Gemini Parking Solutions - Canary Wharf Estate, Random NTK, no on-screen PCN

Qaribbean

Hi All,

Back again, but such is the case when owning a vehicle in London.

Received a random Notice to Keeper from Gemini Parking Solutions, opening paragraph stating "We recently contacted you about PCN..." but this was the first contact from them.

Essentially they say the vehicle broke the following condition: Unauthorised Parking.  The are "inviting me" to pay them £100 (how kind!?)

Check their site and there are photos of the vehicle in a bay on the street with the time at 17:59, however the vehicle clearly has a Blue Badge displayed and their evidence of signage is a photo of a very small sign and was taken so far away that it can't even be read by zooming in.  Preparing a complaint to the land owners, Canary Wharf Estate, but filed an appeal to Gemini immediately ( should've been in the other order but in a rage I wanted to go at them) and used the NTK template with some modification:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I dispute your Charge Notice, as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your business practices to Canary Wharf Estate.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation because your Notice to Keeper does not explain it. While you have included photos of my vehicle, there is no clear photograph of any sign that specifies the parking restrictions you contend were in force at the location on the material date.  Your evidence shows a photo of a sign that cannot be read by the human eye.   You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign that is legible.

I also expect to receive a copy of the original Charge Notice (as I have never seen it) as well as your claimed first correspondence to me; on your Notice to Keeper letter dated 22nd February your opening paragraph states "We recently contacted you about a Parking Charge Notice" - I have received no correspondence from you prior to this letter.  

In your photographic evidence it appears quite visible that a Blue Badge was on display; as mentioned, you have provided no evidence of signage of parking restrictions, without which I expect the vehicle would have been eligible to be parked in a marked bay while displaying a valid Blue Badge.

I await your response.

Sincerely,

Now, I have some questions regarding the NTK after reading a bit more of the Newbies thread; there was section about validity of keeper liability (forgive me if thats wrong as I'm paraphrasing).  The alleged contravention was on the 21/01/2023 and the date on the NTK is 22/02/2023 although stated on the letter is "This notice is deemed to have been given to you on the second working day after the Date of Sending above."

I know it stated in the Newbies that it wouldn't invalidate the PCN but does this mean there are no grounds for Keeper Liability?

Thanks as always!

Coupon-mad

Depends if this letter is a 'reminder', in which case they will say there was an earlier NTK.  You could send their DPO email a SAR request for the missing PCN.

Your appeal looks very good.  Don't pay them will you, not even if you lose at POPLA?

And do this BEFORE POPLA:

Preparing a complaint to the land owners, Canary Wharf Estate,

Qaribbean

Coupon-mad said:

Depends if this letter is a 'reminder', in which case they will say there was an earlier NTK.  You could send their DPO email a SAR request for the missing PCN.

Thats not a bad idea actually.  I know for a fact there was no on screen PCN and there was no correspondence from them prior to this NTK.  Wouldn't be shocked if they conjured up something from thin air!

B789

Qaribbean said:

Check their site and there are photos of the vehicle in a bay on the street with the time at 17:59, however the vehicle clearly has a Blue Badge displayed and their evidence of signage is a photo of a very small sign and was taken so far away that it can't even be read by zooming in.

I don't think that a BB has any relevance when parking on private land apart from the fact that it would signify that the PPC or attendant should be aware of possible issues in relation to the Equalities Act.

fisherjim

The majority of Canary Wharf is privately owned and even though the roads look like they are normal highways they are not The Google SV car does not venture into much of the central area for this reason, indeed they stop prior to the security check points.

Blue badges are not legally applicable to the roads ie there is no free parking on yellow lines or in car parks, how ever the signage within these areas should state that you are entering an area covered by private parking rules as stated in the ATA's COP, I doubt very much if it does, and the PPC have a field day, every day.

They are IPC registered so will be even more dodgy as a result though!

Qaribbean

Afternoon all. 

Received a response from Gemini, posting here for thoughts on a reply as there essentially appear to be just saying they won't engage with an legitimate appeal unless they have someone they can pin a charge on!

Dear Q,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number XXX (Vehicle: XXX)
Site: Canary Wharf Estate
Issue date: 21/01/2023

We refer to correspondence received from you concerning the above numbered Charge Notice.

Please note that responsibility for this Charge lies with the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking contravention was observed. However, we are unable to ascertain who the driver was on the date in questions from the information given within your appeal. In order for us to process your appeal correctly, please follow the instructions below:

 1. Notify the driver of the vehicle that they will need to appeal to us directly, including their FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS within 14 days.

 2. If you are representing the driver we require a signed and dated statement from the driver of the vehicle confirming that you are authorised to appeal on his/her behalf; this needs to be an original signature and not a photocopy or a stamp. The statement MUST contain the drivers FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS. Please ensure that correspondence is sent to APCOA Parking, PO Box 815, Wigan, WN1 9WX in order to correctly adhere with the appeals process.

OR

 3. Pay the PCN. Payments can be made online at www.geminiparkingsolutions.com by following the links for "Pay Now" It is your responsibility to ensure that payment is received within our office by the date specified.

As a gesture of goodwill we have placed the charge on hold for an additional period of 14 Days to enable one of the above actions to be complied with. We are willing to re-offer you the original discounted charge of £60 as full and final settlement of this Notice, if payment is received within our office on or before the 01/05/23.

If payment is not received by this date, the amount payable will revert to £100, payable by 15/05/23. Failure to pay this charge within the stated times, may result in Debt Recovery action been taken and further costs up to an additional £70.00 been incurred.

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department

Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd

Appreciate any input on this.

Thanks!

Boat_to_Bolivia

Well just file it and wait for them to issue you with a POPLA code.

Have you complained to the landowner as CM suggested?

Qaribbean

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Well just file it and wait for them to issue you with a POPLA code.

Have you complained to the landowner as CM suggested?

I have, not had a response back yet so will follow up.

Coupon-mad

Qaribbean said:

Afternoon all. 

Received a response from Gemini, posting here for thoughts on a reply as there essentially appear to be just saying they won't engage with an legitimate appeal unless they have someone they can pin a charge on!

Dear Q,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number XXX (Vehicle: XXX)
Site: Canary Wharf Estate
Issue date: 21/01/2023

We refer to correspondence received from you concerning the above numbered Charge Notice.

Please note that responsibility for this Charge lies with the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking contravention was observed. However, we are unable to ascertain who the driver was on the date in questions from the information given within your appeal. In order for us to process your appeal correctly, please follow the instructions below:

 1. Notify the driver of the vehicle that they will need to appeal to us directly, including their FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS within 14 days.

 2. If you are representing the driver we require a signed and dated statement from the driver of the vehicle confirming that you are authorised to appeal on his/her behalf; this needs to be an original signature and not a photocopy or a stamp. The statement MUST contain the drivers FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS. Please ensure that correspondence is sent to APCOA Parking, PO Box 815, Wigan, WN1 9WX in order to correctly adhere with the appeals process.

OR

 3. Pay the PCN. Payments can be made online at www.geminiparkingsolutions.com by following the links for "Pay Now" It is your responsibility to ensure that payment is received within our office by the date specified.

As a gesture of goodwill we have placed the charge on hold for an additional period of 14 Days to enable one of the above actions to be complied with. We are willing to re-offer you the original discounted charge of £60 as full and final settlement of this Notice, if payment is received within our office on or before the 01/05/23.

If payment is not received by this date, the amount payable will revert to £100, payable by 15/05/23. Failure to pay this charge within the stated times, may result in Debt Recovery action been taken and further costs up to an additional £70.00 been incurred.

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department

Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd

Appreciate any input on this.

Thanks!

Dear Gemini,

Jeez, your reply!  Unbelievable twaddle.  Chucked your 'values' in the bin, Gemini?

No wonder you hopped from the BPA to the IPC if you take the disingenuous (and unlawful) view that a registered keeper can't appeal without naming the driver.

This is not lawful and I won't engage with you again.  Would have done, had you been a professional parking firm still in the BPA AOS, but forget it now.

Take it to court; put up or shut up.  Of course I'm well aware that this trashy response from your non-existent 'Appeals' Department is just IPC-speak.

The PoFA, the BPA and the DVLA say otherwise.  The below (not my case but DVLA's view and response to another victim) shows the DVLA's view - this came from David Dunford at the time - so I will be complaining to the DVLA now:

Dear Mr XXXX,

Thank you for your patience in this matter. The British Parking Association have now provided a response to myself.

The BPA have confirmed that this practice should not be occurring (as we already knew) and have taken steps to address this behaviour throughout the industry as this may not be an isolated incident.

The following message has now been issued by the BPA to all of their members...

“the following practices may be considered as Code breaches and must not be continued:

• Asking the motorist to enter into additional correspondence to obtain a POPLA code
• Failing to include a correct and/or valid POPLA Code within the Rejection correspondence
• Issuing a POPLA Code with a date identifier which is significantly different from the date of rejection
• Appearing to indicate that [appeal] is conditional on driver details being supplied “
I am hoping that this type of incident will not be occurring any more.

I wish to thank you of bringing this matter to the DVLA’s attention and ultimately, the BPA’s.

Kind regards,

David Dunford
DVLA

I don't expect you to agree because as part of your own 'Success Rebellion' you've swallowed the IPC meal ticket.  But I will now make a formal complaint to the DVLA as their view (and the POFA) is clear.  A registered keeper is entitled to appeal against their liability and does NOT have to name the driver and IS NOT disputing 'on behalf of' the driver.

Do not send my data to any bullyboy DRA. Do not add £70.   I will not engage with third parties and I will not be paying (obviously).

Send me a Letter before Claim with your evidence and a copy of the supposed PCN and the purported 'contract' that you reckon was breached, then take it to court immediately or or just crawl back under your stone and get lost. Any further demands will be a course of conduct of harassment.

Yours faithfully,

B789

@Qaribbean, you should copy and past @Coupon-mad's response, verbatim. You really must get some satisfaction out of this process and knowing that the above letter would be read and digested by the intellectually malnourished eejits at Gemini, provides everyone else on here that satisfaction.

Coupon-mad

It's annoying because I thought Gemini were among the better ones.  Not in my opinion now.

They used to run the 'Brake the Mould' podcasts for the BPA, where they discussed some serious topics and sometimes came across as a bit different and maybe caring a tiny bit about motorists.

This one is the daftest one, when it seems that their planned invited guest that month couldn't make it!
https://audioboom.com/posts/7786485-brake-the-mould-discuss-ryan-jackson-s-book-the-success-rebellion

One of the two Gemini guys discusses his own rise from the slums/smoking weed (yes, he says this like it's some sort of badge of honour) and it's all about the 'impactful' and 'powerful' self-development book wot he wrote 'for credibility'...

Seems to model himself on his hero, terrorist Pablo Escobar (yes, really).  Gemini blag their way through this podcast and the 'author' clearly thinks of himself as some sort of entrepreneur.

Oh dear.  This is the calibre of people who are representing the parking industry.