Free Traffic Legal Advice

Gemini notoriously abandoned the BPA and joined the IPC, presumably because the IPC is more indulgent of their approach which is to issue POFA non-compliant NTKs and refuse to deal with appeals from keepers unless they identify the driver.  IPC stands for this nonsense; BPA not so much. Gemini seems not to have updated its signs at this location

Anyway, the latest letter from Gemini precisely fits within its current modus operandi and does not cure the incurable POFA fail.

If PALS won't help, make a formal complaint to the hospital complaints department

If PALS won't respond, go to the CEO of the trust.

Plan A is still the best route.

Nope the IPC's appeals service is heavily rigged against the driver, much more so than the BPA's but the DVLA allow them to continue as an ATA anyway.

The operator's signs are incorrect as they display the wrong Accredited Trade Association. Is the hospital aware that their contractor is so blatantly failing to comply with CoP requirements and therefore bringing significant reputational risk to the Trust?

Now I know what you mean by rigged against the appellant. The IAS basically tell you that if you go to arbitration, then only the operators information will be considered - LOL.

I'm no fan of the IAS, but your screenshot in no way supports your conclusion. It does not say or imply that only the operator's information will be considered. It says the opposite  It tells you that the operator has made a number of assertions but failed to upload any documents in support of those assertions.  It then invites you to respond to the operator's assertions and (if you wish) to upload further documents yourself.  IAS has given you a golden opportunity to nail the operator.  Here's a rough outline for your response, I'm sure you and others will be able to improve it - just be sure not to miss the deadline for responding.

The operator's "prima facie case" fails to address the points raised in the appeal and is unsupported by any evidence.  This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.

The operator claims that it "is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA".  However, the operator has provided no evidence that it has complied with any of the conditions for keeper liability under PoFA, merely claiming that a "manual ticket was placed on the vehicle on 25/09/2023".  This does not come close to satisfying the PoFA conditions for keeper liability which include (among other things) the delivery of a PoFA-compliant "notice to keeper" within the "relevant period" as defined in PoFA.  The operator does not claim to have delivered a notice to keeper at all, let alone a PoFA-compliant one and, indeed it did not do so. Even assuming that the "manual ticket" referred to by the operator was itself a PoFA-compliant notice to driver (as to which the operator has provided no evidence) the 'relevant period' for delivery of a PoFA-compliant notice to keeper has expired without the delivery of any notice to keeper, let alone a PoFA-compliant one. This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.

The operator asserts that "the charge is based in Contract".  However, the operator has provided no evidence of any contract, let alone a contract to pay the parking charge.  As proved by the evidence supplied in my appeal, there was no signage at the time of parking that complied with the requirements of the IPC Code and which was capable of giving rise to a contractual obligation to pay the parking charge. So even if (which is not the case) the operator had availed itself of the opportunity to use PoFA to transfer the driver's contractual liability to the keeper, there is no contractual liability to transfer. This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.

The operator has offered no response to the evidence in the appeal proving that its signage was seriously misleading in that it claimed falsely that the operator is affiliated to the BPA and conceals the operator's affiliation to the IPC. This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.

The operator has neither asserted nor proved that it owns the car park or has a current authorisation from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges. This alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.

I’ve never bothered to find out if there’s a character limit. You can type your comments in a document and upload it, in which case all you need to type in the box is “Please see uploaded document.”

Many thanks! I've submitted my response so fingers cross that nails it. Next step will be arbitration if they still waffle on.

And the hospital?