PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Gemini PCN - In Breach Of Terms At Service Road
John121
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 22:30
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Hi Guys,
I was hoping you'll be able to help me with this one.
Received this PCN today in the post. The driver was literally parked there for few minutes.

Wanted to know if I have any grounds to appeal on or is it best to cough up and pay the reduced early payment?





Thanks

This post has been edited by John121: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 07:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 106)
Advertisement
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 22:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
John121
post Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 10:30
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Hey guys,
Just to let you know I strongly recommend contacting POPLA anytime you submit your appeal or rebut comments just to make sure there received it.
When I submitted my appeal to POPLA there said there did not recieve so luckily I emailed it to them again.
I just submitted my rebut notes few days ago, and thought I would call them yesterday to confirm, and again there said there didn't receive them. Luckily I was able to email them across.

There system is flakey, so please chase up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 09:01
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



Hey Guys,
Got a response from POPLA and unfortunately I have been unsuccessful.

Please don't get disheartened, we may have lost the battle but remember the war will continue...

Thanks to everyone for all your help, we did try but it was not to be.

Also please advise what my next options are, im just thinking of paying the £100 and getting this headache out the way. Let me know your thoughts....

Below is what POPLA had to say:

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA.) As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “charges apply Monday – Sunday 24 hours a day…all vehicles must display a valid ticket or permit or pay by phone – no need to display a ticket…all vehicles that are not authorised or not parked in accordance with the site regulations for this development will be issued with a PCN”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, parked on the car park at 10:38 on 9 December 2018. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle was not registered to park. The appellant explains that non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. The appellant states the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. He states there is no landowner contract, nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers. The appellant states the amount demanded is a penalty. He states a reasonable grace period was not used and there is poor and inadequate signage. The operator has provided evidence of the signs located on site. I have reviewed the signs, and these are clear in stating there are terms and conditions applied when parking. The signs show that motorists need to purchase a ticket or pay by phone. The signage is clear and I am satisfied there are enough signs located on the small site to make motorists aware of the terms. The operator has provided photographs of the appellants vehicle and there is no valid pay and display ticket on display. The operator has also provided evidence to show the driver did not purchase a ticket using the pay by phone option. The driver has therefore parked without authorisation. The appellant states there was no grace period offered. A grace period is offered to provide a motorist time to review the terms and conditions of the car park, and decide if they wish to park and agree with the terms and conditions. The driver has left the vehicle without purchasing a ticket to authorise parking. As the driver has left the vehicle they have formed the intention of staying therefore, a grace period is not applicable. The operator has provided a copy of the land owner authority. I have reviewed the evidence and I am satisfied this gives the operator authorisation to operator on the site. The appellant states the amount demanded is a penalty. The operator has issued a copy of the original PCN and I can see this clearly states a parking charge notice. There is no evidence to suggest the operator has referred to the amount as a penalty. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver failed to purchase a parking ticket, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 11:25
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I dont recall many gemini court cases, so you coudl sit tight.

Make them work for it witha court hearing IF you want.

We hav a good record, especially when they use BW legal or Gladstones, as neither solicitor firm has much clue and they hire poor advocates


POPLA - complaint
That notice is NOT compliant. The 29 days period is NOT state correctly, as it si 29 days after the notice is given and NOT ANY other period. COmplaint to lead asssessor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 11:56
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



I contacted Gemini and told them that I can go through court etc but if there can accept the reduced amount (£60) I can pay right away over the phone. Also told them my uncle passed away (which was true) hence i've been really busy dealing with that etc. There have agreed so I just made the discounted payment and got it over and done :-)

Very surprised by the POPLA assessors decision though. Seems bit biased to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 13:07
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Not biased
Incompetent
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John121
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 14:19
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 416
Joined: 9 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,167



One would expect someone in that position to be full competent and glued on with this stuff.

It would be interested to see if its a certain assessor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 14:41
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You might expect it
But that would be too expensive for POPLA
The firm behind it didnt realise they were winning an appeals service.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
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 - 11:16
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