Free Traffic Legal Advice

IAS Appeal Submission – PCN 002835585
Operator: Gemini Parking Solutions
Date of Issue: 05/03/2025
Site: Cromwells – Barking

I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. This parking charge must be cancelled for the following reasons:

1. No Keeper Liability – Non-compliance with PoFA 2012

Gemini Parking Solutions has chosen to pursue the registered keeper without complying with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The Notice to Keeper issued in this case fails to meet any mandatory requirements under Paragraph 9 of the Act, including the absence of a specified period of parking, and fails to include the required statutory warning under Paragraph 9(2)(f). As such, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable.

It is therefore irrelevant whether the driver was identified. In the absence of PoFA compliance, the keeper has no liability. The operator's rejection letter, stating they will pursue the keeper based on a so-called “reasonable assumption” that the keeper was the driver, is an unlawful overreach and a misrepresentation of legal position. This is precisely the sort of manipulative tactic that PoFA was designed to prevent.

2. Unreasonable Behaviour – Misleading Legal Assertions

The operator’s rejection relies on the deeply flawed and legally unsustainable notion that a keeper can be pursued “unless they name the driver”. This is not supported in law. In fact, the entire legislative framework of PoFA 2012 exists to provide a lawful alternative to requiring the keeper to name the driver, provided the operator complies with the statute—which Gemini have not.

It is disingenuous and misleading for the operator to present a presumption of liability as fact, particularly in circumstances where the statute expressly precludes it. The IAS should not reward operators for attempting to short-circuit the legal protections afforded to registered keepers.

A Note on This Tribunal’s Credibility

While I submit this appeal, I wish to place on record that I have no confidence whatsoever that the IAS will provide a fair or independent assessment of the matter. The fact that the assessor remains anonymous and unaccountable raises obvious questions about transparency and impartiality. One must reasonably ask why, if the IAS has confidence in its integrity, it refuses to disclose even the basic legal qualifications of the person purporting to judge matters of statutory compliance and contract law.

It is rather telling that such fundamental details are withheld. I suspect the truth may be that the assessor lacks the legal training to properly interpret or apply the law—particularly where PoFA is concerned—and that decisions are too often little more than rubber stamps for IPC parking operators who fund this so called “independent” scheme.

Nevertheless, should the assessor wish to prove me wrong, I openly invite them to identify themselves and set out their legal qualifications in the determination. I am not holding my breath.

Conclusion

This parking charge must be cancelled. Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to establish keeper liability under PoFA and has relied instead on an unlawful presumption that has no basis in law. Anything less than cancellation would reinforce concerns that this tribunal is not independent and operates to protect the interests of its paying members rather than to uphold the law.

I await your determination—preferably one that includes a name, and some indication that the person writing it has even a passing familiarity with PoFA.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]