessary - anything else I should ask?

I've actually managed to find the old manager on facebook. Any validity in an email from him (if I can convince him) confirming the parking restrictions at the time?

Coupon-mad

Yes to all of the above, and I would send a SAR to Gambado and to Gemini.

And the complaint to the DVLA discussed here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5849784/june-2018-start-of-the-new-ppc-and-dvla-fightback-gdpr-related

FJ1000

- SAR already sent to Gemini last week
- Have sent a SAR to Gambado to confirm they have records of us being registered in accordance to the requirements listed on their website
- Have contacted the previous Gambado manager on FB to request an email confirming; 1. he was manager at the time of the incident, and 2. that Gambado customers were entitled to 5 hrs free (if registration entered into Gemini's system)

Good idea on that DVLA complaint - will do so once a template email appears!

FJ1000

Gemini responded to my SAR, disclosing the personal details they hold about me and my vehicle - but didn't answer any questions regarding the change in free parking period.

They did however disclose that my info was passed to Gladstones in August 2017. Further proof that the letter I got in June 2017 was not from them (debt recovery plus posing as gladstones - with their permission, as an intimidation tactic).

FJ1000

Still very much a work in progress - but please let me have your thoughts:

I, XXXX, of XXXXX, am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows:
1. Exhibited to this Witness Statement are the following documents to which I rely upon:

a) Proof of ownership of another vehicle (registration V8 XXX) – V5 certificate
b) Proof of insurance of another vehicle (registration V8 XXX)
c) Image of this vehicle (V8 XXX)
d) Receipt, image and GPS data proof that the defendant was driving vehicle V8 FSJ at the date of the incident
e) Images of party supplies transported to the venue in the vehicles V8 XXX and J12 XXX
f) 2 hours free parking sign supplied by Gladstone Solicitors
g) Terms and conditions of Gambado – from their website
h) Party pre-booking form
i) Facebook and tripadvisor posts by Gambado, and an email from the Gambado General Manager at the time of the incident - showing the parking provision was 5 hours free parking for customers
j) Emails from Gambado confirming that Gemini were requested to cancel the parking charge, on the basis that the vehicle belonged to a paying customer
k) Parking Charge Notice to Keeper
l) Map showing locations of the ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit to the site
m) Images of current parking signage at Gambado Beckenham – showing 3 hours free parking
n) Online complaints about the parking arrangement prior to the January 2017 change to 3 hours free parking
o) Letter purporting to be from Gladstone Solicitors sent in June 2017
p) My letter sent to Gladstones to check if item above was genuine, and proof of postage
q) Response from Debt Recovery Plus
r) Subject Access Request from Gemini Parking
s) Email from Gladstones acknowledging they sent a blank Directions Questionnaire to me
t) Email from Gladstones acknowledging they included images of the incorrect signage in their witness statement
u) My offer to Gladstones to settle out of court

2. I, XXX, was not driving the vehicle J12 XXX (black Volkswagen Golf GTi) at the time of the incident. I was driving my other vehicle with registration V8 XXX (Black Audi RS4 – exhibit C), which was parked on the public road outside Gambado Beckenham. This car was loaded with party supplies for my son’s birthday party at Gambado Beckenham, including several large balloons, that would not all fit in the VW Golf along with two children and other party supplies. I include proof of ownership of the vehicle V8 XXX (exhibit A), and proof of insurance (exhibit . I also include an image of the receipt from Clinton balloons in Wallington Surrey (dated 2nd December 2016 – as inflation of the balloons was paid for a day ahead of the party, and then collected on the 3rd December), images of the party supplies transported in the car, GPS data, and an image taken of the vehicle in a car park in Wallington (close to Clinton cards, where the balloons were collected from) on the day of the incident (exhibit D and E).

3. The parking conditions of the site at the time (3rd December 2016) were that up to 5 hours free parking was available for customers of Gambado. The signage was unclear however, that customers of other retail units on the site were only entitled to 2 hours free – and so customers of Gambado had to register their vehicle registration into a tablet by the reception desk inside Gambado. See the sign included (provided by Gladstone Solicitors – exhibit F) – it makes no mention of the provision for 5 hours parking or that a complex registration process was to be followed. There are no images of the actual signage in situ available, as those signs were removed in January 2017.

Neither the signage (which has since been removed), nor Gambado staff made it clear that the vehicle registration had to be logged in a tablet. Per the terms and conditions of Gambado (exhibit g), all visitors to the birthday party were pre-registered – however they did not ask for vehicle details (exhibit H). Also, all party bookings are for 2 hours, and we were advised to arrive 30 minutes prior to the start to setup the party room, making it inevitable that the stay would be longer than 2 hours. So, despite knowing that the vehicle would be onsite longer than 2 hours, and that we would be arriving with party decorations, cake, young children etc. they did not mention the requirement to type the vehicle registration into Gemini’s system to “qualify” for the 5 hours free parking. Had we been informed, or the signage clear, the vehicle registration would have been entered. The fact that the car was not entered into Gemini’s system, does not negate the fact that it was parked by a paying Gambado customer, and so should’ve been entitled to 5 hours free.

4. After the parking charge notice was issued, I contacted Gambado and requested that it be cancelled. See included emails (exhibit J), that show that Gemini were made aware that the vehicle belonged to paying customers of Gambado, and so should have been entitled to 5 hours free parking. These emails from the General Manager of Gambado were ignored by Gemini Parking.

5. The claimant has pursued the defendant under the basis of Keeper Liability (POFA 2012). However, the Notice to Keeper (exhibit K) was deficient. It did not specify the time that the vehicle was parked. The time mentioned on the notice, was the total time the vehicle was onsite at the grounds shared by Gambado softplay, and several other businesses. The time mentioned on the notice does not account for the considerable time spent unloading and loading the vehicle with items related to the birthday party (with the permission of Gambado Management), during which time the vehicle was not parked. The photos supplied by Gemini Parking Solutions were of the vehicle in motion entering and leaving the site, not parked. See included site plan which marks the camera locations at the entrance and exit of the site – some distance away from the parking bays (exhibit L).

6. A month after the incident, in January 2017 – the parking provision was changed to 3 hours free parking. See images of new signage (exhibit M). I believe this was initiated by complaints to retailers onsite, which were passed onto Gemini. There is no rational explanation why a 2 hour 53 minute stay in the car park by a paying customer in December 2016 would be cause for damages to the landowner, and not a cause of damages less than a month later.

It is also unclear how Gemini arrive at the figure of £100 for the parking charge, or £60 if paid early, as representative of any “damages” to the landowner. Note that the local council charges £60 for parking fines, or £30 if paid early.

7. Gladstones and Gemini have acted unreasonably in pursuit of this claim:

7.1. By pursuing the claim at all, despite being notified by Gambado that the ticket should be cancelled
7.2. By using intimidation tactics to try to force me into paying. I received a letter in June 2016, purporting to be from Gladstone solicitors – threatening legal action. However, the phone number on the letter corresponded to the debt collector (Debt Recovery Plus). Suspecting that the debt collector was posing as Gladstones with their permission, I wrote to Gladstones asking if it was a genuine letter. The reply came from Debt Recovery Plus. Also, per a Subject Access Request to Gemini – my details were not passed to Gladstones until August 2017. At the time of the letter in June 2017, only Gemini and the Debt Collector had my details. (see exhibits O, P, Q, R)
7.3. Gladstones submitted a blank Directions Questionnaire (exhibit S)
7.4. Gladstones submitted an evidence pack that included images of the incorrect signage – which was amended after I pointed it out to them (exhibit T)
7.5. Despite the baseless claim, Gladstones declined to settle out of court (exhibit U)



I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed:

FJ1000

One other quick update - the previous manager at Gambado Beckenham (who I tracked down on Facebook) replied to me last night and says he's willing to help with an email to me stating the parking restrictions as of Dec 2016 (5hrs free for Gambado customers)

If anyone has any thoughts on my witness statement so far (posted above), any feedback woud be gratefully received