Free Traffic Legal Advice

It's non-PoFA. Easy one 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 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.

No guarantee that they will accept it as they are scammers and are out to get your money.

You can simply ignore them or have a bit of fun at their expense. I already drafted a letter for a similar UKPC request earlier today. Here is the response, adapted for your situation:

Dear Gemini Appeals Department,

Thank you for your letter dated [date] regarding Parking Charge Reference [Reference]. Your generous "gesture of goodwill" in placing the charge on hold is appreciated, however, as there is no legal merit to your claim, I can assure you that this is entirely unnecessary

Unless there is a competent adult there that can assist you, I will explain why I will not be acceding to your request for the "full name and address of the driver." Asking for information that I am under no legal obligation to provide is, to put it kindly, ambitious.

As I already pointed out in my original appeal, I am appealing as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not require me to identify the driver. Attempting to hold me liable without Gemini fully complying with all the requirements of Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 says a lot about what appears to be gross incompetence by your company. You might want to review the legislation to avoid similar errors in future.

Your failure to meet the statutory requirements means that liability for this charge cannot be transferred to me as the Keeper. It seems you are now fishing for information in an attempt to correct these oversights. Sadly, for you, this isn't how the law works.

I note your insistence on trying to identify the driver, despite having issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) that fails to comply with PoFA. Without such compliance, you hold no legal basis to transfer liability from the driver to me, the Keeper. While I appreciate your attempt to persuade me into volunteering information that the law does not compel me to provide, I must politely decline.

Your three "options" are noted, though they seem to overlook a fourth and legally sound course of action, that you cancel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to your inability to pursue the matter under the legislation that governs private parking. For the avoidance of doubt:

1. I will not be naming the driver.

2. I do not need to obtain the driver's consent to appeal, as I am under no obligation to identify them in the first place.

3. I certainly will not be paying this speculative invoice.

Additionally, should you choose to reject this appeal, you will be doing nothing more than confirming your own incompetence. I will immediately appeal to the IAS, where you have absolutely no chance of success due to your repeated failures to comply with the law. All you will achieve is wasting your money on the IAS fee in the process.

I suggest that you consider passing this response to an adult who can actually deal with it properly and perhaps even comprehend why you have no hope at IAS. I recommend researching PoFA Paragraph 9, doing your homework, and understanding why your Notice to Keeper is not compliant. Until then, your continued insistence on pursuing this matter borders on the ridiculous and says a lot about the levels of intellect within Gemini.

Since the outcome here is obvious, I suggest saving us both time and effort by cancelling this parking charge immediately. Should the intellectual malnourishment prevail and you refuse, I look forward to receiving an IAS code so an independent appeals assessor can confirm what you clearly cannot grasp.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

My bad. I had APCOA on my minder some reason. Response amended accordingly. 

APCOA acquired Gemini Parking Solutions in 2022.

I’m sure mention of either company in the response will make the point.

Let's see how they respond with their appeal rejection.

Here is a suitable IAS appeal you could use. Some would suggest a more serious approach. However, I have zero respect for the IAS or anyone who purports to be an adjudicator for them. Unlike POPLA, they operate anonymously and their rate of upholding appeals is under 4% which is derisory when compared to POPLA which is around 45%.

Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [Reference Number]

Dear Sirs,

This appeal exists solely to expose the procedural incompetence of Gemini Parking Solutions and the flawed nature of this entire process. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I was not the driver on the date of the alleged contravention. There is no legal obligation for me to identify the driver, and neither Gemini nor the IAS can assume or infer otherwise.

1. Non-Compliance with PoFA

Gemini’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and they therefore have no legal right to transfer liability to me as the keeper.

Failure to issue the NtK within the relevant period:

The alleged contravention occurred on 18/10/2024. The NtK was issued on 30/10/2024. Even under the most generous interpretation of deemed service, this is beyond the 14-day "relevant period" set out in Paragraph 9(4)(b) of PoFA.

Failure to include mandatory information:

The NtK lacks the full details required under Paragraph 9(2) of PoFA, rendering it legally insufficient.

Gemini Parking Solutions’ blatant disregard for statutory requirements is their problem, not mine.

2. I Am Not the Driver

For the avoidance of doubt, I was not the driver on the date of the alleged contravention. However, I decline to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. There is no legal obligation for me to do so, and there is persuasive appeals case law supports this position.

Any assumption or inference by Gemini or the IAS that I, as the keeper, must also be the driver is both legally unfounded and embarrasingly desperate.

3. Gemini’s Lack of Evidence

Gemini has failed to provide credible evidence:

• Of the alleged contravention.
• That their signage at the site meets the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice.
• Of a contractual agreement between the driver and Gemini Parking Solutions.
• That they hold a valid contract flowing from the landowner to issue PCNs in their own name.

This entire case rests on speculative invoicing, not legal merit.

4. The IAS’s Role

I have no illusions about the IAS process. It is well known that the IAS appeals process is designed to protect IPC members at the expense of fairness and legality. The anonymity of the adjudicator and the IAS’s abysmally low success rate for appellants suggest this appeal will likely be rejected, regardless of the facts.

However, I am submitting this appeal as a matter of principle, fully confident that a real court—presided over by a qualified judge—will promptly dismiss Gemini’s baseless claim.

5. Conclusion

1. Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to comply with PoFA, and liability cannot be transferred to me as the keeper.

2. I was not the driver, and I am under no obligation to name the driver.

3. The PCN is legally unenforceable and must be cancelled.

Should this appeal be rejected, it will serve only to further highlight the IAS’s lack of independence and Gemini’s predatory practices. I look forward to addressing this matter in court, where proper legal standards apply.

They don't like it up 'em Pike! Of course they withdrew. They don't have a chance if this were ever to go to court. The IAS probably advised them as such.

A win is a win. Well done.