Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Driver86 on November 19, 2023, 09:39:21 pm

Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: b789 on January 27, 2024, 06:29:32 pm: Jumping in late on this but the OP appears to not understand that they are safe from having to pay these scammers a penny. The OP was advised that an appeal (Plan C) to the IAS was a waste of time and effort yet went ahead anyway.

Ignore the response from the IAS. They are a kangaroo court. You are home and dry on this. They would be stupid to try and proceed to Plan D which is a court claim. They are relying on there OPs gullibility to either dob themselves in by revealing the identity of the driver which is the only way they would have any grounds to continue on to a court claim.

@Driver86, you need to understand that they have no idea who was the driver. Only the driver can be held liable for the PCN. The only way they would know the identity of the driver is if you blab it.

In civil law, the "driver" and the "keeper" are two separate entities. They cannot hold the "keeper" liable because they have failed to adhere to PoFA in more ways than one. They failed to issue a NtK within the prescribed period. They are not allowed to "presume" anything, especially whether you were the driver just because you are the keeper.

You are home and dry. Ignore all future correspondence from these muppets and any debt collectors. The only thing you need to respond to is a Letter of Claim/Letter Before Claim (LoC/LBC) or an actual claim itself. As already pointed out, whilst they are definitely intellectually malnourished, they would be extremely stupid if they were to actually fork out money and issue a county court claim because this is so easily defendable if you follow the advice.

Carry on with your life and stop worrying. Come back if they are stupid enough to issue a county court claim within the 6 years from the date of the parking event. Unlikely but just be aware of it.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on January 27, 2024, 02:37:35 pm: HCA is spot on, as usual. If Gemini takes the case to court at any time in the next 6 years, follow the advice over on https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou/p1 and you should win.

Gemini is now part of APCOA, who rarely go to court.

I would also add that, in view of the 6 year time limit for Gemini to commence court proceedings, it is vital that whenever you move home in the next 6 years (in addition to updating your driving licence and V5C vehicle registration as required by law) you must notify Gemini's data protection officer of your new address and require the erasure of your old address. The easiest way to get a CCJ is to allow a PPC to sue you at your old address. Royal Mail post forwarding is not 100% foolproof and nobody keeps it going for 6 years.

Send this to DPO@Geminiparkingsolution.com and DPO@apcoa.com after each move in the next 6 years:

Dear Sirs,

PCN [ ] VEHICLE [ ]

I dispute this charge and intend to defend any claim initiated in relation to it.

Please note that I no longer reside at the address shown on the PCN and correspondence sent to me there will not reach me. I require you to erase my former address from your records. My new address is [ ] and I attach proof thereof.

Yours faithfully,

Be sure to attach proof of your new address, ideally a V5C vehicle registration document (for any vehicle) but a utility bill or some official communication will do.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: H C Andersen on January 27, 2024, 01:10:32 pm: What can I expect next?

From the creditor: a series of letters demanding payment. I think your unreasonably high expectations of a fair shake from IAS have been dashed. C'est la vie. It changes nothing, the assessor's decision is 'a guide'. I like playing a straight bat in these situations so I would write to the creditor, note the assessor's decision, respectfully disagree, reiterate that you will not be paying the driver's alleged parking charge, advise that you will not respond to any extra-procedural correspondence from them and ask them to pursue you as keeper to a competent court as soon as the law allows.

With respect, there's no point keep rehearsing your complaints and understanding of events here because we're not decision makers: the die is cast; the ball is in the creditor's court and all you can do is wait..your problem is that the theoretical time bar to them pursuing you doesn't come for nearly 6 years. NB. don't complain to us, complain to the Ministry of Justice!

From PALS: I don't know whether you're still pursuing this route.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on January 27, 2024, 12:29:20 pm: Ok so they have dismissed my appeal, and it looks like a bog standard copy and paste template. I dont believe they've actually read through the details. Here it is:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events.

The markings in and around the bay that the Appellant's vehicle parked in make it clear that disabled parking only is allowed in the bay. I consider it reasonable to assume that by parking in a clearly marked disabled bay a driver must also clearly display a Blue Badge in order to prove that they are entitled to park in such a bay. In such situations it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that a Blue Badge is correctly displayed. While noting the Appellant's comments, the photographic evidence shows that no Blue Badge was available for inspection at the time the vehicle was observed. As no Blue Badge was available for inspection in the vehicle I feel it is appropriate to have issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The images provided of the Appellant's vehicle are time and date stamped, clear and of high quality. I am satisfied that the correct vehicle is identified and that the correct Appellant is pursued.

The Operator provides photographic images of the Appellant's vehicle from various angles, which clearly show that the vehicle is parked in a disabled bay while not displaying a valid Blue Badge. I am satisfied that the Appellant was clearly parked within a disabled bay. In such bays, the terms and conditions of parking mean that if the driver cannot clearly display a Blue Badge they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. Whether or not they are a Blue Badge holder, the contractual terms make it clear that any driver parked in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid Blue Badge agrees to pay a charge. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that in the circumstances the correct Appellant is pursued.

Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant, I am satisfied that the Operator has proved their prima facie case. Once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.

Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

My thoughts:
1. None of the images of my vehicle show a disabled parking only signage - what is the adjudicator referring to?
2. The images which show disabled signages are not current but date stamped from 2019 - 5 years ago. Other images given by operator are from another outdoor forecourt car park which I will not have driven past to the indoor car park - this was of no relevance to my vehicle.
3. The adjudicator says he/she has some sympathy with appeallant - why? I did not ask for sympathy nor any extenuating circumstances or for forgiveness.
4. Adjudicator does not address issue with none service of NTK or that operator was seeking keeper liability via POFA.

I am certain this was a copy and paste job form the adjudicator. What can I expect next?
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on January 07, 2024, 09:04:54 pm: Go for it then. And remember - it doesn’t matter if you lose because a loss isn’t binding on you. But if you win, it’s game over
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on January 07, 2024, 08:44:02 pm: Yes it does...and then it gives them another opportunity too.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on January 05, 2024, 08:08:57 pm: Does the website give you the opportunity to respond to the operator's late data dump?
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on January 05, 2024, 07:26:42 pm: After I submitted, they have now attached their response which they had missed off in error initially.

Here is their text - with their additional photos on the document attached- the photo's they've used to prove signage are from nearly 5 years ago.

Gemini have had a contract in place at Queens Hospital since 27/01/2016.
All vehicles parked at this site must be parked within a valid and marked bay.
Bays are marked with white or yellow lines
Parking is not permitted outside of a marked bay, in the roadways, on cross hatched areas or on yellow lines.
A valid blue badge must be clearly displayed within the windscreen of the vehicle when parked in a blue badge bay
Terms of parking are sign posted upon entry to, throughout and along all exit routes of this car park.
Parking charge notice issued to vehicle.
Upon observation this vehicle was seen to be parked unattended in a blue badge bay on the 25/09/2023 without a valid blue badge on display.
The appellant has appealed claiming that they are the keeper and that their vehicle had a person with a disability.

We can confirm that this appeal was rejected as:

a)
As per the signage on site, a valid blue badge must be clearly displayed within the windscreen of the vehicle when parked in a disabled person’s blue badge bay. No evidence of a Blue Badge was provided.

b)
The appellant appealed via the ticket on vehicle and confirmed that they were the keeper. They were afforded the opportunity to provide driver details. The keeper chose not to do this, and their appeal was subsequently rejected.

c)
As can be seen below, there is clear and present signage on site pertaining to Blue Badge Bays. Signage has been present since at least 2019 and remains present to this date.

d)
Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. It is the driver’s responsibility prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site.

e)
There are nearly 8.5 million people with disabilities in this country and driving provides the means for disabled people to access goods and services; and being able to park in accessible, wide parking bays are vital parts of this accessibility. We have consulted with and taken advice from organisations for people with disabilities who aim to improve awareness among the general public of the impact misuse has on disabled people. We strongly feel that being disabled brings enough obstacles and difficulties without the misuse of disabled bays and aim to ensure that designated disabled persons parking bays are used only by those entitled to do so.

The appellant has now submitted an appeal to the IPC in which they state there are no clear signs indicating that this bay is reserved for the use of Blue Badge holders. As can be seen in the images provided, there is clear and present signage, there are also adequate floor markings. The appellant states that signage was added after the contravention. As can be seen below, this is not correct.

See attachment for their evidences. They've given some random bay photos from early 2019, and have not addressed the fact that their signposts state they are members of BPA. Nor have they provided evidence of a notice to keeper...

I'm thinking to either send to arbitration as it is...or should I keep appealing for them to respond? (which seems like I might go in circles)

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on January 05, 2024, 11:37:52 am: A formal complaint can be made to the hospital’s complaints handler about PALS’ failure to respond properly to a complaint about the hospital’s parking contractor for whom the hospital is responsible. But OP might want to wait for the outcome of the IAS appeal
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: The Rookie on January 05, 2024, 10:39:51 am: And the hospital?
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on January 04, 2024, 08:00:16 pm: It's a win-win for you. If you win at IAS (most motorists don't), the PCN will be cancelled. If you lose at IAS, the result isn't binding on you and you can beat them in court, if they're stupid enough to sue
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on January 03, 2024, 09:41:57 pm: Many thanks! I've submitted my response so fingers cross that nails it. Next step will be arbitration if they still waffle on.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: DWMB2 on December 21, 2023, 02:40:36 pm: Useful to know, thanks. I've thankfully not had reason to engage with the IAS in a very long time.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on December 21, 2023, 02:36:15 pm: I’ve never bothered to find out if there’s a character limit. You can type your comments in a document and upload it, in which case all you need to type in the box is “Please see uploaded document.”
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: DWMB2 on December 21, 2023, 02:16:23 pm: Quote from: Nosy Parker on December 20, 2023, 11:55:46 pm
I'm sure you and others will be able to improve it
I don't think there's much improvement needed - it's a concise breakdown of why each of their points is incorrect and why the appeal should therefore succeed.

I'm not sure if IAS impose a character limit for their responses, and if so, what that is, but the only thing I think it could benefit from if space allows is a quick sentence at the end summing up. Perhaps something along the lines of:

Each of the points above taken in isolation is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed. Taken in combination, it is clear that the operator has no case and the appeal must therefore succeed.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on December 20, 2023, 11:55:46 pm: Quote from: Driver86 on December 20, 2023, 04:24:51 pm
Now I know what you mean by rigged against the appellant. The IAS basically tell you that if you go to arbitration, then only the operators information will be considered - LOL.

I'm no fan of the IAS, but your screenshot in no way supports your conclusion. It does not say or imply that only the operator's information will be considered. It says the opposite It tells you that the operator has made a number of assertions but failed to upload any documents in support of those assertions. It then invites you to respond to the operator's assertions and (if you wish) to upload further documents yourself. IAS has given you a golden opportunity to nail the operator. Here's a rough outline for your response, I'm sure you and others will be able to improve it - just be sure not to miss the deadline for responding.

The operator's "prima facie case" fails to address the points raised in the appeal and is unsupported by any evidence. This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.

The operator claims that it "is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA". However, the operator has provided no evidence that it has complied with any of the conditions for keeper liability under PoFA, merely claiming that a "manual ticket was placed on the vehicle on 25/09/2023". This does not come close to satisfying the PoFA conditions for keeper liability which include (among other things) the delivery of a PoFA-compliant "notice to keeper" within the "relevant period" as defined in PoFA. The operator does not claim to have delivered a notice to keeper at all, let alone a PoFA-compliant one and, indeed it did not do so. Even assuming that the "manual ticket" referred to by the operator was itself a PoFA-compliant notice to driver (as to which the operator has provided no evidence) the 'relevant period' for delivery of a PoFA-compliant notice to keeper has expired without the delivery of any notice to keeper, let alone a PoFA-compliant one. This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.

The operator asserts that "the charge is based in Contract". However, the operator has provided no evidence of any contract, let alone a contract to pay the parking charge. As proved by the evidence supplied in my appeal, there was no signage at the time of parking that complied with the requirements of the IPC Code and which was capable of giving rise to a contractual obligation to pay the parking charge. So even if (which is not the case) the operator had availed itself of the opportunity to use PoFA to transfer the driver's contractual liability to the keeper, there is no contractual liability to transfer. This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.

The operator has offered no response to the evidence in the appeal proving that its signage was seriously misleading in that it claimed falsely that the operator is affiliated to the BPA and conceals the operator's affiliation to the IPC. This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.

The operator has neither asserted nor proved that it owns the car park or has a current authorisation from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges. This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on December 20, 2023, 04:24:51 pm: Now I know what you mean by rigged against the appellant. The IAS basically tell you that if you go to arbitration, then only the operators information will be considered - LOL.

Anyway I have submitted an appeal as keeper last night, I've attached the appeal document to this message.

They responded this morning, they appear to state that they are seeking keeper liability under POFA? They say see attached evidence but there is nothing there. Here is a screenshot...https://ibb.co/6rSRbR6

Let me know your thoughts and how I should respond.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: H C Andersen on December 11, 2023, 09:33:05 pm: The operator's signs are incorrect as they display the wrong Accredited Trade Association. Is the hospital aware that their contractor is so blatantly failing to comply with CoP requirements and therefore bringing significant reputational risk to the Trust?
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on December 11, 2023, 08:04:38 pm: Quote from: Driver86 on December 11, 2023, 04:19:01 pm

Besides that, are you saying I have little grounds of beating them at adjudication?

We're saying that "adjudication" is an irrelevant concept in your situation. If Gemini won't submit to an appeal to the IPC's tame IAS appeals service, that's no skin off your nose. Gemini can't enforce this charge except by suing you in the County Court and winning the case. In the meantime, you should be complaining with all your might to the hospital trust and getting your ducks in a row in case this goes to court - which is a very long way off.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: The Rookie on December 11, 2023, 04:22:49 pm: If PALS won't respond, go to the CEO of the trust.

Plan A is still the best route.

Nope the IPC's appeals service is heavily rigged against the driver, much more so than the BPA's but the DVLA allow them to continue as an ATA anyway.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on December 11, 2023, 04:19:01 pm: I'll keep at PALS but I sense their answer will still be the same here.

Besides that, are you saying I have little grounds of beating them at adjudication? I have evidence of missing signage from their PCN camera photos, and then they erected new sign plates which I spotted a few weeks later.

Have they followed IPC processes of replying to my appeal/ issuing NTK?
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on December 10, 2023, 12:29:43 pm: Gemini notoriously abandoned the BPA and joined the IPC, presumably because the IPC is more indulgent of their approach which is to issue POFA non-compliant NTKs and refuse to deal with appeals from keepers unless they identify the driver. IPC stands for this nonsense; BPA not so much. Gemini seems not to have updated its signs at this location

Anyway, the latest letter from Gemini precisely fits within its current modus operandi and does not cure the incurable POFA fail.

If PALS won't help, make a formal complaint to the hospital complaints department
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: H C Andersen on December 10, 2023, 07:33:35 am: '..we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle'.

Couldn't be clearer.

They do not intend to rely upon PoFA.

And as regards who 'they' are, every sign which you've posted states that Gemini are approved operators of BPA, not IPC.

The NTD doesn't make any reference to BPA or IPC.

The first notice that you have of the operator's 'allegiance' is their written reply.

More grist to your PALS mill I would suggest.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on December 09, 2023, 08:34:10 pm: I received another reply to my appeal. Attached to this message...are they within their timeframes? It appears to be more of a "proper" appeal response than th elast one which was fishing for driver details.

The IPC code of practice states Notice To Keeper should be issued after day 29 of NTD

PCN Issued = 25th Sept
I Appealed = 23rd Oct
1st Appeal reply = 31st Oct
Appeal reply 2 = 29th Nov

Still no Notice To Keeper. Have they used the 1st appeal reply as a Notice To Driver too, as it appears to be after 29 days since their reply?

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: The Rookie on November 28, 2023, 12:10:12 pm: Quote from: Driver86 on November 25, 2023, 07:57:32 pm
Spoke to PALS said they can't help due to it being a contractual/legal matter between driver and the company.
The technical term for this is b@LL@cks.

Gemini are only working with the authority of the Hospital, that is they represent the hospital in this matter as agents. Therefor the Hospital can clearly intercede with their agent in this matter. Most don't seem to want to but instead try and pretend that somehow they aren't responsible for the actions of their agents. Here the matter is even bigger as it's almost certainly the hospital itself who are responsible for painting and maintaining the signage (markings on the ground) that are in poor condition. As such escalate to a complaint and keep escalating, with an IPC member this is your only realistic prospect of killing this off without having to wait for a court claim or 6 year timeout (or paying).
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: DWMB2 on November 27, 2023, 07:58:07 pm: This would be the way to go about that:
Quote from: H C Andersen on November 27, 2023, 09:05:12 am
submit a Subject Access Request to Gemini requiring all personal data they hold on you.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on November 27, 2023, 07:19:34 pm: Ok so their timeframe for issuing a NTK has passed. Should I just email them to ask if they have produced and delivered a NTK? Since they are now late.

Just thinking if they later claim they posted it.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: DWMB2 on November 27, 2023, 09:12:54 am: Quote from: H C Andersen on November 27, 2023, 09:05:12 am
I am a cynical old ****
Surely not ;D
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: H C Andersen on November 27, 2023, 09:05:12 am: OP, you seem to be wanting to freelance this. Why?

You have been informed of the procedure and yet you still refer to driver and appeals.

I am a cynical old **** (AKA sceptical/challenging) and I'm less than convinced by the account regarding seeing the disabled sign when reversing out of the space but not when driving in. Of course you could formalise a complaint to the hospital, but IMO only if you are absolutely certain of events...but how could you be, unless you were the driver? You even have the NTD! Could you pursue a complaint with sufficient conviction NB. IMO, this has nothing to do with the creditor's procedures per se but simply whether the events occurred and whether even if they did as alleged by Gemini, this is in keeping with the Trust's obligations?

Alternatively, the procedural straight bat is to submit a Subject Access Request to Gemini requiring all personal data they hold on you. This should be their reply to your 'appeal', their request to DVLA for your RK details and a copy of the Notice to Keeper. Ideally you want them to admit - because they cannot produce - that a NTK was not sent in time.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: DWMB2 on November 26, 2023, 11:25:31 pm: Quote from: Driver86 on November 26, 2023, 09:52:22 pm
Just wondering, what is the risk of identifying driver to appeal?
The main 'risk' is that it reduces the number of potential defences available. All of one's eggs would be in the 'signage' basket - if that defence failed, there'd be no others available. Present two defence points, and only one needs to succeed for you to win.

I'll try to explain the whole keeper/driver issue as briefly as possible... Private parking charges are based on contract law. The contract (if one exists) is between the parking company and the driver. The registered keeper of the vehicle does not enter the contract. However, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted) (PoFA) provides a mechanism for private parking companies to recover these contractual charges from the keeper, if they don't know who was driving, and if they comply with certain requirements.

In this case, as Nosy Parker and H C Andersen both note, Gemini have not complied with these requirements, and so are unable to recover the charges from the registered keeper.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on November 26, 2023, 09:52:22 pm: Thanks for your advice.

I've read through the IPC code of practice and it does appear they insist on the driver only. The appeals response I have attached in my first message https://ibb.co/GTg9Lqd , can this be assumed to be the NTK? It doesnt say as much, and im not 100% certain if it meets all the requirements outlined in the IPC code of practice. I've attached the NTK code of practice to this post.

Just wondering, what is the risk of identifying driver to appeal? We have the evidence that regard8ng signage and any defence will be based on the same regardless who was driving?

I have until tomorrow to decide to appeal with driver or wait on NTK, if 28th november is the deadline since their last correspondence.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: DWMB2 on November 26, 2023, 10:53:15 am: Nosy Parker, regarding #2, the appeal is attached as a word doc at the bottom of the opening post.

OP, I agree with everything Nosy Parker says. Keep on at the hospital.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Nosy Parker on November 26, 2023, 08:08:58 am: 1. Gemini is not a member of the BPA but of the rival and even worse IPC. So the BPA Code of Practice is irrelevant. The IPC appeal scheme doesn't use appeal codes. You can access the IPC Code of Practice here - https://www.theipc.info/publications.

2. For reasons known only to itself, Gemini doesn't bother to transfer liability to the keeper but instead refuses to handle keeper appeals unless the keeper identifies the driver.

3. Reasonable minds can disagree over whether it's worth the bother of trying to force Gemini to engage with the appeals process as they've lost the ability to transfer liability to the keeper anyway.

4. The PALS cop-out is a disgrace. In your shoes, I would escalate this to hospital complaints department pointing out that the hospital is responsible for the actions of its parking contractor. As with all communications relating to this case, do not identify the driver.

5. If the hospital doesn't make it go away, you are likely to get a lot of demands for payment from Gemini and its debt collectors which you don't need to take seriously, because they can't make you pay anything except by suing in the County Court and winning the case - which they will struggle to do as they failed to transfer liability to the keeper and there arguably isn't any liability to transfer due to the inadequate signage. If they escalate to the point of issuing a formal letter of claim (aka letter before claim or letter before action) giving 30 days advance warning of commencement of legal proceedings, you will need to take it seriously.

Come back for more advice if the hospital doesn't do the right thing.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: H C Andersen on November 25, 2023, 10:12:33 pm: (4)The notice [to keeper] must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

NTD - issued 25 Sept.

IMO, the latest date for delivery of NTK is, sorry was, 20 Nov.

It is immaterial for the purposes of PoFA that an appeal against the NTD was made, considered, responded to(with extended dates for action).

PoFA says what is says. They're too late to hold the keeper liable.
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on November 25, 2023, 07:57:32 pm: Spoke to PALS said they can't help due to it being a contractual/legal matter between driver and the company.

I havnt received a notice to owner. I'll send them an email reminding them that they should be responding to keeper and driver appeal.

Here's what it says in the letter:

2. If you are representing the driver we require a signed and dated statement from the driver of the vehicle confirming that you are authorised to appeal on his/her behalf; this needs to be an original signature and not a photocopy or a stamp. The statement MUST contain the drivers FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS.

Is this a load of rubbish?
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: The Rookie on November 21, 2023, 10:01:11 am: As above, Plan A with private parking notices should always be the landowner, they own the land, set the rules and employ the parasite as their agent to enforce them.

Additionally with NHS parking the guidance for hospitals makes it clear that such notices should only be used to deter abuse of the parking and not to penalise genuine users and innocent mistakes, or issues arising from the hospital itself (such as over running appointments).
Title: Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: DWMB2 on November 20, 2023, 10:13:06 pm: Quote from: Driver86 on November 19, 2023, 09:39:21 pm
The driver visited a hospital when they parked in a bay which turned out to be for Blue Badge holders only.
If an occupant of the vehicle was a patient, then speaking to the PALS team at said hospital would be a good first step.

Your references to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act and keeper liability in the appeal suggest a slight misunderstanding of how that process works. What has been received appears to be a windscreen ticket, aka a 'Notice to Driver' - they are not claiming the keeper is liable, as the PCN has been issued to the driver. Paragraph 9 to which you refer, specifies the requirements for a Notice to Keeper, issued by post, so is not relevant here.

I imagine they have sent the response that they have on the basis that they have issued a charge to the driver, but instead have received a response from someone claiming* to be the registered keeper. *I say 'claiming' here not because I dispute that you are the keeper, but because at this stage, Gemini have no confirmation that you are the registered keeper, other than your say so.

You may wish to remind them that the BPA Code of Practice requires them to respond to appeals from drivers and keepers.

Have you received any Notice to Keeper through the post?
Title: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
Post by: Driver86 on November 19, 2023, 09:39:21 pm: Hello all.

The driver visited a hospital when they parked in a bay which turned out to be for Blue Badge holders only. They did not see any signage as they drove into the bay. After they found the PCN, they looked around for signage but could not see where it is informing them that this is a blue badge bay.

Here is the front and back of PCN
https://ibb.co/kByrsww
https://ibb.co/r3S7DJM

They did notice as they reversed out that there was a disabled sign on the floor, not very well painted and not easily seen by oncoming traffic.

The evidence Gemini parking solutions have provided shows a sign post somewhere, but not with the car in sight of the signage - so it is anyones guess where this signpost was.

https://ibb.co/yV3LCgN
https://ibb.co/YXTCBLH
https://ibb.co/Z2Kw63M

I appealed the PCN on the grounds that signage was inadequete and also that the vehicle was used to transport someone who is considered disabled (long term health condition). I also undertook my own investigation on 10th October and found that they had recently erected signposts where the vehicle was parked. Note - in Geminis evidence photos this signage is not present where the vehicle was parked. See my own photo here: https://ibb.co/yQDY7Hb

I've attached the appeal I sent them to this post.

They responded with the following reply https://ibb.co/GTg9Lqd

As you'll notice, they havn't addressed my coments, and have not given me the code I require to appeal to BPA/ adjudication - does anyone know why this might be? and advice how to proceed here?

[attachment deleted by admin]