3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Chris101

Pages: [1]
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Waltham Forest 53c – Brookfield Ave / Shernhall Street – Lease transfer,
« on: August 26, 2026, 10:27:59 pm »
Quote from: tincombe on August 26, 2026, 10:15:15 pm
What term is the 'leasing' agreement.

7)This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months (whether or not that period is capable of extension by agreement between the parties or otherwise);

If your agreement is for six months or more then irrespective of what documents are provided and when etc. etc. YOU may not be considered to be the owner and YOU don't have any liability under road traffic legislation.

Your contract with the lessor is a different matter.

From the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report 2021-22

While liability for a penalty normally falls on the registered keeper of the
contravening vehicle, liability can be transferred in the case of vehicles hired for less than six months to the hirers. In the case of long leases, the lessees may become liable depending on the terms and conditions of the lease.
Adjudicators have found that the legal difference between short-term hire and long leases are not well understood by motorists and authorities. Furthermore, for a transfer of liability to occur in short-term hires, the hire firm must provide documentation of the hire as required by law. These requirements are also not well understood with some authorities insisting on strict compliance while other would accept a transfer without ever seeing the documentation.

The lease is for four years: 07/10/2022 to 06/10/2026.
So it is definitely more than six months. I can post the relevant lease agreement/terms with personal details redacted.

The leasing company is the DVLA registered keeper, but my wife has had exclusive use of the vehicle under the long-term lease.
Waltham Forest's correspondence specifically requested the hirer's details and the lease start/end dates and said that once supplied they would “transfer liability”.

I don't currently know whether the leasing company's original representations were accepted under the statutory hire-firm ground or on the basis that they were not the person keeping/owning the vehicle.

Would the correct next step therefore be to establish exactly which statutory ground Waltham Forest accepted when it cancelled the leasing company's PCN?

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Waltham Forest 53c – Brookfield Ave / Shernhall Street – Lease transfer,
« on: August 26, 2026, 09:12:05 pm »
Thank you

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Waltham Forest 53c – Brookfield Ave / Shernhall Street – Lease transfer,
« on: August 24, 2026, 05:42:55 am »
Hi all,

I'd appreciate some advice on whether this is worth taking to London Tribunals rather than paying the re-offered £80 discount.

This is a Waltham Forest moving traffic PCN, code 53c, for entering the Brookfield Avenue E17 / Shernhall Street E17 School Street pedestrian/cycle zone.

The contravention itself isn't really what I challenged. My concern is whether the replacement PCN issued after the lease company transferred liability was served within the statutory time limit.

Timeline

- 05/05/2026 – alleged contravention at 08:42.
- 12/05/2026 – Leasing Company received the original PCN.
- 27/05/2026 – Leasing Company submitted a transfer-of-liability request.
- 24/06/2026 – Waltham Forest wrote back saying the information supplied was insufficient and requested the hirer's name/address and the lease start and end dates.
- 24/06/2026 – Leasing Company supplied the requested information, including the lease dates and signed statement.
- 22/07/2026 – replacement PCN issued to my wife.
- 23/07/2026 – replacement PCN received.
- 23/07/2026 – formal representations submitted challenging the timing and specifically asking Waltham Forest to provide the date the original PCN was cancelled, Notice of Acceptance/cancellation, case chronology and date the replacement PCN was posted.
- 17/08/2026 – Notice of Rejection issued.

My understanding is that under section 6(2A) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (as amended), where an earlier PCN is cancelled, a fresh PCN cannot normally be served more than 28 days from the date of cancellation of the previous PCN.

The problem is that Waltham Forest has still not disclosed the cancellation date.

In the Notice of Rejection they simply state:

"The legislation permits the authority to reissue a postal PCN/Notice to Owner (NtO) when valid evidence, such as a hire agreement or vehicle sale documentation, is received identifying the liable party. The statutory time limit starts again from the date the notice is reissued. The PCN was therefore reissued within the applicable statutory time limits and remains valid."

They have not told us:

- when Leasing Companies original PCN was cancelled;
- when the transfer was actually accepted;
- provided the Notice of Acceptance/cancellation;
- provided the requested case audit trail; or
- explained how they calculated the statutory deadline.

Much of the remainder of the rejection deals with the School Street signs and exemptions, despite my representation being primarily about whether the fresh PCN was served in time.

Leasing Company has confirmed that it cannot see any Notice of Acceptance on its records.

The council has now re-offered the £80 discount for 14 days from service of the Notice of Rejection. Otherwise I can appeal to London Tribunals and risk the full £160 if unsuccessful.

I'd be grateful for advice on:

1. Is my understanding of the 28-day period from cancellation under s6(2A) correct?
2. Is the council's statement that "the statutory time limit starts again from the date the notice is reissued" legally correct?
3. Does their failure to disclose the cancellation date / properly address that part of my representations give me an additional appeal point?
4. Would you take this to London Tribunals or pay the £80?
5. If appealing, which ground should I use — "the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case" due to service out of time?
6. Should I register an appeal now with detailed grounds to follow, or wait until nearer the discount deadline?

I will upload the original PCN, representations, Leasing Companies correspondence and the full Notice of Rejection.

Many thanks for any advice.

4
Private parking tickets / Gemini PCN → Debt Recovery Plus → Empira pre-legal letter — leased car, hirer challenged, Gemini sai
« on: July 04, 2026, 01:29:50 pm »
Hi all,

I’m looking for advice on a private parking charge which started with Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd, was then chased by Debt Recovery Plus, and is now being chased by Empira with a “pre-legal” style letter.

No County Court Claim Form has been received.

Important point: this is a leased vehicle. The registered keeper is the leasing company, not the individual receiving the later debt letters. The individual receiving the later letters is the hirer/lessee. The driver has not been identified and liability has not been admitted.

Key details
Parking operator/creditor on original PCN: Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd
Location: GLL Waltham Forest Feel Good Centre, London E17 5AA
Alleged parking event date: 24/10/2024
Vehicle: leased vehicle
Registered keeper: leasing company
Individual receiving later correspondence: hirer/lessee
Driver has not been named
Liability has not been admitted
Amount now being chased: £170
No County Court Claim Form has been received
Original Gemini Parking Charge Notice

The original Parking Charge Notice was issued by Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd and was addressed to the leasing company.

It states:

Date of issue: 06/11/2024
Alleged contravention: Failure to Pay for Duration of Stay
Entry time/date: 11:47:02 on 24/10/2024
Exit time/date: 13:27:11 on 24/10/2024
Location: GLL Waltham Forest Feel Good Centre
Original charge: £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days
Payment evidence

There is a payment receipt showing:

Seller: Gemini Parking
Purchase date: 24/10/2024 at 12:49
Parking period: 12:45–13:45
Amount paid: £1.20
Location: GLL Feel Good Centre
Vehicle registration matches the vehicle

So payment was made and covered the vehicle until after the ANPR exit time of 13:27. However, Gemini appear to be alleging the full duration of stay was not paid for, because ANPR recorded entry at 11:47 and the paid session began at 12:45.

Hirer challenge to Gemini

The hirer challenged Gemini by email on 07/12/2024.

The email stated that the hirer:

was writing as the hirer of the vehicle;
formally disputed the charge;
denied any liability or contractual agreement;
did not admit who was driving;
stated that the Notice to Hirer failed to comply with POFA Schedule 4;
stated that the documents required under POFA Paragraph 14(2)(a) had not been supplied;
said the hirer could not be presumed to have been the driver.

A follow-up was sent on 08/12/2024 attaching a PDF version of the dispute letter.

Gemini response

Gemini responded around 10/12/2024.

Their response included this wording:

“Please be advised that this notice is not issued under POFA legislation and as a result the points mentioned in your email are not relevant in this case.”

They also said that notices are issued where terms and conditions are deemed breached, and that payment/validation data is processed through their payment match system. They said that at the final stage, registered keeper details are requested from the DVLA and a written notice is sent to the registered keeper giving an opportunity to appeal or transfer liability to the driver.

This appears important because Gemini seem to have confirmed they are not relying on POFA.

Hirer reply after Gemini said not POFA

The hirer replied again on 11/12/2024, pointing out that if Gemini are not relying on POFA, then they cannot hold the hirer liable simply because they are the hirer of the vehicle.

The hirer stated that any claim would need to rely on evidence of a personal contractual agreement with the hirer/driver, which was denied. The driver was still not identified.

Debt Recovery Plus stage

After this, the hirer/lessee received several Debt Recovery Plus letters. The ones available are dated:

07/01/2025
30/01/2025
14/02/2025
31/03/2025

These letters list the creditor as Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd, location as GLL Waltham Forest Feel Good Centre, reason as Failure to Pay for Duration of Stay, and amount as £170.

Some of the wording says the recipient has not responded or has missed payment deadlines, but there had already been correspondence with Gemini in December 2024.

Empira stage

A later letter from Empira dated 05/05/2026 was received. This was headed “Formal Notice of Debt Recovery”.

This letter confusingly listed the client as:

APCOA Parking (UK) Limited

That is confusing because the original PCN and Debt Recovery Plus letters all identify Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd as the operator/creditor.

A further Empira letter dated 01/07/2026 has now been received. This says:

“Pre Legal Instruction – Referral for Court Action”

It says the account is being prepared for referral to Gladstones Solicitors with a recommendation that legal proceedings be commenced.

This later Empira letter lists the client as:

Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd

It also says it is issued in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, but it does not appear to include a full Letter of Claim pack, Reply Form, Information Sheet, Financial Statement form, or supporting documents.

APCOA confusion

There is also some APCOA branding appearing in the background of the payment/communications process. The payment receipt screen shows APCOA/ScanPay branding, but the seller is shown as Gemini Parking. Some email responses also appear with APCOA branding, despite being from Gemini/Gemini-related addresses.

So the timeline appears to be:

Gemini original PCN → Gemini email exchange → Debt Recovery Plus → Empira, with some APCOA branding/inconsistency appearing along the way.

Main questions

1. Given Gemini stated the notice was not issued under POFA, and the driver has not been identified, can they pursue the hirer at all?
2. If Gemini are not relying on POFA, would they need to prove that the hirer was the driver or personally entered into the parking contract?
3. Does the fact this is a leased vehicle strengthen the position, given the registered keeper was the leasing company and the hirer has not admitted being the driver?
4. Was the hirer’s December 2024 response sufficient to put Gemini on notice that liability was denied and the driver was not being named?
5. Is the latest Empira letter a compliant Letter of Claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, or is it still just a pre-legal/debt recovery letter?
6. Should the hirer now respond to Empira with a short “debt denied / refer back to Gemini / no POFA liability / no driver identified / provide documents” letter, or continue to wait unless an actual County Court Claim Form arrives?
7. Does the inconsistency between APCOA and Gemini matter, especially where one Empira letter names APCOA as the client but the PCN and later letters name Gemini?
8. On the parking facts, payment was made from 12:45 to 13:45 and the vehicle exited at 13:27, but ANPR entry was 11:47. Is there any realistic argument around payment/signage/grace periods, or is the stronger point simply that Gemini are not using POFA and have not identified the driver?
9. Should the hirer now request:
- the original Notice to Keeper sent to the leasing company;
- any Notice to Hirer;
- all documents used to transfer liability from the leasing company to the hirer;
- hire/lease documents they rely on;
- all ANPR images and payment records;
- signage from the date;
- landowner authority;
- breakdown of the £170;
- copies of all correspondence;
- confirmation of the legal basis for pursuing the hirer when they have stated the notice was not issued under POFA?

Any advice on the best next step and wording would be appreciated.

Redacted documents

Original Gemini PCN:



Payment receipt:



Latest Empira pre-legal letter dated 01/07/2026 — front:



Latest Empira pre-legal letter dated 01/07/2026 — back:



Empira formal debt recovery letter dated 05/05/2026 naming APCOA:



Example Debt Recovery Plus letter dated 31/03/2025:



I can also provide redacted screenshots of the Gemini email exchange if needed, including the response where Gemini stated that the notice was not issued under POFA.

5
Private parking tickets / Gemini Parking Ticket from 2023
« on: January 17, 2025, 04:23:36 pm »

Hi everyone,

There was a previous post here about a parking charge notice (PCN) issued by Gemini Parking Solutions, and an update is now needed along with further advice. Here's the full background:

The PCN was issued in July 2023 for a leased vehicle. The driver parked in a car park and entered an incorrect digit for the vehicle registration while obtaining a ticket.

Gemini Parking Solutions first sent the PCN to the lease company, which then provided the details of the individual leasing the vehicle.

The PCN was sent to the individual without the required lease documents or hire agreement, which was the foundation of the appeal. An appeal was sent via recorded delivery, but no response was ever received.

By October 2023, DRP (Debt Recovery Plus) had contacted the individual with two letters. The most recent letter at the time threatened legal action if there was no response within seven days. The advice here at the time was to ignore DRP, as they cannot enforce the charge by law, so no action was taken.


After months of silence, a “Notice of Debt Recovery” has now been received from DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd). They are demanding £170 and state that legal action may follow if payment isn’t made within 14 days.

A copy of the letter is attached for reference.

What steps should be taken next? Should this letter also be ignored, or does the involvement of DCBL change the situation? Any advice or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for the help!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

6
Private parking tickets / Re: Seeking Advice on PCN Received After Parking Payment Issues at Soft Play
« on: December 11, 2024, 08:25:34 pm »
Quote from: DWMB2 on December 10, 2024, 11:59:29 pm
So they say you can't appeal by email, then take up much of the email responding to your appeal - having their cake and eating it?  ;D

You could leave it, having made your point. Or you could respond briefly as follows:

Dear Sirs,

I note the contents of your recent correspondence. I welcome your confirmation that you have chosen not to make use of POFA legislation and are therefore not seeking to hold me liable for this charge as the hirer of the vehicle.

As I now have written confirmation from you that you are unable to recover the charge from me, I see no need to appeal further, as we seem to be in agreement that I do not owe you anything as the hirer of the vehicle.

I trust this will be the end of the matter, however, any further attempts to hold me liable will be vigorously defended.

Yours faithfully,

Response-

'Thank you for contacting Gemini Parking Solutions


My apologies for the delay in responding to you.


As previously advised, please head to our website and submit an appeal, if no appeal or payment is made within the stipulated 28 days then this parking charge will be passed over to debt recovery 


Kind Regards,
Gemini Parking Solutions'

7
Private parking tickets / Re: Seeking Advice on PCN Received After Parking Payment Issues at Soft Play
« on: December 10, 2024, 11:22:56 pm »
Response below from Gemini.
Email template was first sent without pdf (template as text within body of email) and then sent again with pdf attached -


Thank you for contacting Gemini Parking Solutions


My apologies for the delay in responding to you.


All appeals must be submitted in writing and sent to our appeals team either using our online portal or postal address below:
 
Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd
PO Box 5767
Dingwall
IV15 0AX
 
Please ensure that you include your full name and address, vehicle registration number, and the Parking Charge Reference when submitting your appeal. 

Please be advised that this notice is not issued under POFA legislation and as a result the points mentioned in your email, are not relevant in this case. Gemini Parking Solutions issue notices when the Terms and Conditions of parking are deemed breached. Payment and validation data is received and processed by our payment match system, and if no payment or validation can be located during this process, a Parking Charge Notice is automatically generated, and issued in accordance to the International Parking Communities (IPC) guidelines.

At the final stage, Registered Keeper details are requested from the DVLA and written notice is sent to the Registered Keeper, advising them of the alleged contravention and providing them the opportunity to submit an appeal, or transfer the liability to the driver at the time of the event if they believe the notice has been issued incorrectly. 


Kind Regards,
Gemini Parking Solutions

8
Private parking tickets / Re: Seeking Advice on PCN Received After Parking Payment Issues at Soft Play
« on: December 07, 2024, 05:51:28 pm »
Quote from: DWMB2 on December 07, 2024, 05:12:06 pm
I read it as meaning they put the content that would otherwise have gone into the PDF into the body of their email. Would be useful for the OP to clarify.

Correct, content was sent in the body of the email instead of as an attachment within a pdf.

9
Private parking tickets / Re: Seeking Advice on PCN Received After Parking Payment Issues at Soft Play
« on: December 07, 2024, 04:00:04 pm »
Apologies, I did and forgot to update here!
The email was sent with the PCNN number and template.
Should one be resent as a PDF this time?

10
Private parking tickets / Re: Seeking Advice on PCN Received After Parking Payment Issues at Soft Play
« on: December 07, 2024, 02:14:38 pm »
Attempting to appeal via Gemini website and the attached image is of the mandatory field that must be selected when appealing.

Is there an email I can appeal to?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

11
Private parking tickets / Re: Seeking Advice on PCN Received After Parking Payment Issues at Soft Play
« on: December 07, 2024, 12:58:00 pm »
The Hirer recieved the attached letter today, no other associated letters, other than this one.
How should they proceed?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

12
Private parking tickets / Re: Seeking Advice on PCN Received After Parking Payment Issues at Soft Play
« on: November 22, 2024, 10:40:54 am »
Yes, the lease company has the hirer’s current address and assume, has passed it on to Gemini. Additionally, the hirer was not the driver at the time of the incident.

13
Private parking tickets / Seeking Advice on PCN Received After Parking Payment Issues at Soft Play
« on: November 21, 2024, 08:02:49 pm »
On 24/10, the driver took their children to a soft play center. Upon arrival, they found that the payment machine for parking (cash/card) was either out of order or the process had moved entirely online. The driver attempted to use the designated app to make payment but encountered significant issues: poor signal and technical difficulties with the app itself prevented the payment from going through.

After spending about 10 minutes trying to resolve the issue, the driver had to prioritize their children’s soft play session, which was about to begin. They decided to head inside with the intention of sorting the payment once inside. Unfortunately, the driver became distracted and didn’t attempt payment again until roughly 30 minutes later. At that point, they successfully completed the payment, as evidenced by the receipt. However, they were unable to backdate the payment on the app and could only pay for an hour starting from the time the transaction was processed. The driver is aware that their total stay slightly exceeded the hour paid for.

Recently, the lease company informed the vehicle’s keeper that they had received a PCN (Parking Charge Notice) related to this incident. The lease company has charged a £12 admin fee for handling the notice and has contacted the issuing company, Gemini, requesting that the notice be readdressed to the driver directly. They advised that no appeal should be made until the PCN is issued in the driver’s name. As of now (21/11), the driver is still waiting for Gemini to send the notice directly to them.

Key Questions:

Are there grounds to challenge this PCN?

Given that payment was ultimately made (albeit delayed), and that genuine issues with the app and signal caused the delay, does the driver have a valid basis to contest the PCN?
Does the inability to backdate payment on the app provide further grounds for challenge, especially since the driver paid for as much time as they could from the point the transaction was completed?
What should the driver expect when the PCN arrives?
Are there specific details or evidence that Gemini must provide, particularly in the case of a private lease vehicle?

Does Gemini have any legal obligations to provide additional evidence?
For instance, should Gemini provide photographic evidence of the vehicle’s entry and exit, a timeline of the parking session, or a detailed breakdown of the alleged breach?

Does the fact that payment was made for an hour, even if slightly under the full duration of the stay, provide grounds for mitigation?
Could the fact that a payment was made and the overstay was marginal help challenge the validity of the PCN?

Any advice, similar experiences, or guidance on how to handle this situation would be greatly appreciated. The driver wants to ensure they approach this correctly and fully understand their rights before taking action. Thank you!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Pages: [1]