Hello all.
The driver visited a hospital when they parked in a bay which turned out to be for Blue Badge holders only. They did not see any signage as they drove into the bay. After they found the PCN, they looked around for signage but could not see where it is informing them that this is a blue badge bay.
Here is the front and back of PCN
https://ibb.co/kByrsww
https://ibb.co/r3S7DJMThey did notice as they reversed out that there was a disabled sign on the floor, not very well painted and not easily seen by oncoming traffic.
The evidence Gemini parking solutions have provided shows a sign post somewhere, but not with the car in sight of the signage - so it is anyones guess where this signpost was.
https://ibb.co/yV3LCgNhttps://ibb.co/YXTCBLHhttps://ibb.co/Z2Kw63MI appealed the PCN on the grounds that signage was inadequete and also that the vehicle was used to transport someone who is considered disabled (long term health condition). I also undertook my own investigation on 10th October and found that they had recently erected signposts where the vehicle was parked. Note - in Geminis evidence photos this signage is not present where the vehicle was parked. See my own photo here:
https://ibb.co/yQDY7HbI've attached the appeal I sent them to this post.
They responded with the following reply
https://ibb.co/GTg9LqdAs you'll notice, they havn't addressed my coments, and have not given me the code I require to appeal to BPA/ adjudication - does anyone know why this might be? and advice how to proceed here?
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
The driver visited a hospital when they parked in a bay which turned out to be for Blue Badge holders only.
If an occupant of the vehicle was a patient, then speaking to the PALS team at said hospital would be a good first step.
Your references to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act and keeper liability in the appeal suggest a slight misunderstanding of how that process works. What has been received appears to be a windscreen ticket, aka a 'Notice to Driver' - they are not claiming the keeper is liable, as the PCN has been issued to the driver. Paragraph 9 to which you refer, specifies the requirements for a Notice to
Keeper, issued by post, so is not relevant here.
I imagine they have sent the response that they have on the basis that they have issued a charge to the driver, but instead have received a response from someone claiming* to be the registered keeper. *I say 'claiming' here not because I dispute that you are the keeper, but because at this stage, Gemini have no confirmation that you are the registered keeper, other than your say so.
You may wish to remind them that the BPA Code of Practice requires them to respond to appeals from drivers and keepers.
Have you received any Notice to Keeper through the post?
As above, Plan A with private parking notices should always be the landowner, they own the land, set the rules and employ the parasite as their agent to enforce them.
Additionally with NHS parking the guidance for hospitals makes it clear that such notices should only be used to deter abuse of the parking and not to penalise genuine users and innocent mistakes, or issues arising from the hospital itself (such as over running appointments).
Spoke to PALS said they can't help due to it being a contractual/legal matter between driver and the company.
I havnt received a notice to owner. I'll send them an email reminding them that they should be responding to keeper and driver appeal.
Here's what it says in the letter:
2. If you are representing the driver we require a signed and dated statement from the driver of the vehicle confirming that you are authorised to appeal on his/her behalf; this needs to be an original signature and not a photocopy or a stamp. The statement MUST contain the drivers FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS.
Is this a load of rubbish?
(4)The notice [to keeper] must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
NTD - issued 25 Sept.
IMO, the latest date for delivery of NTK is, sorry was, 20 Nov.
It is immaterial for the purposes of PoFA that an appeal against the NTD was made, considered, responded to(with extended dates for action).
PoFA says what is says. They're too late to hold the keeper liable.
1. Gemini is not a member of the BPA but of the rival and even worse IPC. So the BPA Code of Practice is irrelevant. The IPC appeal scheme doesn't use appeal codes. You can access the IPC Code of Practice here -
https://www.theipc.info/publications.
2. For reasons known only to itself, Gemini doesn't bother to transfer liability to the keeper but instead refuses to handle keeper appeals unless the keeper identifies the driver.
3. Reasonable minds can disagree over whether it's worth the bother of trying to force Gemini to engage with the appeals process as they've lost the ability to transfer liability to the keeper anyway.
4. The PALS cop-out is a disgrace. In your shoes, I would escalate this to hospital complaints department pointing out that the hospital is responsible for the actions of its parking contractor. As with all communications relating to this case, do not identify the driver.
5. If the hospital doesn't make it go away, you are likely to get a lot of demands for payment from Gemini and its debt collectors which you don't need to take seriously, because they can't make you pay anything except by suing in the County Court and winning the case - which they will struggle to do as they failed to transfer liability to the keeper and there arguably isn't any liability to transfer due to the inadequate signage. If they escalate to the point of issuing a formal letter of claim (aka letter before claim or letter before action) giving 30 days advance warning of commencement of legal proceedings, you will need to take it seriously.
Come back for more advice if the hospital doesn't do the right thing.
Nosy Parker, regarding #2, the appeal is attached as a word doc at the bottom of the opening post.
OP, I agree with everything Nosy Parker says. Keep on at the hospital.
Thanks for your advice.
I've read through the IPC code of practice and it does appear they insist on the driver only. The appeals response I have attached in my first message
https://ibb.co/GTg9Lqd , can this be assumed to be the NTK? It doesnt say as much, and im not 100% certain if it meets all the requirements outlined in the IPC code of practice. I've attached the NTK code of practice to this post.
Just wondering, what is the risk of identifying driver to appeal? We have the evidence that regard8ng signage and any defence will be based on the same regardless who was driving?
I have until tomorrow to decide to appeal with driver or wait on NTK, if 28th november is the deadline since their last correspondence.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Just wondering, what is the risk of identifying driver to appeal?
The main 'risk' is that it reduces the number of potential defences available. All of one's eggs would be in the 'signage' basket - if that defence failed, there'd be no others available. Present two defence points, and only one needs to succeed for you to win.
I'll try to explain the whole keeper/driver issue as briefly as possible... Private parking charges are based on contract law. The contract (if one exists) is between the parking company and the driver. The registered keeper of the vehicle does not enter the contract. However,
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) provides a mechanism for private parking companies to recover these contractual charges from the keeper, if they don't know who was driving, and if they comply with certain requirements.
In this case, as Nosy Parker and H C Andersen both note, Gemini have not complied with these requirements, and so are unable to recover the charges from the registered keeper.
OP, you seem to be wanting to freelance this. Why?
You have been informed of the procedure and yet you still refer to driver and appeals.
I am a cynical old **** (AKA sceptical/challenging) and I'm less than convinced by the account regarding seeing the disabled sign when reversing out of the space but not when driving in. Of course you could formalise a complaint to the hospital, but IMO only if you are absolutely certain of events...but how could you be, unless you were the driver? You even have the NTD! Could you pursue a complaint with sufficient conviction NB. IMO, this has nothing to do with the creditor's procedures per se but simply whether the events occurred and whether even if they did as alleged by Gemini, this is in keeping with the Trust's obligations?
Alternatively, the procedural straight bat is to submit a Subject Access Request to Gemini requiring all personal data they hold on you. This should be their reply to your 'appeal', their request to DVLA for your RK details and a copy of the Notice to Keeper. Ideally you want them to admit - because they cannot produce - that a NTK was not sent in time.
Ok so their timeframe for issuing a NTK has passed. Should I just email them to ask if they have produced and delivered a NTK? Since they are now late.
Just thinking if they later claim they posted it.
This would be the way to go about that:
submit a Subject Access Request to Gemini requiring all personal data they hold on you.
Spoke to PALS said they can't help due to it being a contractual/legal matter between driver and the company.
The technical term for this is b
@LL@cks.
Gemini are only working with the authority of the Hospital, that is they represent the hospital in this matter as agents. Therefor the Hospital can clearly intercede with their agent in this matter. Most don't seem to want to but instead try and pretend that somehow they aren't responsible for the actions of their agents. Here the matter is even bigger as it's almost certainly the hospital itself who are responsible for painting and maintaining the signage (markings on the ground) that are in poor condition. As such escalate to a complaint and keep escalating, with an IPC member this is your only realistic prospect of killing this off without having to wait for a court claim or 6 year timeout (or paying).
I received another reply to my appeal. Attached to this message...are they within their timeframes? It appears to be more of a "proper" appeal response than th elast one which was fishing for driver details.
The IPC code of practice states Notice To Keeper should be issued after day 29 of NTD
PCN Issued = 25th Sept
I Appealed = 23rd Oct
1st Appeal reply = 31st Oct
Appeal reply 2 = 29th Nov
Still no Notice To Keeper. Have they used the 1st appeal reply as a Notice To Driver too, as it appears to be after 29 days since their reply?
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Agree x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
