Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


ZAnjum

Gemini Parking Solutions > Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park**Uncontested at POPLA**

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1195 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I hope you can help.

 

I received a Parking Charge Notice from Gemini Parking Solutions on Sunday, 30th October 2016, whilst parked near the Olympic Stadium.

 

I have been parking here on Sunday mornings for the past two months as there are no road markings, etc and normally leave within an hour two at the most. I have also seen a number of other people parking their vehicles in the same location without incident.

 

I do not believe that I parked illegally as there are no ‘road markings’ and there is no indication as to define which area parking is/is not permitted in. The area is a ‘ghost town’ on most days, unless West Ham are playing at home, which is when I avoid the Stratford area altogether.

 

Whenever I have received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from the local Council, I always appeal it via email within 14 days to preserve the PCNs discounted rate, whereas I have noticed on this forum that people are being advised not to appeal the Parking Charge Notice and instead wait for the Notice To Owner (NTK) to be sent before appealing.

 

Your advice in this matter would be greatly appreciated as I am sure a lot of other Drivers have been caught out by Gemini.

 

Many thanks in advance.

WP_20161030_016.jpg

WP_20161030_015.jpg

WP_20161030_014.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG. I have hidden your images as the firt picture shows the reference number and your car reg. These need removing before reposting.

 

This 'ticket 'is not an official council ticket but a private invoice. As it stands the ticket is for a breach of contract however you cannot breach something you are not allowed to do in the first place.

 

The most you could be guilty of is trespass and as such, only the landowner can take action and as you did no damage, any compensation would be minimal, certainly not the £100/60 being demanded.

 

If you appealed now, you would be giving them the name of the driver. By waiting for the notice to keeper, you don't have to name the driver at all. So, wait for the NTK and then decide if an appeal is worthwhile or not.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as it is supposedly on private land then a ticket on the car is a notice to the driver- in effect an unaddressed begging letter. Wait for the NTK which must be received by the keeper of the vehicle between 29 and 56 days after the date of the event. when you get that come back here for further advice but in the meanwhile do not contact them at all. This is becasue the law they must work to is very prescriptive to form a keeper liability and most parking co's get that wrong and therefore lose any right to claim a bean from anyone as they dont know who the driver was at the time..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the advice silverfox1961 and ericsbrother.

 

I will await the NTK and then come back to this thread.

 

We are all so fed up of these parking companies in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon

Just received the Notice To Keeper (NTK) from Gemini Parking Solutions, which i have attached for reference.

 

What should be my next step?

 

Many thanks

 

Zubair

 

WP_20161030_014.jpg

Gemini Parking Solutions - Notice To Keeper.jpg

WP_20161030_015.jpg

WP_20161030_012.jpg

WP_20161030_013.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK 2 things, 1)the NTK is not POFA compliant as it misses out certain crucial bits that they have to include and 2), the signage is prohibitive so ne breach of contract as the parking co and driver cant form one.

Your next step is to appeal the charge on these grounds. When you write to them say "the keeper os the vehicle reg no xx**yyy is appealing this charge on the follwing grounds and then add the 2 points above. Do not say I or anyones name, keep it in the third person.

They will undoubtedly disallow your appeal but then you can go to POPLA for a more formal determination. That will cost the parking co money regardless of the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsbrother

 

Thanks for the prompt reply.

 

What are the POFA compliant bits that are missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ask again when they respond, you can use it against them at POPLA where it will have more of an effect. It will cost the parking co money if you do appeal to POPLA so I would if you need to. We will help with what you need to do and say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appeal emailed to Gemini and will wait for a response from them.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Just received the Appeal Rejection letter from Gemini, please find a copy attached for reference.

 

They have also supplied me with a POPLA Verification code via email.

 

Is there a limited time to appeal to POPLA?

 

Please advise.

 

Many thanks.

Gemini Parking Solutions - Appeal Rejected (web).pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usual automated response that says nothing about what you were appealing about.

 

 

you have 28 days to appeal to POLPA

 

Use the POPLA appeals procedure and say that the NTK was not POFA compliant so you require strict proof of who was driving at the time as Gemini have not answered this point in their letter rejecting your submission.

 

 

Further to that there has been no breach of contract as the sigange is prohibitive

so it is not possible to enter into a contract as there was nothing to consider and accept.

 

 

Further to this the land in question ajoins a public highway and thelayby surface appears to have been laid at the same time as the road Include image of signage.

 

 

unless Gemini can show otherwise the cost of maintaining this land seems to have been borne by the local authority so it is considered to be a public place as per the decision of Camden v Dawood 2009 and s.192 of the 1988 road traffic act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice how the rejection letter states that vehicles must be within the marked bays. What marked bays? Just goes to show what care they take when doing rejections.

 

Gemini Parking Solutions fully complies...cough..erm..cough... with the BPA code of practice. Wrong!


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

add this to your appeal to POPLA whern you say that they havent shown they have done a proper consideration of the matters you appealed and thus have failed to conduct themselves properly, contrary to their agreeements as a menber of the BPA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon

 

Thank you for your responses, but which parts of Gemini's response is not compliant with POFA?

 

Is there a guide on CAG that I can refer to with regards to POFA compliance and appealing to POPLA?

 

Many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not their response, the NTK.

 

It doesnt use the correct wording as specifically required and doesnt say who the creditor is.

 

 

Both of these points are covered in paras 7 and 9 of the POFA

 

 

so read them and you will see what they were supposed to write.

 

 

By getting this wrong they have failed to create a keeper lliability and you can tell POPLA that.

 

 

Also as the signage is prohibitive in nature it cannot be said there was a contract offered to consider.

 

 

That, with a copy of the signage will suffice,

 

 

there is more but that should do and POPLA dont look into everything anyway so more info supplied if POPLA reject your appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon

I have prepared the following POPLA Appeal based on the advice on this thread and the POFA.

 

Please let me know if this is correct or sufficient.

 

Many thanks.

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

The requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) were not satisfied by Gemini Parking Solutions’ Notice to Keeper dated 1st December 2016 in relation to Parking Charge [redacted] issued 30th October 2016, because they have failed to specify who the Creditor is and to create a Keeper liability as per the POFA, which specifies the following:

 

Section 7.(2).(e) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made;

 

Section 7.(5).(b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the driver to independent adjudication or arbitration.

 

Section 9.(2).(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

 

Therefore I require strict proof of who was driving at the time as Gemini Parking Solutions have not answered this point in their letter rejecting the initial appeal dated December 2016.

 

Also, there has been no breach of contract as the signage is prohibitive in nature, therefore it cannot be said that there was a contract offered to consider and accept.

 

The land in question adjoins a public highway and the layby was laid at the same time as the road by the Local Authority, which is therefore considered to be a public place as per the decision of Camden V Dawood 2009 and Section 192 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

 

The registered Keeper cannot therefore be held liable to the parking charge as the operator has neither named the Driver(s) or provided any evidence who the Driver(s) was, hence the charge is not enforceable.

Edited by Mr.P
Remove identifying detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

last line: enforceable againt the keeper

POPLA arent very good at the prohibitive signage bit so hopefully they will be able to cope with what they are paid to know lots about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I also mention that there were no road markings, bays, etc to demarcate what was private land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POPLA Appeal submitted, will keep you guys updated.

 

Many thanks for your time and advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Good News!

 

Just received an email from POPLA stating that Gemini will are not contesting the appeal. Case closed.

 

Many thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what we like to see. A PPC stuffed before any decision is made. They knew they were on a loser as soon as you appealed to POPLA. I will amend your thread title to reflect the 'win'

 

If you can, perhaps a small donation to help keep CAG running.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done. they will ahve been charged £27 and they have given up because otherwise they may have to admit in a court in another galaxy far away that they have been found to have no authority and all of their other demands were thus plain old fraud. better for them to fold on this challenged case than to lose all of their potential income for ever, even though they know they dont deserve a penny.

Spread the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...