PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Gemini PCN - did not park
Jogs83
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 13:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Redx
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 21:43
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



QUOTE (Dave65 @ Tue, 21 Jun 2022 - 18:29) *
As pointed out not PoFA compliant no warning to the keeper.
So, be careful in any appeal not to name the driver.


What is meant not compliant with POFA- Is it the fact the charged me for entering and exiting the car park?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nosy Parker
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post Thu, 23 Jun 2022 - 21:26
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,944



QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Thu, 23 Jun 2022 - 22:08) *
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redx
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redx
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post 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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redx
post Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 20:03
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,329
Joined: 18 Aug 2016
From: Manchester
Member No.: 86,486



QUOTE (Jogs83 @ Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 20:59) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post 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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jogs83
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redx
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Mon, 18 Jul 2022 - 15:28
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,363
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



QUOTE (Jogs83 @ Mon, 18 Jul 2022 - 15:59) *
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


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:20
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here