Have I shot myself in the foot? Gemini Parking Solutions.

Mr_Black

I'm afraid to say I've only searched for advice after I've already appealed to the company and after reading the faqs on this board it appears that I might have made some errors in my appeal.

I've parked in a car park that has only recently started to charge with gemini running that service. I didn't realise it became charged parking and assumed it to be free so I was rather surprised to have a letter through my door and photos of my car and a demand for early payment of £60, escalating to £100 there after.

Essentially, my appeal to them stated I had used that car park for years and it wasn't clear to me that it had become charged parking. Further, I went back to inspect the signage and it states that the first two hours of parking are free. However, that statement has an asterisk and below that the sign states you have to be registered on their app, otherwise you'll be fined. My appeal stated that I was well within the 2 hrs (they didn't state how long I'd been there anyway) and that a £60 fine is extortion since my parking there was essentially free. Silly me I thought Gemini would reason and offer a compromise or let me off. Instead they rejected my appeal and gave me a popla number.

At that point I searched the Internet and ended up here. Unfortunately for me it seems these companies are vermin but I ask you, have I spoiled my chances of appeal now since I've pretty much admitted being the driver?

I've attached a photo of the sign.

Anyone taking theor precious time to reply to this will be most welcome... I'm on the verge of saying to hell with it and sending payment. I don't want to out of principal though...

Coupon-mad

Have I shot myself in the foot?

Yes. People often do; I could scream with frustration.

I'm on the verge of saying to hell with it and sending payment.

No you are not, you are here now and you will make a damn good job of winning at POPLA. The PCN is a scam and the sign clearly entrapment.

See the template POPLA points in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread. Use them.

You can't use anything about 'no keeper liability or the POFA.

Mr_Black

So I've submitted to popla and gemini have responded as such....

A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to vehicle registration * on the **m09/2018 at the location * for the contravention “No Ticket”.

There are a number of clearly displayed signs at the entrance and throughout the location advising on the site regulations and parking restrictions in place. It stipulates within the signage that Parking Tariffs apply in the area and motorists must pay for their stay using Just Park. Vehicles parked between 0-2 hours are permitted to park free of charge but they must be registered with Just Park.

I have noted appellant`s comments that as the registered keeper of the vehicle the signage is misleading and unclear. The appellant has stated that the parking cost was free for the first 2 hours. The appellant has stated that the amount demanded is a penalty, no grace period was given and there is no evidence of landowner authority.

Although I understand the point the appellant is making, unfortunately, I am unable to take the mitigating circumstances into account. Please, see the site images and photographic evidence. I am satisfied that there is a clearly displayed signage at the entrance and throughout the car park advising on terms and conditions of parking.

In regards to appellant`s comments about then unclear signage, please be advised that the signage was installed on *. 07.2018. It clearly states on the signage that vehicles parked for less than 2 hours are permitted to park free of charge as long as they are registered with Just Park. The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking including the charges of a PCN. Vehicles parked in excess of the free parking period must pay for their stay using Just Park. Parking tariffs and payment instructions are displayed on the signage. As the driver failed to register the vehicle and make a valid payment to validate the stay as detailed within the signage, we can confirm that the PCN was issued correctly.

With regards to the comments about no landowner authority, we can confirm that Gemini have full consent to provide enforcement to the above car park. Please see attached the contract.

If the appellant was in disagreement with the terms and conditions of the site or felt that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. The signage on site clearly states that a payment should be made or a PCN will be issued. If the appellant believed he could not make a payment for parking, he should have left the site as free parking is not given on the site in question.

On the date of contravention, there was no payment allocated to the above vehicle registration. This vehicle has also not been registered with Just Park in order to validate their free parking session. Please, see Just Park records below.

By failing to comply with the site regulations, the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of the site and I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly. The motorist failed to recognise the parking terms and conditions and made an assumption without checking regulations set out. It is the responsibility of the driver to be aware and comply with the restrictions at all times.
With regards to your comments about the parking charge amount claim and loss, I refer to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Parking Eye Limited v Beavis:

Key points:
1 The parking charge (£85, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days) was considered to be a deterrent to overstaying, but the intention to deter was not sufficient to invalid the term of the contract with the driver (or licence – there is some discussion in the judgment that it might be a licence or a contract). In order to invalidate the contract (or licence) the parking charge would have to be extravagant and unconscionable and the charge made in this case was considered to be fine. The Judges did not say what amount of parking charge would be extravagant and unconscionable (and therefore not enforceable);

2 The parking charge made in this case was not a penalty, and the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss is not relevant;

3 There is no need to graduate the amount of a parking charge after an initial free period of parking has expired;

4 Local authorities make similar parking charges and there is no reason why the private parking industry can’t;

5 A parking charge is an acceptable way to encourage turnover in car parks and to prevent motorists from leaving their cars for extended periods of time;

6 Parliament has supported (via the Protection of Freedoms Act) that such parking charges could be made so long as they are brought to the attention of the motorists at the time of use of a car park; and

7 The Court has granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but Mr Beavis may not wish to do so given that the judgment is so strongly in favour of the parking industry.

Should you wish to read the full script, you can do so using the following link:
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/british-parking-association-says-government-could-go-further-by-regulating-parking-on-private-land?_cldee=aW5mb0BnZW1pbmlwYXJraW5nc29sdXRpb25zLmNvbQ%3d%3d
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 motorist became liable for a parking charge notice, in accordance with the terms of parking displayed and we are satisfied that this charge has been issued correctly. The motorist parked outside of the set terms and conditions of the site and as a result the appeal was unsuccessful as the representations did not make sufficient grounds.

Unsure where to go from here (admittedly I'm out of my depth). However, the evidence they present is photos just one minute apart of my vehicle parked on the land. Surely they'd need to provide longer time than that for me to go read the signs and decide I didn't want to park there. Nevertheless, the signs are misleading!

What points should I make on my comments on the evidence presented by gemini now?

Many thanks for your time!! You ought to start a PayPal donations box

Mr_Black

I've submitted my comments. I hope it's enough!

The signs are not clearly displayed, as evidenced by Geminis own photograph. The first sign on the entrance is small, low and placed on a gate that is angled into the car park, it is not facing on coming traffic. The photographs Gemini provide shows the photographer stood in the car park facing out to the road. The sign is angled in, towards the photographer, not towards the road and driver entering the car park. The other signs are also small, they are not prominent and they are sporadically placed. They are easily missed.

The instructions on the signs are not clear, they are misleading. They are unremarkable and not immediately obvious as parking terms. The wording is crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. The fact that a driver must register on the app to qualify for free parking is explained in a footnote, in a separate part of the sign to the costing. Further, this info is in different font and colour, I believe this is confusing/unclear. It is undisputable that placing letters like this can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign. Therefore I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

It is the responsibility of the company to ensure clear signage with clear instruction. They failed both these requirements.

I reject the Parking Management Agreement that Gemini submit as evidence. Large parts of this document are redacted/censored and therefore the document is invalid. Further, Gemini do not have authority to issue penalties, particularly since the parking charge should have been free. There is no contract assigning rights to Gemini to enforce contracts with drivers.

There is no grace period evidenced. Gemini photos of my vehicle provide a start time of **** and an end time of ****. One minute is not an acceptable grace period. BPA Code of Practice - non compliance.

Mr_Black

Appeal to popla successful, mainly on the grounds that the car park was free of charge for a long time prior to it being charged and that the operator should cut some slack. That and the fact there is no evidence that signage was present prior to my arrival (they could have stuck the signs up after I'd parked there... Didn't think of that one). Nice one assessor and go suck it Gemini! Will update the popla thread.