However.. . As Gemini are IPC members and any initial appeal will be rejected, no matter what, on second thoughts, I suggest that rather than submit an appeal, a formal complaint which must also be considered as an appeal is going to be a better option as it will also require them to respond to the issues raised in the complaint rather than wasting time and effort on an IAS kangaroo court secondary appeal.
A formal complaint under the PPSCoP section 11.2 must be considered and treated as an appeal. Because there are notable errors in the Notice to Keeper (NtK), a formal complaint also requires them to respond to the following points:
The big black and white statement on the front of the NtK is in breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) because the Keeper is allowed to appeal up to 28 days after “receipt” of the NtK, not 28 days after the date of “issue”.
This is also important because any breach of the PPSCoP invalidates the operators KADOE contract with the DVLA and means that they have unlawfully used your DVLA data.
In a formal complaint, you should require them to evidence the date they actually sent the NtK, not just the date it was generated or “issued”. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2 states that parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
I would place money on the fact that they cannot provide this evidence, which is another breach of the PPSCoP for the DVLA to investigate and puts Gemini at risk of losing their right to access DVLA data in future.
