Gemini Parking Popla stage

Spine

Thanks everyone for the help and advice (especially to CM) - I will be uploading to POPLA tonight.


I must say I was a bit wary with Gemini - despite the non compliant POFA PCN they issue - I have had trouble trying to find an appeal (Gemini) that was allowed based on this - perhaps I'm not doing the search properly?

Coupon-mad

This POPLA decision even includes a POPLA Code and date you can cite, as an example that Gemini non-POFA NTKs cannot hold a keeper liable:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73736919#Comment_73736919

Spine

Thanks will try and incorporate - Gemini wording on the NTK has changed since (even though still Non POFA compliant) - probably won't be as effective as quoting that the exact wording was used in the NTK in that decision.

Spine

Hi All

It's been more than 2 weeks since my Popla submission and the operator has still yet to provide their evidence.

They have however, sent me an overdue PCN chasing me for payment a few days after my submission.

Is this normal practise by the operator so that they can ramp up their costs if things go their way?

Is it a good idea to contact Popla to see what is the delay?:huh:

Spine

Hi All

Surprisingly the operator had upload their evidence pack the morning after- must have caught their attention?

However, it seems they have adopted the "whole kitchen sink approach".
So will try and keep things simple and not upload everything as they have uploaded lots of documents and photos
- most don't seem relevant and there are mistakes riddled all over their case summary.
Eg
- referring to the site as a hospital when it is a sport centre.
- quoting totally different POFA wording from the actual NTK issued.

I have started to draft the rebuttal - much harder than it seems, as limited to only 2000 characters so any comments or advice would be appreciated:

Gemini Evidence Response:

Operator summary incorrectly quoted site regulations for a “hospital” but is in fact a sport centre.

1) (i) Case summary contradictory:
– the wording quoted bears no resemblance to the original NTK PCN dated 26th March 2019 (00287419- PCN COPY uploaded by operator).
Eg ( ..28 days..vs.. 29 days)
Irrelevant overdue parking charge letter uploaded by the operator (00287419- NTK).

(ii) The actual wording in the NTK PCN is non POFA compliant and wrong (demonstrated by keeper evidence submitted) - Gemini has failed to address in case summary.
There is no mention of POFA 2012 nor the wording required by statute or what basis the operator is relying on to pass liability to the keeper.

2) (i) Site Images and photographic evidence
- None of the photos demonstrate proximity of any visible sign near where the vehicle was parked on that date (re: original NTK/PCN)

- Additional photos:
-taken from various different/isolated locations of the site not relevant to where vehicle was parked
-taken at a much later date, in very different conditions (1 mth later and off-peak)
-cropped isolated close up photos of the signs with no date stamp does not indicate they were displayed at the location.

(iii) Site Map Misleading
- solid blobs over aerial photo does not prove signs exist there
- No signs visible even zoomed in – contradicts all the photos submitted by operator.
- Fails to illustrate the location of the vehicle was parked to where signs are

3) Close up isolated photos/images of three different types of signs - itself not compliance.
- no evidence of any signs at any entrances to the parking area.
- photos show they are sporadically placed, obscured and hidden in some areas.

4) Land owner authority p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }document authenticity questionable:
- page 3 added on - different quality/resolution
- paragraphs blotted out in black.
- Witness statement signed 2 years after contract - does not state position nor capacity

Not addressed points:
- not relevant land
- grace period

Umkomaas

Don't forget, you've only 2,000 characters to play with in penning your response. You're just over 1,800 at the moment.

Spine

I am a bit unsure about the Land owner authority and would really appreciate some help in this bit

They have uploaded a poorly scanned copy peiced together parking agreement
Page 3 clearly added on as different quality/resolution (part about terms and conditions of PCN)
There are paragraphs blotted out in black.
Witness statement is signed 2 years after the contract and does not state his position or capacity.
https://imgur.com/DZW6Zcg
https://imgur.com/HDR5bcM
https://imgur.com/9zOu1Xf
https://imgur.com/oZ7TWwX

https://imgur.com/zkktfcg

https://imgur.com/P40jbU5

https://imgur.com/o1vRaOj
https://imgur.com/s4XakrU

Spine

Below is an the extract of their case summary as half of it are lots of blurb about breach of site regulations BPA code of practice ..saying it is private property etc...which I have left out:

There are a number of clearly displayed signs advising on the site regulations and parking restrictions in
place. It stipulates within the signage that vehicles are only permitted to park in marked parking bays only.
All vehicles that are not authorised or no parked in accordance with the site regulations for this hospital will
be issued with a parking charge notice.
I have noted the appellant’s comments that the NTK is not complaint with POFA. The signage is insufficient,
and the operator is not showing who is pursuing the driver. The appellant has stated that there is evidence
of landowner authority and grace period is not compliant.
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
are a number of clearly displayed signs advising on terms and conditions of parking. Throughout the car park
the signage states that vehicles are only permitted to park in marked parking bays only. Bays are clearly
defined by the white boundaries to advise that it is a marked bay. Please see below for terms and conditions
of signage.




In regard’s to the PCN not being complaint with POFA. We can confirm that the PCN was issued within the
correct time frames. Please see attached the PCN copy. As stated on the PCN, the vehicle was parked in
contravention to the site terms and conditions and we invite the registered keeper to supply the driver
details if they claim they were not the driver. If after 28 days we have not received full payment or driver
details, under Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 we have the right, subject to requirements
of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle.
Therefore, I now invite the registered keeper, to supply the driver details.


I find that the signage at the site is sufficient enough to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and provides
drivers with adequate notice of the terms and conditions. Please see attached the signage. I can confirm
that the terms and conditions clearly make motorists aware of the regulations.


In regards to the appellant’s comments of no landowner authority we can confirm that there is an agreement
in place where Gemini can issue PCN’S as per client authorisation. Please see attached the agreement


For the date of visit, the vehicle was parked in an area where parking is not permitted..etc etc...

Spine

Umkomaas wrote: »

Don't forget, you've only 2,000 characters to play with in penning your response. You're just over 1,800 at the moment.

Thanks Umkomass - just trying to get the facts together than whittle it down - much harder than it seems - perhaps I should be just gunning down on the non POFA compliance..?

Coupon-mad

Just boil it down. For example:

Gemini Evidence pack claims:
1) POFA compliant
2) Sufficient clearly displayed signs
3) Signage comply with BPA Code of Practice
4) Land owner authority

Response

becomes just 3 words to introduce it (no headings):

Gemini Evidence Response: