Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • Spine
    • By Spine 17th May 19, 9:35 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Gemini Parking Popla stage
    • #1
    • 17th May 19, 9:35 PM
    Gemini Parking Popla stage 17th May 19 at 9:35 PM
    Hi All

    Some help please - first time on this forum!

    A PCN to keeper was received from Gemini Parking Solutions "for not parking within a marked bay" (they included a couple of small photos).
    Nothing was issued on the windscreen at the time so it is to keeper only.

    The operator claims that the terms and conditions are clearly displayed on the signs on-site.
    The parking in the area is free (London park with a National Sports Stadium) and there are multiple sites where cars can be parked without such restrictions on the road and various car parks doted around and there are many large prominate signs showing the opening and closing times of the gates to the Park (put up by the council) which has nothing to do with Gemini Parking solutions.
    I suspect it was only recently this operator had began to manage a small area of the land near the sport stadium in which the vehicle was parked with the small signs hidden under the trees on parking spaces on route to the car park in that part of the area.

    Now at the Polpla appeal stage having appealed using the standard template from this forum and rejected by the operator as expected (although they did take their time to reply - just within 35 days)
    The operator had sent 6 photos of the vehicle parked in an area which has no marked bays (infact was not in main car park but actually a path leading to the just before the main car park).
    They have also include an isolated cropped photo of a sign, quarter size of a A4 on paper (presumable illustrating its terms and conditions) which has a lot of text and lines and unreadable apart from "GEMINI" "Parking Notice" in large letters (all in blue text against a white background).
    All taken within 90 seconds according to the date stamp on the photos.
    Note that in all the 6 photos taken from different angles there are no signs or notices which can be seen.

    Also some extract quoted from the operator response to the std template :
    " keeper of the vehicle in question and will not provide details.....the keeper becomes liable for the PCN).
    - there was a whole paragraph on this, so I take it note 4 below is a weak point?

    They also responded to the template regarding the grace period:
    "In regards to your comments about the grace period, we ensure that our operatives allow enough time before issuing a PCN to a vehicle"
    - their get out clause for suspect predatory practices perhaps??

    I am appealing on the grounds of:

    1. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs
    in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking
    spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking
    charge itself
    - Main ground of appeal.
    Would it be wise to scrutinise the evidence the operator had given to me now as it really is quite weak or just use my own photos which are essentially the same, but without the vehicle present but to include additional photos to illustrate obsure signs on route to the parking spot?
    Perhaps use both?

    2. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice non-compliance
    - next strong point....even though no restriction on how long the car can be parked - no signs could be seen by the driver at the spot so no opportunity to read the terms - it was just predatory practice being employed here.

    3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict
    proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing
    is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

    5. Non compliant POFA 2012?
    No mention of this on PCN to keeper and only mentions the time and date parked but fails to mention how long the vehicle was parked (reinforces point 2?)

    I would really appreciate some advice here before drafting the appeal.

    Many thanks
Page 1
    • MistyZ
    • By MistyZ 17th May 19, 11:19 PM
    • 558 Posts
    • 1,049 Thanks
    • #2
    • 17th May 19, 11:19 PM
    • #2
    • 17th May 19, 11:19 PM
    I don't think omission of period parked will be relevant as that is not the alleged infraction. I might be wrong.

    However seems like POFA non-compliance may still be an important point to make for other reasons, take a look at this thread, particularly post 11:
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th May 19, 8:33 AM
    • 23,373 Posts
    • 37,248 Thanks
    • #3
    • 18th May 19, 8:33 AM
    • #3
    • 18th May 19, 8:33 AM
    If Gemini’s NtK doesn’t have the exact PoFA wording, then this is a sure-fire win for you at POPLA (on condition you have not identified the driver in any correspondence with Gemini). This point alone will result in POPLA finding for you.

    Please scan the NtK and let us see both sides of it. I can’t recall seeing a recent Gemini attempt at transferring liability to the keeper.


    To upload a photo/scan link, you first need to host it on a free photo hosting site (like Dropbox or Imgur), copy the URL, paste it here, but change the http to hxxp and we'll do the conversion. Newbies can't directly upload links to photos/scans until they've a few posts under their belt.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Spine
    • By Spine 18th May 19, 3:34 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    • #4
    • 18th May 19, 3:34 PM
    • #4
    • 18th May 19, 3:34 PM
    Thanks Umkomass
    No - not identified the driver - just used the standard template with no modification from this forum to get a Popla code.

    Link to the NtK :


    Also an image of the rejection letter from Gemini's internal appeal:
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th May 19, 4:02 PM
    • 23,373 Posts
    • 37,248 Thanks
    • #5
    • 18th May 19, 4:02 PM
    • #5
    • 18th May 19, 4:02 PM

    That's not even close to being a PoFA compliant NtK. It started out alright with 'If after 29 days', but then it looks like they couldn't understand the Act much after that in order to get the rest of the essential wording correct.

    Gemini fail, Spine win (at POPLA).

    Do a forum search on keywords 'POPLA NtK not compliant' and read other appeals covering No Keeper Liability and draft your own based on previous successes. This will be your first appeal point, although you will cover other points too like signage, landowner contract, no locus to bring charges etc., but it shouldn't be necessary for POPLA to go further than your first point.

    Let us see your draft when completed.

    Read the following link to PoFA, para 8 to understand the full wording required by the Act:


    Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.

    What they say about the keeper now becomes liable is incorrect as Gemini have failed PoFA requirements. It is designed to mislead you and this should be subject to a complaint to the DVLA, asking them to investigate. By doing this, the only thing being transferred will be the headache they are trying to give being passed back to them.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 18-05-2019 at 4:12 PM.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

419Posts Today

3,882Users online

Martin's Twitter