Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

I’m seeking advice on a PCN issued by Gemini for parking at Gunnersbury Park on 9 April 2025. I’ve read a few similar threads here, and really appreciate how supportive and knowledgeable everyone is — thank you in advance!

The basics:
• Date of alleged contravention: 09/04/2025 (15:57 to 18:05 – 2h08m stay)
• Date on Notice to Keeper (NTK): 28/04/2025
• Received: around 2 May
• Reason: “Failure to pay for duration of stay”

Context:

I’ve been using the sports centre in Gunnersbury Park regularly since July 2023 — at least 5 times for 2 hours+ — to play badminton. Each time I book and pay for court usage properly, and up until now, I’ve never received a PCN or seen anything that made it clear I needed to pay for parking.

So when I got this PCN, I was genuinely shocked. I wasn’t trying to “get away” with anything — I simply didn’t realise there was a separate parking charge. I’ve never noticed signs telling me to pay, and logically assumed that if I’m paying to use the sports centre, then basic parking should be included — like in most council-run or public recreational spaces.

I understand that signs may technically exist (Gemini submitted loads of signage photos to IAS), but they’re just not obvious to drivers heading directly to the sports centre. I’m not someone who’d risk a fine over a few pounds. If I had known, I would’ve paid — simple as that.

What I’ve done so far:
• Appealed to Gemini (rejected)
• Appealed to IAS (done yesterday)
• Gemini’s IAS response claims(just received):
• I overstayed without paying (ANPR data shows 2h08m)
• NTK wasn’t issued under PoFA, so the 14-day rule “doesn’t apply”
• Signage is “clear and sufficient”
• 585 people paid that day (so I “should’ve known”)

My questions:
1. PoFA issue – Can they claim keeper liability if they didn’t serve the NTK within 14 days and say it’s not PoFA-compliant?
2. Signage and fairness – If signs technically exist but are easily missed or misleading in layout/context (especially to long-time facility users), is that a valid challenge?
3. Genuine user angle – Does my regular usage of the courts, with proof of booking and no past issues, help show this wasn’t intentional or careless?

I’ve uploaded
    1. Screenshots/photos of the entrance to the park sport centre from public road dated 2024. From my perspective it’s the sole driveway to the sport centre. Two big signage of PARKING are there but no hint for Gemini parking details.

2. Gemini’s parking map and I marked these information in it 1) the Google street view points of the above and Gemini parking is another 50m+ away from it to start. 2) my parking location at that day , closest to the sport centre but distant away from any signage. 3) sport centre location

    3. Gemini information that sent to IAS about their signage in the carpark

This feels unfair, and I don’t want to just pay out of frustration. Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks so much!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks for advice and I posted my first appeal to Gemini here

I will not be paying this invoice for several reasons:



1. Longstanding Use of Gunnersbury Park Without Parking Charges

I have regularly visited Gunnersbury Park for over four years to use the sports facilities, particularly for family badminton sessions, and have never previously been required to pay for parking. There were no obvious signs or notifications indicating that parking arrangements or charges had changed on the date in question.



2. Lack of Clear and Compliant Signage at Entrance

You claim to follow the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Clause 19.2 of that Code requires prominent signage at the entrance to any controlled parking zone, giving drivers a fair opportunity to review the terms before entering. This requirement was clearly not met. I did not see any clear sign indicating parking enforcement at the entrance to the car park.



If signage has recently changed, I request timestamped photographic evidence of all signs in place on the date in question, including entrance signs.



3. Non-Compliant Sign Placement and Accessibility

Signs should be visible without leaving the vehicle (Clause 19.9, BPA Code) and must not be obscured or placed too high for average drivers or disabled users. If the signs were only placed on one side, or poorly maintained or visible, then the enforceability of any implied contract is severely undermined.



4. Genuine Park User with Proof of Booking

I booked and paid for badminton at the park’s sports centre for that time slot and can provide the booking confirmation as proof of legitimate use. I trust that this will be considered in line with fairness and common sense.



Given the lack of compliant signage, the absence of fair notice, and my longstanding and lawful use of the facilities, I believe this charge is invalid and request that it be cancelled immediately.



Please respond to every point I’ve raised. I reserve the right to escalate the matter to POPLA or other bodies if necessary.

This is the appeal to IAS


Appeal Grounds:

I am submitting this appeal based on the following key reasons:

1. Notice to Keeper Served Late (PoFA 2012 Non-Compliance):
The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was served after the legal 14-day window prescribed by the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The contravention occurred on 9 April 2025, but the NTK was only issued on 28 April 2025, meaning the notice was sent beyond the 14-day period allowed under PoFA. As the Notice was served late, I believe Gemini Parking Solutions has failed to comply with the requirements of PoFA, which should render the charge invalid.

2. Lack of Proper Signage and Compliance with BPA Code of Practice:
   •   Signage Visibility & Clarity: The parking area at Gunnersbury Park did not have prominently displayed signage at the entrance, which would comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, specifically Clause 19.2. Clause 19.2 requires clear signage at the entrance to the controlled parking zone, providing the driver a reasonable opportunity to make an informed decision. There was no visible sign at the entrance indicating any terms and conditions related to parking, including any parking fees or enforcement.
   •   Signage Within the Car Park: The signage that was present inside the car park was not visible from a reasonable distance or in a position that was easy to read without leaving the vehicle, which is a violation of Clause 19.9 of the BPA Code. The signs were not visible enough, and the parking terms were unclear, leading to confusion and an inability to comply with the rules.

3. I Was a Genuine Park User with Proof of Booking for Badminton Session:
I had booked a badminton session at the park’s sports centre, and I can provide booking confirmation as proof of my legitimate use of the facilities. I believe this shows that my use of the parking space was in line with the purpose of visiting the park and should be considered in the context of fairness. It should also be noted that I have regularly used the park facilities over several years without any prior issues with parking charges.

4. Inadequate Payment Mechanism or Lack of Payment Signage:
While I was not initially aware of the parking charge requirements, there were no clear instructions on how to pay for parking at the time of the alleged contravention. The lack of adequate information regarding payment procedures, especially with no visible signs, further supports my case that the charge is invalid.

the key documents I have uploaded
   1.   Booking Confirmation: Proof of my badminton booking.
   2.   Photographs: photos of the parking area that I shared here at the Google street view
   3.   NTK Copy: A copy of the Notice to Keeper that show the late issuance of the notice.
   4.   previous email or letter correspondence with Gemini Parking Solutions regarding your initial appeal
   5.   my Vehicle Registration Document


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I marked more clearly about the incident happened at the day in question (pls see attached map )I entered through the “Green Gate” entrance. The signs there are pretty generic—nothing that jumps out saying there’s a parking charge or a risk of penalties. Gemini’s actual car park is another 50 metres or so further down the path, past the sports centre entrance, and I didn’t park in that main car park. I stopped in the exclusive parking area by the sports centre—closer to the entrance and quite a bit further away from any Gemini signage or machines.

From where I parked, there were no visible signs to indicate that parking wasn’t allowed or that I needed to pay. I genuinely didn’t realise I had to take any action. Had I seen clear signage or a pay machine nearby, I would’ve paid—no question. I’m not someone who would deliberately ignore a rule or try to avoid paying a few pounds.

It feels like this was a simple misunderstanding due to the layout and lack of prominent, clear signage. If anyone here has seen similar cases or knows how IAS might view this, I’d really appreciate your insight on how best to word my final response.

Thanks in advance!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Yes, if the driver has not been identified then the lateness of the Notice to Keeper means that liability can not be transferred to the registered keeper, as you say.

The IAS make a lot of the fact that they only uphold 4% of appeals, but assuming they don’t uphold yours you don’t have to do anything other than wait for Gemini to take action against you, when you can come back here for input.

Quote from: FNS2021 on May 14, 2025, 11:16:34 am

"I have regularly visited Gunnersbury Park for over four years to use the sports facilities, particularly for family badminton sessions, and have never previously been required to pay for parking."

"I booked and paid for badminton at the park’s sports centre for that time slot and can provide the booking confirmation as proof of legitimate use."

"I believe this shows that my use of the parking space was in line with the purpose of visiting the park and should be considered in the context of fairness."

"While I was not initially aware of the parking charge requirements, there were no clear instructions on how to pay for parking at the time of the alleged contravention."

If you have not referred to the driver in the third person and only said things like "I did this and that" rather than "the driver did this and that", then you have blabbed the drivers identity. End of and a wasted "golden ticket".

The driver is always liable. The Keeper can only be liable if the creditor has issued a notice that fully complies with all the requirements of PoFA. The Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver, even if the Keeper was the driver. However, by not referring to the driver in the third person, the Keeper is basically admitting to being the driver and any Keeper protection from PoFA failures is in the bin.

Ah, I see now — I’ve definitely messed that up by writing everything from “my” point of view and not keeping the driver separate. That was a rookie mistake on my part, and I really appreciate you pointing it out.

Looks like I’ve lost the PoFA protection due to that, which is frustrating but fair enough.

Given that, do you think it’s still worth continuing the IAS appeal on signage/fairness grounds, or should I just wait and see if Gemini take it to court?

Thanks again — lesson learned!

Have you already submitted your IAS appeal? If so, then they'll be making a decision either way so just let it play out.

If not, I wouldn't bother personally. It's hard enough to convince POPLA to rule favourably on signage, let alone the IAS.

Thanks for the advice.
I’ve not submitted the final IAS appeal yet.
Given what you said about the low success rate and the way IAS tends to side with the operator, I’m considering skipping it and waiting to see if they try court action instead.
Is that the better approach at this stage?

Take into consideration the fact that IAS is a waste of time and effort. At some point, Gemini may decide to issue a debt claim which can be easily defended.

In most cases, a claim never reaches the point of an actual hearing as the majority are either struck out or discontinued. The very few that make it all the way are usually won.

You have to decide whether you want to fight this all the way, especially as you feel the PCN has been issued unfairly. If you do, then you can ignore all debt recovery letters as they are powerless to actually do anything except to scare the low-hanging fruit to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Come back if/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we can advise further. To date I don't think we've seen a single Gemini PCN go as far as an LoC.

Here is a link to an identical PCN at the same location that ended up being cancelled:

Gemini Parking Solutions - Gunnersbury Park

Thank you for the detailed information and the link to the similar case. It’s reassuring to know that others have successfully challenged similar PCNs from Gemini at Gunnersbury Park.

I haven’t submitted my final IAS appeal, and based on your advice and the general consensus about the IAS’s effectiveness, I think it’s prudent to skip it.

I agree that the PCN seems unfair, especially considering the lack of clear signage and the fact that I was using the sports facilities at the time. I’m prepared to contest this if it escalates to a Letter of Claim.

I’ll keep an eye out for any further correspondence and will return for guidance if I receive a Letter of Claim. Thanks again for your support.

Quote from: b789 on May 14, 2025, 09:35:17 pm

Take into consideration the fact that IAS is a waste of time and effort. At some point, Gemini may decide to issue a debt claim which can be easily defended.

In most cases, a claim never reaches the point of an actual hearing as the majority are either struck out or discontinued. The very few that make it all the way are usually won.

You have to decide whether you want to fight this all the way, especially as you feel the PCN has been issued unfairly. If you do, then you can ignore all debt recovery letters as they are powerless to actually do anything except to scare the low-hanging fruit to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Come back if/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we can advise further. To date I don't think we've seen a single Gemini PCN go as far as an LoC.

Here is a link to an identical PCN at the same location that ended up being cancelled:

Gemini Parking Solutions - Gunnersbury Park

Thank you for the detailed information and the link to the similar case. It’s reassuring to know that others have successfully challenged similar PCNs from Gemini at Gunnersbury Park.

I haven’t submitted my final IAS appeal, and based on your advice and the general consensus about the IAS’s effectiveness, I think it’s prudent to skip it.

I agree that the PCN seems unfair, especially considering the lack of clear signage and the fact that I was using the sports facilities at the time. I’m prepared to contest this if it escalates to a Letter of Claim.

I’ll keep an eye out for any further correspondence and will return for guidance if I receive a Letter of Claim. Thanks again for your support.

Although I know IAS appeals rarely succeed, I’m still considering submitting a final reply — not because I expect to win, but to make it clear to Gemini that I’m not ignoring the matter or afraid to engage. I genuinely believe the PCN is unfair and I’m prepared to stand my ground rather than pay out of fear. Do you think sending a response (without naming the driver) helps reinforce this position, or is it better to skip IAS entirely and wait to see if they escalate?