POPLA reply Gemini Solutions

neverpaying

Got a reply from Gemini Solutions at POPLA:

It's strange that they say they can't see my appeal documents. Is that a tactic they're using or did I mess something up? As far as I know, I uploaded the PDF under documents on the Other tag

Their reply

"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 the car park is Pay & Display and all vehicles must display a valid ticket, permit or scratch card. Tickets or permits must be displayed clearly within the windscreen.

The POPLA portal is not showing any documents uploaded by the appellant. Please see below only the documents uploaded by Gemini are showing. For this reason I can only comment on the contravention of the PCN issued. 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, site map and photographic evidence. I am satisfied that there is a clearly displayed signage at the entrance and throughout the site advising on terms and conditions of parking.
The car park is Pay & Display and all vehicles must have a valid ticket or permit displayed clearly within the windscreen. The terms and conditions of the signage state that a valid ticket must be clearly displayed at all times please see below for terms and conditions of the signage. For the date of visit the ticket displayed had expired. Please see below for photographic evidence. For this reason a valid ticket must be clearly displayed within the windscreen of the vehicle as stated within the signage across the site.

If the driver 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/she could not make a payment for parking, he/she should have left the site as free parking is not given on the site in question. On the date of contravention, the above vehicle was parked within close proximity of a signage without a valid ticket on display. By failing to display a valid ticket as prescribed on the signage, the vehicle was parked in breach of the site regulations 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. 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 display a valid ticket, 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."

(There were no paragraphs to their reply, I've added them in)

How should I respond to this guys?

Redx

contact POPLA first and see if your pdf was uploaded as I dont think you are the first with this issue


maybe POPLA will allow you to email your pdf ?


there are definitely delays on the popla portal


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75589023#Comment_75589023

neverpaying

That's a great idea. I've emailed them now

Redx

now go through the evidence pack and find all instances or errors and failures etc, start drafting your own rebuttal based on any recent rebuttals on here over the last 18 months

look at POFA , signage , landowner contract etc , use their evidence against them

Coupon-mad

It's strange that they say they can't see my appeal documents. Is that a tactic they're using or did I mess something up? As far as I know, I uploaded the PDF under documents on the Other tag

POPLA have had technical issues and you need to RANT at them that you did upload your PDF appeal and where is it, why have they lost it?

You will lose if you have no appeal held by POPLA for their Assessor to see, so you really need to get angry about this. When you uploaded your PDF appeal, as long as you submitted it and it showed a little 'bin' icon, then it was uploaded.

neverpaying

In the newbies thread it says not to repeat what I've said in the POPLA initial appeal, with that in mind, how do I bring POFA back into the rebuttal?

Other than some redactions, their landowner contract looks fine, it says when it started and when it ends (36 months later). And their witness statement was signed only a month ago. What should I do about that?

Coupon-mad

I think you will have to assume that the Assessor cannot see your appeal at all. So your best bet is to state that you appealed as keeper and the driver has never been identified and Gemini's NTK in the evidence pack is non POFA in wording (if true?).

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

POPLA have had technical issues and you need to RANT at them that you did upload your PDF appeal and where is it, why have they lost it?

You will lose if you have no appeal held by POPLA for their Assessor to see, so you really need to get angry about this. When you uploaded your PDF appeal, as long as you submitted it and it showed a little 'bin' icon, then it was uploaded.

I think I've let them off a bit easy with my opening email then. I'll ramp it up if they reply back

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think you will have to assume that the Assessor cannot see your appeal at all. So your best bet is to state that you appealed as keeper and the driver has never been identified and Gemini's NTK in the evidence pack is non POFA in wording (if true?).

Should I wait for the reply from POPLA about the missing pdf or should I post the rebuttal before then?

Coupon-mad

You can't wait, you only have 6 days to comment (five now?).

If you are saying the NTK was non-POFA in wording, then really focus on that aspect, because that can win the case for a keeper even if the Assessor can't see your appeal.

POPLA have let you down. REALLY COMPLAIN BY EMAIL, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME.

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can't wait, you only have 6 days to comment (five now?).

If you are saying the NTK was non-POFA in wording, then really focus on that aspect, because that can win the case for a keeper even if the Assessor can't see your appeal.

POPLA have let you down. REALLY COMPLAIN BY EMAIL, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME.

POPLA replied and they said to send them my appeal + my comments on the operator's evidence in one go.

Their NTK (i.imgur.com/Cg421Ki.jpg) which I attacked in my POPLA appeal:

"The notice I have received, as the registered owner of the vehicle, makes it clear that Gemini Parking Solutions is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper when they stated that the driver became liable for a parking charge at ‘GLL Mile End’. I quote Paragraph 1(1)(a): “the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land;”.
Additionally, their wording in the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Paragraph 9(2)(f) of the Act, namely “if after 29 days” as opposed to the specified text in the Act of “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”, where the date that the 29 days starts from has not been sufficiently specified. By definition therefore, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 cannot now be relied upon to establish any liability on the part of the Registered Keeper under Paragraph 8(1) thereof."

What can I add on to it in the rebuttal to their comments (in the first post of the thread)?