DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84895--------------------------------------------------
Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: Kbonner
Date: August 9, 2025, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 84899--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 9, 2025, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Along with the Notice to Hirer did you receive other documents?
--- Quote ---
> (2)The conditions are that—
>
> (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.
--- End Quote ---
No?
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.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
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 as
--- Quote ---
> Dear 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
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 84900--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: b789
Date: August 9, 2025, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
[indent]• 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.[/indent]
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?
#Post#: 84902--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 9, 2025, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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!
#Post#: 84960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: Kbonner
Date: August 10, 2025, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 84967--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: b789
Date: August 10, 2025, 5:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
--- Quote ---
> I 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.
--- End Quote ---
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:
--- Quote ---
> I 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:
>
> [indent]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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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.[/indent]
>
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85047--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: Kbonner
Date: August 10, 2025, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 87555--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: Kbonner
Date: August 28, 2025, 9:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 87557--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 28, 2025, 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 90705--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gemini Parking Solutions PCN - No Permit
DIR By: Kbonner
Date: September 19, 2025, 4:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On the 28 August, I received a letter, to my appeal. (Link
Provided)
HTML https://imgur.com/JL1XWzI
HTML 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.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page