Author Topic: PCN by Gemini - Failure to pay for duration of stay (But did not stay)  (Read 206 times)

0 Members and 65 Guests are viewing this topic.

Good afternoon everyone,

The registered keeper of the vehicle received Link PCN saying the vehicle failed to pay for the duration of stay. They provide images of the vehicle and say the vehicle arrived at 16:03 on 7/4/26 and left at 14:12 on 8/4/26.

The vehicle attended and left the site on the 7th  and again on the 8th. Each time not staying for more than 30 minutes. They have merged the two and claimed the vehicle stayed till the following day.

Please help.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2026, 03:31:00 pm by DontStandForNonsense »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook



Hi,

I have, but I still can't understand what was wrong with the post?

Hi,

I have, but I still can't understand what was wrong with the post?
Show us the things you are talking about!
But I note you have posted the PCN, I missed this originally, sorry.

It looks like a typical “double dip” so you need to tell them accordingly, ie their equipment is faulty and their claim is wrong and you won’t be paying.

Bottom line is that if they insist on pursuing you we will advise at each stage, if they don’t see sense.

Apologies, there are too many people here who don’t post relevant information in the way that you did.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2026, 03:49:20 pm by jfollows »

Hi,

I have, but I still can't understand what was wrong with the post?
Show us the things you are talking about!
But I note you have posted the PCN, I missed this originally, sorry.

It looks like a typical “double dip” so you need to tell them accordingly, ie their equipment is faulty and their claim is wrong and you won’t be paying.

Bottom line is that if they insist on pursuing you we will advise at each stage, if they don’t see sense.

Apologies, there are too many people here who don’t post relevant information in the way that you did.

Thank you. I hadn't heard of this double dip term before but it describes the scenario I think :)

Search the forum for lots of examples.

It also proves that their supposed “checks” before issuing notices are lies, otherwise they wouldn’t happen.

Agree.

Make sure not to identify the driver on any appeal, your wording of 'tge vehicle' is good as it doesn't even imply the same driver on each day. If you could figure out what time the vehicle left on 7th and arrived on 8th you could include this.

Winner Winner x 1 View List

Search the forum for lots of examples.

It also proves that their supposed “checks” before issuing notices are lies, otherwise they wouldn’t happen.

Question,

What checks and balances exist to determ companies from doing this?

Imagine how many people do they smack with this nasty tactic. If there's no oversight on this, why wouldn't they just go on doing it. I'm not convinced it is a system or equipment error. No doubt many people just pay it because they can't remember, can't be bothered or don't have the time to appeal them.

They should be investigated and if found to have many such tickets, they should be made to pay it all back with interest and fines.

Self-regulation and non-compliance with the code of practice https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130426-2.pdf

Quote
NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary.

They don’t care, they only want your money and they know that lots of people just give it to them.

They could easily implement a system checking for three entry/exit records for the same vehicle, because I bet in your case your first exit was missed and they attached your second exit to the first entry. But that’s would mean less ££ for them.

You can complain to the IPC, but that’s just an exercise in futility.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2026, 10:09:47 am by jfollows »

Thankfully they cancelled the ticket. Here is their response:


Re: Parking Charge Number 0051207800 (Vehicle: HY16VXS)

Site: GLL Palmer Park

Issue date: 17/04/2026

We refer to your correspondence regarding the above PC issued to your vehicle. We have investigated your case and have
considered the points that were raised.

We are pleased to confirm that on this occasion your appeal has been upheld and this PC has been cancelled. No further
action is required at this time.

Gemini Parking Solutions fully complies with the guidelines set by the International Parking Community. Please note that
photographic evidence is taken with every PC that is issued.

Yours sincerely,

Appeals Department
Gemini Parking Solutions London Ltd.
Winner Winner x 1 View List