I’ve just received a PCN from Gemini Parking Solutions for an alleged contravention that apparently occurred back in June 2022!
Is this PCN still valid from a time perspective? At first I didn’t even recognise the vehicle but it may have been a courtesy car during a vehicle repair
I assume I’ll still need to use their appeal page? can I base it on the date of incident or go with please cancel as it won’t hold up on pofa?
PCN details:
Is that Notice to Keeper (NtK) addressed to you as the Keeper? If it was a hired/leased vehicle, you were never the Keeper. They would have issued the original NtK to the Hire/Lease company. They would then have sent a copy of the here/lease agreement signed by you and then Gemini would have had to issue a new Notice to Hirer (NtH) in your name.
So, is it addressed to you, in your name? Can you confirm that you were never the registered keeper of that vehicle?
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/Hirer.
Yes, the NtK is addressed to me and I wasn’t ever a registered keeper of the vehicle. It was a temporary hire courtesy car while a vehicle in our house was being repaired.
The notice is addressed to you as driver, so the POFA / Hirer arguments are not relevant. Presumably the lender has identified you as the driver? But do they actually know that.... was anyone else authorised to use it?
Yes, others also had access to use it.
So I assume pofa schedule 4 re keeper/hirer is not liable nor will I be disclosing the driver is the route to take for appeal?:
“This notice is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it was issued well outside the statutory relevant period. I was not the driver and there is no keeper liability. Please cancel the charge”
I’m pretty surprised that it’s deemed acceptable to issue a PCN over 3 years after the incident occurred.
How would it be possible to evidence further. arguments like clear signage was on site at the time, etc if it were to go to POPLA?
Thanks
A claim for breach of contract can be pursued for six years.
However PoFA 2012 limits transfer of liability to the registered keeper from the driver to two weeks, and to the hirer in the case of hired vehicles for a bit longer.
But, again, why was this sent to you as “driver”? Your reply seems simple enough.
It won’t “go to POPLA” because Gemini isn’t a BPA member, but even if the IAS rules in their favour, it can still be ignored because neither APCOA nor Gemini “do” court anyway.
Thanks
I’ll send my response through their appeal page
I cannot see the PCN. Please confirm a few things before you possibly FUBAR this...
The notice is addressed to you as driver, so the POFA / Hirer arguments are not relevant. Presumably the lender has identified you as the driver? But do they actually know that.... was anyone else authorised to use it?
There is NO WAY that this could be addressed to you as the "DRIVER"!!!!! No one knows who the driver was unless the Hirer blabbed it. The Notice simply says that the driver is liable, which is always the case for any PCN. The important point is that as long as the driver is not identified, and there is no legal obligation on the Hirer/Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company, then they can only transfer that liability from the unidentified driver to the Hirer/Keeper if PoFA is fully complied with.
So, whatever you have received was not and never ever was sent to you as the "driver" unless you blabbed to them that you were the driver.
So, please answer the question... Is that Notice addressed to you in your name as the Hirer of the vehicle or is it just a copy of the NtK that was sent to the Keeper (hire/lease/garage owner) in their name and they have simply forwarded it to you?
Do not appeal without answering that question or you are quite possibly going to throw away a perfectly good "golden ticket".
For the others providing advice, please understand that any Notice can never be addressed to the driver unless the Hirer/Keeper decided to throw the driver under the proverbial bus and identified that person as the driver. The driver is always liable, whether identified or not. The only concern is whether liability can be transferred from the unidentified driver to the Hirer/Keeper.
2nd sentence of 'Useful information' on page 2 - 'As you have been named as the driver, we invite you, the named driver, to pay this PCN, or provide us with the name and current address of the driver'
So the keeper (or someone up the line) appears to have named the OP as the driver, but can they actually know that?
2nd sentence of 'Useful information' on page 2 - 'As you have been named as the driver, we invite you, the named driver, to pay this PCN, or provide us with the name and current address of the driver'
So the keeper (or someone up the line) appears to have named the OP as the driver, but can they actually know that?
They can't. If the Hire company said you were the driver, you can put them to strict proof, which they cannot evidence.
OP, pl stop assuming, joining up dots and reading into docs what they are not. Let's just stick with facts and procedure.
1. It is not a Notice to Keeper. Apart from anything else, it doesn't say it is.
2. Read what it says, which is that 'You have been named as the driver of the vehicle'. It also states that 'they[the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency] have provided the details overleaf[presumably those of the addressee as no others are mentioned]as those of the registered keeper..'.
3. Its title is 'Parking Charge Notice', but given that the only relevance of this term is within the Single Code of Practice(non-regulatory) and Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012(statutory) and that the so-called PCN fails to meet the minimum standards under either, then it has no statutory effect or relevance under the Code.
I suggest you do not treat it other than it deserves which is to deal with it relevant section by relevant section and do NOT start with the presumption that it is a Notice to Keeper.
Dear Sir,
Your Notice headed Parking Charge Notice dated 8 October 2025
I refer to the above which was received by me on ****, approx. 4 years and 6 months after the events to which it refers i.e. an alleged 'contravention' by the driver at the time in June 2022 and your claim that they owe you £100.
The notice further states that 'As you have been named as the driver, you are invited to pay the charge' and then, rather confusingly, goes on to say that the DVLA have provided the 'details overleaf', presumably those of the addressee, those details being held by them on their list of 'registered keepers'.
So, although you say that you are writing to me as the driver, because someone has named me as such, nonetheless you are using DVLA data. I'm certain that the nonsense of these conflicting statements is not lost on you.
In any event, I will not be accepting your invitation to pay and would instead invite you to not send me any further correspondence other than to acknowledge receipt of this letter.
Thanks everyone for your input. It seems this topic cause a little bit of dispute on approach to take.
I received an email this morning from Gemini confirming my appeal had been upheld and the PC has been cancelled
Thinking that the thread had ended at the time, I had submitted my appeal before some of the later replies came through but thanks again all for your continued & generous assistance.
The appeal I submitted that thankfully didn’t FUBAR things was:
I am appealing as the hirer/keeper of the vehicle.
This notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for hire vehicles. No copy of the hire agreement or statement of liability was provided as required by paragraph 14(2), and the notice was issued well outside the statutory timeframe.
As such, there is no keeper or hirer liability, and I am under no obligation to name the driver. Please cancel this charge or confirm that no further action will be taken against me.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Hirer / Keeper
Thanks again to FTLA members
And to answer B789’s point, at no time was the driver disclosed by the hirer. The notice was addressed to me as driver presumably because the hire company provided my name a contact.
And to answer B789’s point, at no time was the driver disclosed by the hirer. The notice was addressed to me as driver presumably because the hire company provided my name a contact.
It was NOT addressed to you as the "Driver". It was addressed to you as the "Hirer". Nobody but you knew who was the driver at the time.
Still, well done for appealing only as the Hirer and pointing out the flaw in their notice.
Useful x 1
View List
Winner x 1
View List