Gemini PCN - did not park |
Gemini PCN - did not park |
Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 13:12
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 17 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,944 |
Hi...received this letter through on the post 15th June saying driver had not paid for parking.
Letter: Front https://imgur.com/a/ajsSyd3 Back https://imgur.com/a/94tr2dc Driver entered the car park, dropped off their spouse and child for children's soft play centre, and exited within a few minutes. Driver then returned to collect their spouse and child after 1 hour, again exiting a few minutes after entry. Driver did not park on site. The images of the vehicle only shows entry and exit. Here is what can be seen upon entry to the car park: is signage around the site adequate? https://imgur.com/a/TKEa0BZ https://imgur.com/a/75GPSXN Here is the signage on entry, which appears to be bent to the side and not facing incoming vehicles. It is also has very small text. https://imgur.com/a/WQs7zvB There is also booking confirmation from the Leisure centre which says "unattended" i.e driver was not physically present. Any advice on how to approach this would be appreciated. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 13:12
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 13:38
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,329 Joined: 18 Aug 2016 From: Manchester Member No.: 86,486 |
Google double dip, 2 short visits collated as one long continuous visit
Read other threads regarding double dip cases , there should be some orphan images , so 4 in total, not 2 Can't read the signs properly in those pictures, post better ones that can be read That PCN fails to comply with Pofa, so no keeper liability , plus 2 short visits This post has been edited by Redx: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 13:59 |
|
|
Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 13:52
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
This is what is known as a 'double dip' error where the ANPR system has failed to detect all entries and exits. Not surprising as ANPR is at best 85% accurate.
The Keeper should appeal as such and request they check all unmatched (that 1 'reading' and not an entry and exit) photos against that of your car. They currently had a reasonably basis to process your data but once aware of the error should comply with GDPR and discontinue, but may not. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 17:29
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
As pointed out not PoFA compliant no warning to the keeper.
So, be careful in any appeal not to name the driver. |
|
|
Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 21:43
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 17 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,944 |
|
|
|
Wed, 22 Jun 2022 - 03:44
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 889 Joined: 22 Jan 2022 Member No.: 115,469 |
POFA is shorthand for Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. You can read it here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9...edule/4/enacted.
In summary, a private parking operator can only sue the keeper (as opposed to the driver) if they serve a notice to the keeper that complies with all the requirements of POFA. In the case of a notice issued in a camera monitored car park where there wasn’t a paper ticket put on the windscreen or handed to the driver the requirements are in paragraph 9. So in all communications it’s important not to identify the driver. There are lots of examples on this forum about how to word an appeal. Something along the following lines should work. “I am the keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. Your notice is not effective to transfer liability to me as keeper as it does not comply with the mandatory requirements for transfer set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). Specifically (and without limitation) it does not contain the warning required by paragraph 9.2(f) of POFA. In addition, the charge is not enforceable against the driver or the keeper because the alleged overstay did not occur. I have been informed by the driver that they made 2 short visits to the car park on the relevant date. The images on the notice show the entrance for the first visit and the exit for the second visit. Therefore, you must cancel the charge and delete all my personal data from your records.” As the operator is a BPA member, if they turn down your appeal they must give you a verification code to enable you to make a further appeal to that body’s independent appeals service known as “POPLA” where you should win easily. It’s very important to observe the time limits for both appeals. |
|
|
Thu, 23 Jun 2022 - 20:51
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 17 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,944 |
Just writing up an appeal to this.
But isn't paragraph 9.2.f covered in the letter's last 3 paragraph? (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Letter - https://imgur.com/a/ajsSyd3 |
|
|
Thu, 23 Jun 2022 - 21:08
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10,695 Joined: 23 Apr 2004 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 1,131 |
Just send the appeal we have provided.
|
|
|
Thu, 23 Jun 2022 - 21:26
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 17 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,944 |
Just send the appeal we have provided. Upon reading more carefull I retract my thoughts that they covered there ar**s. Here is my full appeal... I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice to keeper. I am the keeper of the vehicle and not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so for the following reasons; Your notice is not effective to transfer liability to me as keeper as it does not comply with the mandatory requirements for transfer set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). Specifically (and without limitation) it does not contain the warning required by paragraph 9.2(f) of POFA. In addition, the charge is not enforceable against the driver or the keeper because the alleged overstay did not occur. I have been informed by the driver that 2 short visits were made to the car park to drop off and collect their child and partner on the relevant date. The images on the notice show the entrance for the first visit and the exit for the second visit. The vehicle was not parked, and the driver did not leave the vehicle. The driver has also provided booking receipts, which are clearly marked “unattended”, indicating the driver did not stay at the leisure centre themselves – evidence attached. I also dispute your claim that signage are clearly displayed on site. I have attached images of what a driver will view upon coming on-site. The image shows that the first immediate sign is facing in an obscure angle, making it difficult for a driver to read. This is in breach of the private parking code of Practice, 3.1.3 paragraph f). The signage are also far apart from where a driver will park, and the text on the signage has miniature size making it unclear if a vehicle is allowed to enter to drop/ pick up passengers. This is again in breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice, specifically 3.1.3 paragraphs a), b). Therefore, you must cancel the charge and delete all my personal data from your records.” Let me know if this will do? |
|
|
Thu, 23 Jun 2022 - 21:34
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,329 Joined: 18 Aug 2016 From: Manchester Member No.: 86,486 |
After 2nd visit
Gemini need to check their systems for the missing orphan images , namely the first exit picture and the 2nd entrance picture later that day. The vehicle was actually elsewhere in the intervening period so the alleged contravention is false so should be cancelled. This post has been edited by Redx: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 - 21:35 |
|
|
Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 19:44
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 17 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,944 |
So they responded the day after I appealed, waffling on about their signs being being OK.
https://imgur.com/wRCAgsf Noticed they said in their letter it requires "all motorists to make a valid payment", whereas the signage states "all vehicles must be parked inside a bay" and nothing about those entering to drop off/pick off. Let me know how I can go about this please? |
|
|
Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 19:57
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,329 Joined: 18 Aug 2016 From: Manchester Member No.: 86,486 |
As mentioned in paragraphs 3 & 4 of that rejection, you appeal to popla within that time period allowed , so I am not sure what replies you expected?
|
|
|
Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 19:59
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 17 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,944 |
I.e...should I ask them for video footage/ photo of vehicle?
|
|
|
Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 20:03
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,329 Joined: 18 Aug 2016 From: Manchester Member No.: 86,486 |
I.e...should I ask them for video footage/ photo of vehicle? No , you construct a secondary appeal draft to be uploaded to popla when completed and approved Read some previous popla appeals and adapt a similar one You are not asking popla to do anything, except adjudicate an appeal |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jul 2022 - 13:17
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 17 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,944 |
Here is a draft of my appeal to POPLA for this invoice...it appears the Private Parking code of practice was suspended in June, I wonder if that is a reason why Gemini have chosen to direct their reply towards the signage. Please advise if I should add/remove anything?
Keeper of vehicle received a Parking Charge Notice through the post dated 10th June 2022 for allegedly being in breach of the Terms at GLL Mile End on 04/06/2022. Appeal had been made to Gemini Parking explaining the following: Driver entered the car park on 04/06/2022 at 14:48 to drop off family, and left the car park within 5-7 minutes of entry. Driver then entered the car park on same day at 16:00 to collect family, leaving the car park at 16:06 (as stated on the notice to keeper). A copy of the receipt showing the booking made by driver with GLL was "unattended" was also provided indicating driver was not present on site during the booking. No evidence was provided by Gemini Parking Solutions that the Driver had breached the parking Terms and Conditions, apart from the entry and exit times over the 2 visits. Therefore the vehicle was not parked onsite, and the driver did not at any point leave the vehicle unattended. In their reply to the appeal, Gemini Parking Solutions claim their signage are adequet and clearly states the conditions for parking, however, upon investigation and scrutiny this is factually incorrect. The initial signage is bent away form oncoming vehicles and there is no conditions on it for vehicles entering to drop off and pick up passengers. I have attached photo's of their signage and the receipt from GLL. Sign post: https://imgur.com/dPylOFn Sign post on entry not facing vehicles: https://imgur.com/jadVsKg Receipt: https://imgur.com/lsG9scO Would this suffice? This post has been edited by Jogs83: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 - 13:56 |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jul 2022 - 13:41
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,363 Joined: 9 Apr 2021 Member No.: 112,205 |
No! What other POPLA appeals have you read?
For starters, you say who was driving, which we have repeatedly suggested you don't do. You need to edit that last post to not reveal that. Use headings to clearly mark out your arguments. Your first point is your point around the 'double dip'. You need to make this point a bit more explicit, making clear the car was there twice, but they have erroneously only recorded the first entry and last exit as one long visit, whereas the driver made two short visits, which is not in breach of the T&Cs. One of them should be POFA (which you did mention in your initial appeal). Another should be landowner authority (the parking newbies thread on the MSE Forum has some text for this, I'll dig out a link). You should beef up the signage point a bit too, and don't include Imgur links in the actual appeal document, add the images directly to the PDF containing your POPLA appeal and upload that to the portal. -------------------- Useful Links (for private parking charges):
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 | British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice | International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jul 2022 - 15:17
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
.
IMO, the focus must be on the PPC's error in conflating 2 distinct activities separated by over 1 hour into a single event lasting **. I don't understand the reference to signage. Either the driver knew the conditions or they didn't. In this case it should be stressed that the driver was fully aware of the restrictions and in fact this was not the first time that they'd visited the site. (if true). Don't dance on the head of a pin. On *** the driver took Mrs *** and daughter to the *** soft play centre for a pre-booked session lasting 1 hour commencing at 4pm. (something that they'd done *** times before). They knew that payment was required if a vehicle parked and therefore on both occasions paused for no more than a few moments to allow passengers to alight/board. The driver did not stop the engine or exit the vehicle. * if true.(the wording is a fusion of Jopson and DDJ Harvey's judgment in the case of OPS V , Brighton County Court 24 Apr. 2020) The creditor's ANPR system has obviously played up and instead of recording both drop-off and collection has taken the first and last times to indicate the length of stay. The site conditions as alleged were not breached (nor were they breached on either of the separate occasions) and therefore a parking charge is not owed. For completeness, I would also add that even if a charge was owing I, as keeper, could not be held liable because *****(the PoFA bit) Is my take. OP, let's be clear if this argument doesn't win the day then IMO there's b****r-all chance that wonky signs would. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jul 2022 - 14:59
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 17 Jul 2018 Member No.: 98,944 |
Ok thanks for highlighting my error! Would appreciate the link to the MSE forum where it is about landowner authority, I had a look but could only see the initial appeal letters...
Regarding the images - yes I will attach/upload them where they provide a tool for it. I've amended the appeal Keeper of vehicle received a Parking Charge Notice through the post dated 10th June 2022 for allegedly being in breach of the Terms at GLL Mile End on 04/06/2022. The driver has attended GLL at Mile End on many occasions and therefore is aware of what the parking Terms and Conditions are. The driver entered and left the site twice, and the time stamps on Notice to Keeper only show entry of first visit, and the exit of the second visit. Driver entered the car park on 04/06/2022 at 14:48 to drop off family, and left the car park within 5-7 minutes of entry. Driver then entered the car park on same day at 16:00 to collect family, leaving the car park at 16:06 (as stated on the notice to keeper). A copy of the receipt showing the booking made by driver with GLL was "unattended" was also provided indicating driver was not present on site during the booking. The vehicle was not parked onsite, and the driver did not at any point leave the vehicle unattended. Therefore there was no breach of the terms and conditions as per the signage. No evidence was provided by Gemini Parking Solutions that the Driver had breached the parking Terms and Conditions, apart from the entry and exit times over the 2 visits - which is an error on their part. In their reply to the appeal, Gemini Parking Solutions claim their signage is adequet and clearly states the conditions for parking, however, upon investigation and scrutiny this is factually incorrect. The initial signage is bent away form oncoming vehicles and there is no conditions on it for vehicles entering to drop off and pick up passengers. I have attached photo's of their signage and the receipt from GLL. Sign post: https://imgur.com/dPylOFn Sign post on entry not facing vehicles: https://imgur.com/jadVsKg Receipt: https://imgur.com/lsG9scO |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jul 2022 - 15:08
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,329 Joined: 18 Aug 2016 From: Manchester Member No.: 86,486 |
The landowner and signage appeal paragraphs are in the third post of the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the mse parking forum in announcements
Your popla appeal should be numbered paragraphs for each appeal point, with a preceding numbered menu Point 1 , blah blah Point 2 , blah blah |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jul 2022 - 15:28
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,363 Joined: 9 Apr 2021 Member No.: 112,205 |
Regarding the images - yes I will attach/upload them where they provide a tool for it. That isn't what I said - you should include them within the document you are preparing - you can upload your appeal as a PDF, with the images included within the body of the appeal document. The guide to POPLA from MSE is here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...omment_64350600 - it includes a guide on how to submit as a PDF, as well as examples of some successful past appeals. Landowner authority is here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...omment_71287628. You should also look on here and MSE for recent examples of successful POPLA appeals to give you an idea of the format. They're structured with headings, preferably numbered for ease, and as you'll notice when you look at some, generally more detailed. This post has been edited by DWMB2: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 - 15:28 -------------------- Useful Links (for private parking charges):
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 | British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice | International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:20 |