-
Hello, I recently had an emergency oil light come up on my London LEVC Black Taxi so went to Euro Car Parts, which was closest. When going into the parking area, there was no spaces with the Euro Car Parts area, so parked next to them, at Cromwells. I noticed a member of the Cromwells staff outside, and asked if this was okay, which they said yes. When leaving the shop, I noticed a Parking Warden and asked him if I was okay, where I had parked, for which he replied yes.
I have now received this PCN.
I am the Hirer if the saud vehicle. Do I have any grounds to appeal.this PCN or should I just pay it. Thank you, in advance, for any help. -
-
Along with the Notice to Hirer did you receive other documents?Quote
(2)The conditions are that—
No?
(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
(c)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
No surprise.
Your appeal will be that Gemini Parking Solutions can not hold you, the hirer, liable for the actions of the driver, whom you will not identify.
They will reject your appeal, because they always do, but you are right and they are wrong if so. Come back here if they do. Look here for a suitable appeal for a Notice to Hirer without accompanying documentation.
Such asQuoteDear Sirs,
I have received your Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):
A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.
As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled -
-
As the Hirer you have no liability. Only the driver can be liable and they have no idea of the drivers identity as long as you do not blab it, inadvertently or otherwise, like you have done in your opening post.
The Keeper/Hirer must always refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".
Firstly, the Hirer cannot respond that Parking Charge Notice (PCN) unless it is addressed to the Hirer by name. If it is only a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that was issued the the Keeper, then the lease company must transfer liability to the Hirer by providing the creditor (the parking company) with copies of the following documents:• a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
• a copy of the hire agreement; and
• a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
This is a requirement of PoFA paragraph 13.
Once the lease company has done this, they are off the hook and the creditor must then issue a Notice to Hirer (NtH) in their name. Once the Hirer has received the NtH, then they can respond.
In almost every case involving a lease/hired vehicle, the creditor will fail to include copies of those required documents and a copy of the original NtK with the NtH, thereby rendering creditor powerless to pursue the Hirer. Only the unknown (to the creditor) driver can be liable and unable to do anything. This is all staged in PoFA paragraph 14.
Additionally, the Notice you have shown us is not PoFA complaint with paragraph 9(2)(a) which also means that even the Keeper cannot be liable if they were to challenge it themselves and is also another point you can use in any defence or appeal.
So, please confirm whether this is an NtK or NtH and then we can provide the necessary appeal, even though it will be rejected by the creditor and the kangaroo court that is the IAS. However, if they were to try and litigate this, they wouldn't stand a chance in court and more likely than not, they would only take it that far in the hope that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will pay up out of ignorance and fear.
So, is the PCN you have shown us a copy of the NtK addressed to the lease company or an NtH issued in the Hirers name? -
-
Gemini can’t be bothered to comply with the law because most recipients of notices like these just pay up anyway. You can be in the minority!
-
-
Thanks for your response. The picture on my 1st post shows in the Contravention Section, "Notice is hereby given to the Hirer ...", so is a NTH, in my name.
I have included the back of the letter, in this post, which states in the second paragraph, under 'Useful Information', that "The vehicle keeper data has been obtained from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency...". It says that they have provided details, that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.
Do I need to clarify from the leasing company, that they have not provided Gemini with any other details, or am I still okay to use the conditions for Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”)?
Thank you again. -
-
Fairly easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known Hirer (the recipient of the Notice to Hirer (NtH) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtH 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 Hirer.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the Hirer 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 Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer 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 Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable. Gemini have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
As Gemini are IPC members, after the initial appeal is rejected (it always is, no matter what is in the appeal), you will be able to appeal to the kangaroo court that is the IAS. The IAS are not independent are in fact the same company that owns the IPC. However you have to go through the motions and you can enjoy a bit if Schadenfreude knowing that it will cost Gemini for the IAS appeal unless they concede.
The way this will pan out is that eventually you will receive a county court claim which is easily defended using our advice and the claim will eventually be struck out or discontinued. The only reason they go all this way is that they hope you are low hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will eventually pay up out of ignorance and fear.
So, when you receive the appeal rejection, you can appeal with the following to the IAS as your next step in this farcical process:QuoteI am the Hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Hirer complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on Hirer liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
In particular, where the vehicle is hired or leased, paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 requires that the operator must provide a copy of the documents described in paragraph 13(2)—namely: a copy of the hire agreement, and a copy of the statement of liability signed by or on behalf of the hirer—as well as a copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) sent to the vehicle Keeper. The operator has failed to provide copies of these documents, meaning they have not complied with the statutory conditions to pursue the hirer. In the absence of full compliance with paragraph 14, liability cannot be transferred to the hirer.
5. Strict proof that the NtH was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator 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.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers”. Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that Hirer liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles. -
-
Thank you so much to b789 and jfollows, for your in depth replies, which I will be following in full, for the appeal Tuesday morning. Again, as always brilliant. I'll keep you updated with how it goes.
-
-
Hello b789.
I received the attached letter (pdf) from my response to their pcn.
I just wanted to check, should I still reply with your exact appeal quote dated 10 August, from the letter they sent.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards.
Kevin. -
-
No, they’re fishing for you to identify the driver, so ignore and in two weeks you can receive their rejection and send the IAS appeal proposed above, which will also be rejected but will cost Gemini for the process.
-
-
On the 28 August, I received a letter, to my appeal. (Link Provided)
https://imgur.com/JL1XWzI
I wanted to ask a couple of things:
1. It is quite a bit past the 14 days, that they said they would hold the Parking charge for. Should I remind them of the deadline having past or just wait.
2. The last sentence in the appeal response letter (Link Provided above), it says, "Failure to provide the information by the required date will result in the appeal being processed using only the evidence that we currently have".
From the last sentences wording, would it be possible that they have more information I'm unaware of, or am I being paranoid and just wait for their response.
Thanks. -
-
Do you think your paranoia may have something to do with the fact that you have posted your full name, address and vehicle details on the internet for anyone to see? You should always redact your personal information, especially your name and address!
In the meantime, you do nothing until they reject the initial appeal. You definitely do not respond to that letter. Once the appeal is rejected, you have the IAS appeal that you should submit in reply #5 above.
Perhaps you should re-read the advice already given. As long as the driver is not identified, they have nowhere to go with this except to try and persuade you to pay up out of ignorance and fear!
-
-
Hello b789.
Thank you for your response.
Brilliant! I did actually edit the image but must have uploaded the original by mistake. For what it may bedworth, I've now deleted the link. I will wait, for their next move.
-
Agree x 1
View List