Gemini parking charge - POPLA appeal

Umkomaas

MistyZ wrote: »

Cofely appear to be land management agents:

https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/our-story/transforming-east-london/east-works-jobs-skills-and-business-growth/working-capital-widening-the-talent-pool/cofely

As far as I know, which is not very far, land management companies do have authority to sign contracts with PPCs .... I'm interested to know what the experienced regulars think.

However the lack of any indication of an extension past the initial 12 months looks quite promising ...

We would be arguing for a chain of authority stemming right back to the landowner to prove the agent's ability to sign contracts. Throw it in and let the PPC deal with it in front of the Judge and let the Judge determine whether it applies. Costs the defendant nothing, but offers the PPC a headache to deal with.

schmuel

Thanks all - comments submitted as below.

Will update when I get a decision back... Fingers crossed...


"Evidence pack claims:
1. 'There are a number of clearly displayed signs at the entrance’
2. 'There are a number of clearly displayed signs advising on terms & conditions of parking'
3. ‘We can confirm that the PCN was issued within the correct time frames’
4. ‘The Landowner is Cofely Workplace Limited [CWL] who is the owner of the site’
Response:
1. Gemini have provided no evidence of signs at the entrance to the car park. In fact, there is no signage at the entrance clearing displaying parking terms and conditions.
2. The operator's own evidence shows that their signs do not clearly advise terms & conditions of parking. The text is too small to possibly be read. The sole photo provided by the operator which is partly legible (taken in front of the mossy wall), is not located where my car was parked. Regardless, this example shows that 90% of the operator’s terms & conditions cannot be clearly read, and therefore aren’t sufficient to form a contract with the driver.
3. My appeal asserts that Schedule 4 of POFA was not properly complied with, because a valid NTK was not served. Gemini’s NTK, dated 31/05 (a Friday), states vaguely that ''if after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details..'' implying the keeper has to 29/06 to name the driver. The correct wording in POFA is "after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.." implying keeper liability cannot be claimed before 02/07 (allowing for the weekend of 1/2 June before NTK can be deemed 'served').
4. As Gemini doesn’t have proprietary interest in the land I require that they produce a copy of a contract with the Landowner. Gemini have produced a contract with CWL (valid for 12 months) signed in Mar 2014. This contract has now expired. Gemini have produced no evidence of an updated contract. Further, Gemini state that CWL are the Landowner and owner of the site. This is false. Land Registry list London Legacy Development Corporation as owner, not CWL."