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@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Ruskhat
    • By Ruskhat 22nd Apr 19, 9:57 AM
    • 15Posts
    • 5Thanks
    Ruskhat
    Gemini parking charge POPLa appeal help
    • #1
    • 22nd Apr 19, 9:57 AM
    Gemini parking charge POPLa appeal help 22nd Apr 19 at 9:57 AM
    Please help with a good advice. I have 2 tickets from Gemini for parking in Gambado site and overstaying the 3 hour free parking by something line 31 and 40 min on a weekend (both Sat and Sun), while the child was playing in the soft play centre. Never knew that we must pay parking if staying over 3 hours and how to do it.
    My main concern is if I have any chance to argue these charges.
    I appealed to the company as a registered keeper not identifying the driver using the Newbies template. My appeals got refused and I need a good reason for appealing through POPLa.
    I emailed the CEO of Gambado to ask for help cancelling the tickets but he replied saying that they don't have a contract with Gemini and it is owned by the neighbouring football club the parking space of which they share with.
    The genuine reason is that we never noticed there was a sign on entrance saying there is ANPR camera used and terms. After the incident I investigated the area and realised there are signs with info and contract terms, which are in a very small font. The signs can be very difficult to see when other cars are parked they block the view of signs, and this parking area is very busy on weekends. I also read the BPA rules on parking signs and it seems that although Gemini managed to maintain the recommended size of the sign the important details are in a very small font and can't be legible from a parked car even if parked right in front of the sign. The entrance sign is very disproportionate to other signs that it is unnoticeable even if you drive through the gates very slowly. they put the entrance sign to the opposite side of the driver, which makes it even more difficult to notice.
    Please could anybody give a good advice if I have any chance to win the appeal and what points should I focus on.

    Thank you in advance
Page 2
    • Ruskhat
    • By Ruskhat 6th Jun 19, 9:43 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Ruskhat
    Oh, yes, I sure did! The doc. Was heavily edited and peppered with black boxes covering most of the terms and conditions, but they didn’t bother to cover the dates. They also provided photo images from 2016!!!!! They are just unbelievable!
    • Ruskhat
    • By Ruskhat 6th Jun 19, 9:48 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Ruskhat
    Hello,
    I wanted to update you guys on my progress with the POPLA appeal. I received a decision today and it says it’s successful!! Here is the response from POPLA on one of the two parking charge tickets appeals that I submitted. I hope I understand correctly that I won this time!! Please pinch me, I’m not dreaming, right?

    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without payment to cover the duration of the stay. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that the operator has not adhered to the requirements set out by the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 in order to transfer liability for the charge to her as the registered keeper of the vehicle. She states that the operator has not shown that she was the driver of the vehicle. She states that there are no easily visible, prominent, clear or legible signs at the entrance to or within the site detailing the terms or the amount of the charge. She states that the signage does not transparently warn users what automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) data will be used for. She states that there is no evidence that the operator has relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. She states that the operator has not complied with relevant data protection regulation in relation to its use of ANPR cameras. The appellant has provided photographs of the site.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site and a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Signs clearly state: “3 Hours Free Parking … First 3 Hours … FREE … 1 Additional Hour … £1.50 … Vehicles parked beyond the 3 hour free period must pay for the duration of stay. Payment should be made after the free parking period has expired.” Much less clearly stated, in small print at the bottom of the tariff sign is the following: “If you park on this land and contravene the indicated parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge in the sum of £100”. There is a clear discrepancy in prominence between the part of the sign detailing the tariffs and payment methods and the part of the sign detailing the possibility of incurring a PCN. I am satisfied from the evidence that the full terms of the site, specifically the possibility of incurring a PCN and the amount of the charge, were made clear by the signage in place. I am not therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must allow this appeal.
    • Ruskhat
    • By Ruskhat 6th Jun 19, 9:54 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Ruskhat
    Oh, yes, I sure did! The doc. Was heavily edited and peppered with black boxes covering most of the terms and conditions, but they didn’t bother to cover the dates. They also provided photo images from 2016!!!!! They are just unbelievable!
    • Ruskhat
    • By Ruskhat 13th Jun 19, 10:38 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Ruskhat
    Hello, again,
    I have now received a reply on my POPLA appeal for the second parking ticket at Gambado from Gemini Parking Solution. What a difference it is! This time my appeal was considered by another assessor and it was unsuccessful!!! It is absolutely the same situation, same site, one day earlier than previous successful appeal, slightly different duration of stay, but one assessor confirmed that the signs were not sufficiently clear about the penalty charges and the other assessor thinks that it was all fine, even though the documents Gemini provided as evidence are clearly out of date and have conflicting information displayed on various photos of signs (some images say 2 hours free stay, others have 3 hours). The assessor writes that the NTK was POFA compliant and all was ok. She ignored that fact, which I pointed out in my comments, that the operator started to chase me for the payment while I have submitted the POPLa appeal - they sent me a letter - demand for payment, only a few days after I submitted my appeal.

    Unfortunately I will have to prepare for the worst case now, any advise and suggestions would be most appreciated. I need to prepare my case very well this time.


    Unsuccessful
    Assessor NameGemma West
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the driver failed to make a valid payment.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, which I have listed below: • The appellant states there is no keeper liability. • He says that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver who may have been liable for the parking charge. • The appellant states there are no easily visible entrance signs. He says that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. • The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority. • The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with the data protection ICO Code of Practice, applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). • The appellant states there is no evidence of period parked. • The appellant states the signage fails to warn driver what the ANPR data will be used for.


    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions of the site state: “vehicles parked beyond the 3-hour free period must pay for their duration of stay…All vehicles that are not authorised or not parked in accordance with the site terms and conditions will be issued with a parking charge notice…If you park on this land and contravene the indicated parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge in the sum of £100”. The operator has issues the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to make a valid payment.

    The operator has provided copies of its signage, including a site map. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at The appellant states there is no keeper liability. As the driver has not been identified within the appeal to POPLA or to the operator, I need to ensure that the operator has shown strict compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

    PoFA 2012 is used to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle when the driver has not been identified. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper sent by the operator to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has raised several grounds of requirement of Schedule 4, paragraph 9, that he does not feel the Notice to Keeper complies with. As the appellant has raised these grounds, I have reviewed all of paragraph 9 in PoFA and the requirement of the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has met all of these requirements.

    Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments that the operator is suggesting that it knows who the driver is. However, I have reviewed the NTK and i am satisfied the wording is acceptable. She says that the operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is the driver who may have been liable for the parking charge. Whilst I appreciate these comments, I have reviewed the NTK and I am satisfied that it complies with PoFA 2012. As such, I am satisfied the operator can pursue the parking charge to the registered keeper.

    The appellant states there are no easily visible entrance signs. He says that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. I note the appellant’s comments however; the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location.

    Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” In addition to this, Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”
    Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location, and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land.
    Furthermore, within Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

    Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the signage. However, I am satisfied the signage is clear at notifying motorists of the terms and conditions. In addition, the appellant has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, therefore I am satisfied the appellant was aware of the terms and conditions.

    The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.

    As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. The operator has produced witness statement in line with the BPA Code of Practice, to prove they can operate on the land. I am satisfied this meets the criteria to show it has the authority to operate on this land. This meets the criteria set out in the BPA Code of Practice, section 7.

    I note the appellant has stated that the ANPR service agreement is out of date; however, I am satisfied the operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has the authority to issue parking charges on the land. The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with the data protection ICO Code of Practice, applicable to ANPR. Whilst I appreciate these comments, if the appellant has any concerns relating to Data Protection, the appellant may wish to contact the Information Commissioners Office to raise their concerns.

    The appellant states there is no evidence of period parked. I note these comments. However, I have reviewed the NTK which shows an entry and exit photographs of the appellant’s vehicle. As such, I am satisfied the operator has shown that the vehicle parked on site for three hours and 42 minutes. The appellant states the signage fails to warn driver what the ANPR data will be used for. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, if the appellant has concerns with how the data is being monitored, the appellant would be required to contact the ICO.

    Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. On this occasion, the driver failed to make a valid payment and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse the appeal.
    Last edited by Ruskhat; 13-06-2019 at 10:51 PM. Reason: added paragraph spaces for legibility
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 10:43 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Can you add paragraphs please (we know that's how it comes out but we can't read it).

    She ignored that fact, which I pointed out in my comments, that the operator started to chase me for the payment while I have submitted the POPLa appeal - they sent me a letter - demand for payment, only a few days after I submitted my appeal.
    POPLA can ignore that, as it's not their remit.

    The good thing is you can use your successful POPLA appeal as part of your evidence if Gemini sue.

    Stupid inconsistent POPLA.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Ruskhat
    • By Ruskhat 13th Jun 19, 10:52 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Ruskhat
    apologies, I entered spaces and paragraphs now. please let me know if it is still not legible
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 10:57 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes it's readable, but a pile of drivel from a clearly inexperienced Assessor!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Ruskhat
    • By Ruskhat 13th Jun 19, 11:21 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Ruskhat
    She states that although the landowner authority document, a.k.a 'ANPR Service Management Agreement" is out of date it is still ok, besides she takes into account the witness statement - a pdf document which is clearly fabricated. First of all, it is signed by someone on a date much earlier before my car was parked there. Secondly, the document appears to have completely different text font used - for the main text in bullet points and completely different box appears where the name and signature is.

    All the evidence documents look dodgy. it is clear for an inexperienced eye, I can't believe she didn't notice this.

    Can it be possible to email POPLa and point this all out to them? or is this just useless waste of time?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 11:27 PM
    • 76,496 Posts
    • 89,853 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    she takes into account the witness statement - a pdf document which is clearly fabricated. First of all, it is signed by someone on a date much earlier before my car was parked there. Secondly, the document appears to have completely different text font used - for the main text in bullet points and completely different box appears where the name and signature is.
    Wow.

    Can it be possible to email POPLa and point this all out to them?
    Yes their FAQS page tells you how to complain. But don't hold your breath!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
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

3,304Posts Today

8,192Users online

Martin's Twitter