Leisure Centre Parking Charge Notice

Youser

Hello all, 

first time posting in this section of the forum. Used to post on Pepipoo but it looks like that’s no longer available.

I just received a Parking Charge Notice for entering a Leisure Centre car park from Gemini Parking Solutions who look after the private land.

Had a quick read of the Newbie section and wondering if I should complain to the Leisure Centre first? They’ve just been taken over by the local council and their website doesn’t have a complaints procedure. Be-well.org.uk

I didn’t notice any clear signs saying that ANPR will be used to issue PCNs. The payment machine was also out of service. I have gone back to get some photos of the signage.

Do I have any grounds to appeal?

Coupon-mad

I recall there is a thread about Gemini where solicitor poster @troublemaker22 posted his appeal that saw off Gemini.

They don't come across as the sharpest tools in the box.  Even though one of the young kids who runs it published a book about himself and his tips for being an "entrepreneur", donchaknow!

Hilarious. The gift that keeps on giving, the private parking industry!

Youser

Can someone help me confirm who the land owner is? Would it be Tower Hamlets Council for Mile End Leisure Centre?

Thanks

Bazarius

The “Raising the Bar” IPC boasts that all of their Operators car parks are audited before they can start issuing pcns .   Yet all their signs in the above photos  are showing the BPA roundel logo ….. it means they are operating under the British Parking Association rules but it doesn’t even comply with that either . 



 

LDast

the NtK isn't PoFA compliant and the signage, as pointed out above shows the wrong AOS membership. A simple "go fornicate with yourself you dolts" appeal should put them in their place. However, as they have switched their allegiance from the BPA to the IPC, they are probably being encouraged to simply refuse all appeals anyway.

Unless the OP can find out who actually owns the land and ask them to get the Pin cancelled, this will either wither away over time or end up as a court claim which shouldn't be hard to beat.

Youser

Bazarius said:

The “Raising the Bar” IPC boasts that all of their Operators car parks are audited before they can start issuing pcns .   Yet all their signs in the above photos  are showing the BPA roundel logo ….. it means they are operating under the British Parking Association rules but it doesn’t even comply with that either . 



 

Thanks for your response and pointing out the incorrect logos. If you don’t mind clarifying, which BPA rules are they not complying with?

Coupon-mad

They aren't in the BPA AOS.  That's the point. They should not be displaying the blue & yellow roundel on the bottom right of the t&cs parking tariffs sign. They should have changed it to the IPC roundel.

Youser

Coupon-mad said:

They aren't in the BPA AOS.  That's the point. They should not be displaying the blue & yellow roundel on the bottom right of the t&cs parking tariffs sign. They should have changed it to the IPC roundel.

Thanks. I understood that they were no longer part of the BPA but was wondering what rules they were breaking if they were still with the BPA. 

Are the wrong logos on the signage enough to invalidate the PCN? 

Or should I base my appeal on the NtK being non PoFA compliant and add the incorrect logos on the signage as a bonus.

Thanks again!

Youser

LDast said:

the NtK isn't PoFA compliant and the signage, as pointed out above shows the wrong AOS membership. A simple "go fornicate with yourself you dolts" appeal should put them in their place. However, as they have switched their allegiance from the BPA to the IPC, they are probably being encouraged to simply refuse all appeals anyway.

Unless the OP can find out who actually owns the land and ask them to get the Pin cancelled, this will either wither away over time or end up as a court claim which shouldn't be hard to beat.

Is the NtK not PoFA compliant because the notice does not contain the warning which is required by PoFA paragraph 9(2(f)?

Gr1pr

Youser said:

Coupon-mad said:

They aren't in the BPA AOS.  That's the point. They should not be displaying the blue & yellow roundel on the bottom right of the t&cs parking tariffs sign. They should have changed it to the IPC roundel.

1) Thanks. I understood that they were no longer part of the BPA but was wondering what rules they were breaking if they were still with the BPA. 

2) Are the wrong logos on the signage enough to invalidate the PCN? 

3) Or should I base my appeal on the NtK being non PoFA compliant and add the incorrect logos on the signage as a bonus.

Thanks again!

Nobody is saying that Gemini are no longer a part of the BPA, they probably are members , as a corporate member, most of them are corporate members, so she was correct in her words 

1) Read the words carefully, she said that they were no longer members of the BPA AOS members list, the BPA AOS, so that logo should have been changed to the IPC AOS logo, nothing more . You could complain about it to the BPA, with the picture as proof, so they can complain to Gemini, but it doesn't change your case or help you. )

2) nothing invalidates a private PCN, it's an invoice for the alleged breach of the parking contract , regardless of what the sign says or the incorrect logo on it. The sign created the parking contract and no judge is going to care about a logo 

3) base your appeal as keeper on failures such as those you mentioned, but the logo issue is a red herring as far as the appeal is concerned, but can be mentioned just to show extra due diligence on your part, ( POFA is the better one. )

Gr1pr

Youser said:

LDast said:

the NtK isn't PoFA compliant and the signage, as pointed out above shows the wrong AOS membership. A simple "go fornicate with yourself you dolts" appeal should put them in their place. However, as they have switched their allegiance from the BPA to the IPC, they are probably being encouraged to simply refuse all appeals anyway.

Unless the OP can find out who actually owns the land and ask them to get the Pin cancelled, this will either wither away over time or end up as a court claim which shouldn't be hard to beat.

Is the NtK not PoFA compliant because the notice does not contain the warning which is required by PoFA paragraph 9(2(f)?

It doesn't even mention POFA, no warning, nothing at all, so doesn't try to hold the keeper liability in that manner, despite it being sent in time 

Its a non POFA PCN , using the 6 months plus one month rule, with liability assigned to the driver for the alleged breach of the parking contract