Show Posts - mykohlany

Apologies I missed the IAS response. Now attached: https://storage.to/GE1dRqAKY

Hi everyone, thanks again for the help so far.Just an update to let you know that I have now heard back from the IAS and they have rejected my appeal. I don't feel their reply or the evidence Gemini provided is satisfactory, as it doesn't really address the lack of clear warning signs for the change in terms that happened in January.In my initial appeal to Gemini, I spoke in the first person and implied I was the driver. At the time, I just appealed out of instinct as the legal owner and registered keeper, but it was actually my partner who was driving. I’m concerned this might be used against me now.I’m not sure what the best move is from here. I’ve included a link below to the full appeal and Gemini’s response through the IAS portal. https://storage.to/GDb3AXnrmAny advice on what to do next would be really appreciated.

Hi RichardWThanks for the reply. To clarify the signage situation, while there may be signs present now, the driver (my partner) has used this location for years without any issues and simply didn't notice that new restrictions had been implemented because of that long-standing habit.I am hoping to appeal on the basis that there should have been a reasonable transition period or a "grace period" between the change in terms and the start of enforcement to allow regular users to adapt, especially since the free period was slashed so drastically from 3 hours to 30 minutes.Regarding liability, I am the registered keeper but I was not the driver at the time. I have handled the appeal process strictly as the keeper and have not disclosed the driver's identity to Gemini Parking Solutions. Do you think the lack of a proper transition period for the new signage, combined with the fact that they don't know who was driving, provides strong enough grounds for a successful challenge at the IAS stage? Here is a link to the PCN https://storage.to/G1AncMM0XA copy of the appeal is below:"I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice issued on 25 January 2026 at Brent Cross Town-Claremont Way. I believe this charge is unfair due to the very recent and drastic change in the parking regulations at this site.As a regular visitor who frequently takes my children to the nearby playground, I have always relied on the long-standing rule that allowed for three hours of free parking. I understand that at the start of January 2026, Gemini Parking Solutions changed this limit to only thirty minutes. This is a significant reduction in time for a community car park, and as a returning user, I was not met with any prominent or clear warnings that the rules I have followed for years had suddenly been amended.My overstay was a genuine oversight and was in no way a deliberate attempt to avoid payment. Had there been clear signage alerting regular drivers to the fact that the "3-hour rule" was no longer in effect, I would have paid the required fee immediately. I would never intentionally risk a penalty charge for the sake of a £1 parking fee.I am happy to pay the standard parking fee for the duration of my stay on that day to ensure there is no loss of revenue, but I kindly ask that you cancel the penalty charge itself. Now that I am fully aware of the new thirty-minute limit, I can assure you that I will comply with the new tariffs during all future visits. Given that this change is only a few weeks old, I hope you will show leniency toward a loyal user of the facilities.I look forward to hearing from you."Thank you for your help

Hi everyone, I’m looking for some help with a PCN I received from Gemini Parking Solutions at the Brent Cross Town (Claremont Way) car park. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.The driver (my partner) has used this car park for years to take the children to nearby activities because it always had a 3-hour free parking limit. However, it turns out Gemini changed the rules in the first week of January 2026, cutting the free time down to only 30 minutes. Because the driver is a regular user and there were no obvious "New Rules" or "Warning" signs, they didn't realize the terms had changed.The car was recorded by ANPR cameras staying for 57 minutes on 25/01/2026, which is well within the old 3-hour limit but over the new 30-minute one. I submitted an initial appeal as the keeper, explaining that we are regular visitors and weren't aware of the sudden change, but Gemini rejected it today.They haven't given me a POPLA code and told me I have to appeal through the IAS instead. I’ve read that the IAS can be quite difficult to deal with. Does anyone have experience with this specific car park or Gemini? I’m looking for advice on how to argue that the signage wasn't clear enough regarding the change in terms, and whether it’s worth fighting this at the next stage. Any help would be appreciated!