Gemini Parking Solutions MCOL Stage

KeithP

I am sure you have this at the forefront of your mind, but just a friendly reminder:

...you have until 4pm on Monday 14th January 2019 to file your Defence.

For exactly how to do that, re-read post #8.

dully1992

Hi guys,

Any advice/critique on the defence before I submit prior to tomorrows deadline would be much appreciated. I wasn't too sure how to word the fact that they haven't included a vehicle registration number on their POC, have stuck it in in the opening argument.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). The Claimant fails to provide a vehicle registration number, or any information identifying the vehicle involved. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought or indeed against what vehicle, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of any vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked within a parking bay, not indicating which bays are allocated to whom, nor outlining any areas in which parking is restricted.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority. It is reasonable to conclude, from the lack of satisfactory photographic evidence provided, the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £35, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

dully1992

Just bumping this in hope of any advice, due to the looming deadline!

Coupon-mad

I am certain these parts cannot be right for a Gemini case, not least because they do not stick 'CNs' that are not actual PCNs, on windscreens:

6. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority. It is reasonable to conclude, from the lack of satisfactory photographic evidence provided, the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

They merely state that vehicles must be parked within a parking bay, not indicating which bays are allocated to whom, nor outlining any areas in which parking is restricted.

Really, do they, or have you copied this from bargepole?

dg2019

Hiya,


I am asking for next steps in what to do with Gemini Parking Solutions, in 2018 I received a Notice to Keeper for parking in Chase Farm Hospital visiting the emergency unit on a Sunday in October 2016!!! I ignored all letters as I know Gemini try and scam people into paying. This was then passed to Gladstone Solicitors, I sent many replies asking for proof of parking there which was never sent until now...


Gladstones have sent me lots of images of the new parking machines and signage to say Gemini control the car park (these were 100% not there when I parked, I was the only car in the car park on this date in 2016!!!) Is there any way I can ask for proof when the pictures were taken? They have sent me a very burry image of my car entering the car park on the ANPR camera and that is it, not even when my car left or where I was even parked. They have been threatening to take me to court for months over this and nothing has ever been sent to me.


Thanks

Le_Kirk

Why have you posted on someone else's thread? You should keep all questions to the thread you have running.

dully1992

Hello everyone,

Gemini have failed to respond to me with the information I requested within the time frame of the Subject Access Request - in fact it has been almost 10 days over the deadline date.

Any advice on what the next best course of action would be?

In the mean time I am waiting for the DQ from CCBC

Umkomaas

Reminder to them with a 7-day deadline. The ICO require this before you make a complaint to them.

Did you just ask for information that contained your personal data and data relating to your VRM? Asking for copies of signage or the contract with the landowner is not appropriate and gives them the opportunity to delay a response, or not respond at all.

dully1992

Umkomaas wrote: »

Reminder to them with a 7-day deadline. The ICO require this before you make a complaint to them.

Did you just ask for information that contained your personal data and data relating to your VRM? Asking for copies of signage or the contract with the landowner is not appropriate and gives them the opportunity to delay a response, or not respond at all.

There was one line where I requested photographs of signage on the day the ticket was issued. They haven't taken issue with this, but with the fact that I haven't provided them with my VRM (for reasons explained above) and have asked me to provide it twice, which I have refused to do so, as they should be able to provide all information they hold on me by my name and address alone.

Coupon-mad

I'd give them your VRN, not sure why not?