Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome. First of all, we are not interested in useless debt collector letters. Neither should you be.

No need to show us and you can safely ignore them. Best to use them as kindling or lining the bottom of a litter tray.

If you have never received the original Notice to Keeper (NtK), you must ask yourself why? The most common reason is that when you last moved, you failed to update with the DVLA the address on the vehicles V5C. Updating your derivers licence with the DVLA does not automatically update the V5C. If it is the reason you did not receive the original NtK, you must update that now and it can easily be done online. You risk a real fine of up to £1,000 by failing to keep that document up to date.

If this is the reason you have not received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), you must send the DPO of Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd a Data Rectification Notice instructing them to update their files with your current address for service and for them to erase any other addresses they ay hold for you. The highlighted words are there for a reason and should be used. You do not want them holding a choice of addresses as there is a very high probability that any claim issued will be sent to an address you do not reside at and a default CCJ will be issued. It just makes everything so much more difficult to try and sort out later when you discover it.

As you have started receiving debt collector letters, it is too late to appeal. You are now waiting to see if/when they decide to escalate the matter to litigation. They may not but they have up to 6 years to file a claim.

The next important stage will be if/when they send a Letter of Claim (LoC) before any claim. An LoC is different from any debt collection letter in that it must conform to the requirements of the Pre Action Protocols (PAP) for debt claims. The most obvious one will be that you have 30 days, not 14 as in most Debt Recovery Agency (DRA) letters. Also, it will come either from the parking aerator themselves or, in most cases from a bulk litigation solicitor.

If/when you receive an LoC, come and show us as it is the prequel to a claim from arriving which cannot be ignored. These are very easy to defend and in most cases, they will eventually discontinue. Very few actually go all the way to a hearing and those that do, if defended with the advice given here, are either struck out or won.

There is no danger of a CCJ as long as your address for service is up to date and even if you were one of the very few who are not successful, as long as the CCJ is paid in full within 28 days of the judgment, there is no record of it on your credit file as it is completely expunged from the record.

So, if you are feeling aggrieved about this, there are likely to be more on the way and you are prepared to fight it with our advice, let us know if/when an LoC arrives. I remind you that debt collector letters can be safely ignored. Never, ever, ever communicate with the useless debt collectors.

The fact that the driver was always in the vehicle and that the engine was on, is irrelevant. As all the images of the location in GSV are old, it would be worthwhile getting some photos of the signs at the entrance and within the car park with some showing the general layout, especially near where you were parked at the time.

If the address has not changed for that period and your V5C is up to date, then it is likely that they never sent the required documents as part of their usual scam.

How long are you likely to be "away" at any one time? If it were to be for more than, say, two weeks, is there anyone else that could check your mail for you?

This is a drawn out process. If an LoC is sent, you have 30 days to respond before they can issue a claim. Even if you didn't respond to an LoC, it doesn't really matter. What is important is that any claim issued is responded to. Everything is done on line but the claim will be sent by post.

When a claim is issued, they allow 5 days for service of the claim and then you have 14 days from the date of service to do the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) which then gives you another 14 days toile a defence. So as long as the AoS is submitted within 14 days of service of the claim, you have 33 days (plus any non working days if day 33 falls on a weekend or a bank holiday) to file a defence.

So, is any of the above information of use regarding any amount of time you are likely to be "away"?

I would not advise an SAR at this stage. If/when they issue a claim you ca guarantee that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) will be woefully inadequate and an order for a strike out will be made as it will be impossible to plead a valid defence due to the claimants failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

With regards to contacting the Leisure Centre, that should have been your Plan A from the outset. Plan A is always the easiest way to get these PCNs cancelled. The Leisure Centre, as the contracting agent, is jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agent and as the sis likely to become a defended claim, they may want to reduce their own liability by getting it cancelled. Not good for business either if negative online reviews start appearing warning potential customers of the risk of being invoiced by unregulated private parking company for £100 a pop.

As I mentioned, we do not need to see any debt collector letters. They are irrelevant and can be safely ignored. The only document that has any importance, is the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). The one you have shown us, is not PoFA compliant as it has not been "given" within the required timeframe in order to be compliant with PoFA and so the Keeper cannot be liable for the charge.

The wording is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA either. So, I think it is fair to assume that GPSL are not relying on PoFA to hold the keeper liable. They have no idea who the driver is and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

As for asking the Leisure Centre to get their agent to cancel the PCNs without identifying the driver, all you have to tell them that, as the Keeper, you have received a PCN. They have no idea who the driver is either. A vehicle can be driven by any person as long as they have the owners permission and at least third party insurance. Anyone could be the driver.

You say that as the Keeper, you have received a PCN which has been issued unfairly. The driver was only dropping off your son for lessons at the Centre. No lie has been uttered and the drivers identity is not revealed.

As for the PCNs, easy to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Gemini Parking Solutions has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Gemini have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Gemini are likely to reject any appeal and, unfortunately, they are IPC members, which means the secondary appeal through the IAS does not have much chance either. The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) is a kangaroo court that only looks after its members interests and is definitely not "independent". You should still appeal to them and any rejection is collated to show the MHCLG why the enacted Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 needs to be expedited into effect.

Don't change anything the appeal. It is already stated that it does not comply with all the requirements of PoFA. They know that but hope you don't.

For an alleged contravention on the 7th Monday October, the issue date of the NtK would have to have been no later than Thursday 17th October.

For a matter like this, it might be more effective to email the CEO directly at peter.bundey@gll.org, especially if you wish to expedite a response. A direct email carries more urgency and is likely to be reviewed quicker. However, if you prefer a more formal complaint process or documentation trail, submitting through the complaint form on Better's website might be helpful.

Here's a suggestion for the email:

Urgent: Unfair PCNs Issued by Gemini Parking Solutions at Copthall Leisure Centre

Dear Mr. Bundey,

I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle BV15 SNK to bring to your attention a series of unjust PCNs issued by Gemini Parking Solutions. This vehicle was only briefly present at Copthall Leisure Centre on Monday mornings during September-October for the sole purpose of dropping off and picking up a student attending school swimming lessons.

The PCNs have been issued unfairly, stemming from what appears to be a vexatious and overzealous approach by Gemini Parking Solutions—an unregulated private parking company with a concerning reputation. This behaviour is especially troubling given their history as ex-clampers in the industry and lack of regulatory oversight.

As the CEO of the organisation managing Copthall Leisure Centre, I urge you to intervene and cancel these unjust charges. It is deeply disappointing to see patrons penalised for routine drop-offs, particularly when the intention was to support the Leisure Centre. I hope that GLL will ensure that such aggressive practices do not deter future patrons.

Thank you for addressing this matter urgently.

Sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper of BV15 SNK
[Your Contact Information]

An update: the first to respond was Copthall Manager (not the GLL CEO). Both PCNs have been cancelled.
More may be on their way for this 2-months period, but it is the end of the beginning.
It cheers me up when I come across a sane person in a service-oriented organisation.

Many thanks to b789 for taking time to advise.