POPLA reply Gemini Solutions

Coupon-mad

Was the date of event within that 3 year period (must have been)?

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Was the date of event within that 3 year period (must have been)?

Yeah it was

Coupon-mad

OK so the contract covers it.

You also need to state that the PDF appeal is attached because POPLA admitted to a technical issue* and have agreed you can forward it now, and you understand that the PPC will have to be allowed to see it.



*just say that...yes, just say it. You are so close to the appeal not being read.

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK so the contract covers it.

You also need to state that the PDF appeal is attached because POPLA admitted to a technical issue* and have agreed you can forward it now, and you understand that the PPC will have to be allowed to see it.

*just say that...yes, just say it. You are so close to the appeal not being read.

OK will do. Will probably trim off some of the last few bullet points to keep it under 2000 chars (even though it's by email, just so they don't reject it)

Anything else I should add?

neverpaying

Alright, I think I'm going to send it as-is then. I only have until Monday and I'm likely to forget before then!

Coupon-mad

You never had till Monday. You had six days.

POPLA give seven days STARTING WITH the first day (when POPLA see the evidence) as day one, and in reality no-one actually sees their poxy email immediately, and no-one has seven days to comment.

neverpaying

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You never had till Monday. You had six days.

POPLA give seven days STARTING WITH the first day (when POPLA see the evidence) as day one, and in reality no-one actually sees their poxy email immediately, and no-one has seven days to comment.

Sent it now :eek:

neverpaying

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Andrew Prescott

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the following reason: “Expired Ticket”.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states they are not liable for this PCN as the registered keeper because the PCN was not issued in accordance with the Protection of freedoms act 2012 (POFA) and no driver has been named. The appellant states the signage on site is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and has provided photos of the site in support of their grounds. The appellant states there is no evidence that the operator has landowner authority to issue PCN’s on this land.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified themselves as the keeper of the vehicle and no driver has been named, as such I am considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper. When parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle and enters in to a parking contract with the operator. The terms and conditions should be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow the motorist to decide if they wish to accept or not. In assessing this case I have looked at the signage on site to confirm if the terms and conditions of parking were made clear. The operator has provided photographs of the signs on site showing the advertised terms and conditions. The photographs show signs that state: “Pay and Display”, “All vehicles must display a valid ticket, permit or scratch card” There is also evidence to show that the terms and conditions signs are placed at regular intervals around the site including an entrance sign. In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 18.3 states: “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.” Section 18.3 also explains, that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I am satisfied that the signs do comply with BPA Code of Practice in making it clear what the terms and conditions of the parking contract are and that the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available. I am also satisfied that the entrance sign in place is BPA complaint. Therefore, I am unable to uphold the appellant’s grounds in respect of signage at this site.

The operator has also shown photos of the appellant’s vehicle (taken at 14:54) parked with a ticket on display that expired at 14:35 that day. The PCN was subsequently issued for displaying an “Expired Ticket”. POPLA’s role is to decide if a PCN was issued correctly, as per the advertised terms and conditions of the site in question. In this case the appellant has challenged the validity of the PCN in respect of the correct application of POFA. Whilst I understand this, I have reviewed the PCN issued in this case, and must conclude that it has been issued in accordance with POFA and was done so within the relevant period. Therefore, I am satisfied the operator has established the appellant as the liable party in this case as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

In respect of landowner authority and the witness statement provided by the operator I have reviewed this and note that it does convey that the site in question is XXX and that it is signed on behalf of the landowner. In this regard, I am satisfied that the agreement for the operator to manage parking on this land is in place. As I have not been able uphold the appellant’s grounds presented in this case, and as I consider that that operator has demonstrated the contravention through evidence, I can only conclude the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Coupon-mad

In this case the appellant has challenged the validity of the PCN in respect of the correct application of POFA. Whilst I understand this, I have reviewed the PCN issued in this case, and must conclude that it has been issued in accordance with POFA and was done so within the relevant period.

I thought Gemini PCNs were non POFA in wording, last time I saw one?

Show it to us.

neverpaying

Here's the scanned ticket

From my naive perspective, it does look like the assessor got this one wrong.

And here is the rebuttal comments I sent:

• They have failed to comply with Paragraph 9 (2)(f) of the POFA in their wording of "if after 29 days"
• They have failed to comply with Paragraph 9 (2)(e)(ii) of the POFA, which says: "if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;"
• 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) of the POFA: “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;”.
• Thus, their evidence has failed to identify the driver of the vehicle and establish keeper liability per the POFA
• The definition of the land on which Gemini Parking Solutions operates has not been made clear from the landowner agreement
• In all of the images of the Vehicle, there is no indicator of the proximity of nearby signage to the vehicle
• All of the provided photographic evidence are of poor quality
• None of the evidence provided that shows the geography of the affected area have any indication of what date and time the images were taken. There is no proof that shows that the roadside signage in the evidence was available on the date of contravention
• The entrance sign marked on the site map document does not clearly show the situation that I have described in the previous stage of the sign being illegible from the angle of traffic entering the parking area.
• The signage at the entrance shown in their evidence proves this point as the glare from the sun along with the secondary colour of the font renders the majority of the sign unreadable from a moving vehicle on entry, let alone the smaller text of the terms and condition and hours of operation.
• From their evidence, an image taken approximately 1 metre away from the entrance sign remains unreadable.
• This all fails to meet the BPA Code of Practice of “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead”