DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13341--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Driver86
Date: January 5, 2024, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
After I submitted, they have now attached their response which
they had missed off in error initially.
Here is their text - with their additional photos on the
document attached- the photo's they've used to prove signage are
from nearly 5 years ago.
Gemini have had a contract in place at Queens Hospital since
27/01/2016.
All vehicles parked at this site must be parked within a valid
and marked bay.
Bays are marked with white or yellow lines
Parking is not permitted outside of a marked bay, in the
roadways, on cross hatched areas or on yellow lines.
A valid blue badge must be clearly displayed within the
windscreen of the vehicle when parked in a blue badge bay
Terms of parking are sign posted upon entry to, throughout and
along all exit routes of this car park.
Parking charge notice issued to vehicle.
Upon observation this vehicle was seen to be parked unattended
in a blue badge bay on the 25/09/2023 without a valid blue badge
on display.
The appellant has appealed claiming that they are the keeper and
that their vehicle had a person with a disability.
We can confirm that this appeal was rejected as:
a)
As per the signage on site, a valid blue badge must be clearly
displayed within the windscreen of the vehicle when parked in a
disabled person’s blue badge bay. No evidence of a Blue Badge
was provided.
b)
The appellant appealed via the ticket on vehicle and confirmed
that they were the keeper. They were afforded the opportunity to
provide driver details. The keeper chose not to do this, and
their appeal was subsequently rejected.
c)
As can be seen below, there is clear and present signage on site
pertaining to Blue Badge Bays. Signage has been present since at
least 2019 and remains present to this date.
d)
Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car
park, these are accepted. It is the driver’s responsibility
prior to leaving their vehicle in the car park, to ensure that
the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and
conditions of that site.
e)
There are nearly 8.5 million people with disabilities in this
country and driving provides the means for disabled people to
access goods and services; and being able to park in accessible,
wide parking bays are vital parts of this accessibility. We have
consulted with and taken advice from organisations for people
with disabilities who aim to improve awareness among the general
public of the impact misuse has on disabled people. We strongly
feel that being disabled brings enough obstacles and
difficulties without the misuse of disabled bays and aim to
ensure that designated disabled persons parking bays are used
only by those entitled to do so.
The appellant has now submitted an appeal to the IPC in which
they state there are no clear signs indicating that this bay is
reserved for the use of Blue Badge holders. As can be seen in
the images provided, there is clear and present signage, there
are also adequate floor markings. The appellant states that
signage was added after the contravention. As can be seen below,
this is not correct.
See attachment for their evidences. They've given some random
bay photos from early 2019, and have not addressed the fact that
their signposts state they are members of BPA. Nor have they
provided evidence of a notice to keeper...
I'm thinking to either send to arbitration as it is...or should
I keep appealing for them to respond? (which seems like I might
go in circles)
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 13343--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 5, 2024, 2:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Does the website give you the opportunity to respond to the
operator's late data dump?
#Post#: 13422--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Driver86
Date: January 7, 2024, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does...and then it gives them another opportunity too.
#Post#: 13423--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 7, 2024, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Go for it then. And remember - it doesn’t matter if you lose
because a loss isn’t binding on you. But if you win, it’s game
over
#Post#: 14399--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Driver86
Date: January 27, 2024, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok so they have dismissed my appeal, and it looks like a bog
standard copy and paste template. I dont believe they've
actually read through the details. Here it is:
"It is important that the Appellant understands that the
adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The
adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has
a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of
each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally
binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they
are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.
However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or
solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their
understanding of the law and legal principles.
The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by
the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not
mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The terms of this appeal
are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed
and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking
events.
The markings in and around the bay that the Appellant's vehicle
parked in make it clear that disabled parking only is allowed in
the bay. I consider it reasonable to assume that by parking in a
clearly marked disabled bay a driver must also clearly display a
Blue Badge in order to prove that they are entitled to park in
such a bay. In such situations it is the driver's responsibility
to ensure that a Blue Badge is correctly displayed. While noting
the Appellant's comments, the photographic evidence shows that
no Blue Badge was available for inspection at the time the
vehicle was observed. As no Blue Badge was available for
inspection in the vehicle I feel it is appropriate to have
issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The images provided of the
Appellant's vehicle are time and date stamped, clear and of high
quality. I am satisfied that the correct vehicle is identified
and that the correct Appellant is pursued.
The Operator provides photographic images of the Appellant's
vehicle from various angles, which clearly show that the vehicle
is parked in a disabled bay while not displaying a valid Blue
Badge. I am satisfied that the Appellant was clearly parked
within a disabled bay. In such bays, the terms and conditions of
parking mean that if the driver cannot clearly display a Blue
Badge they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree
to pay the charge. Whether or not they are a Blue Badge holder,
the contractual terms make it clear that any driver parked in a
disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid Blue Badge
agrees to pay a charge. I am satisfied on the evidence provided
that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at
this site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the
contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified
parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that in
the circumstances the correct Appellant is pursued.
Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant, I am satisfied
that the Operator has proved their prima facie case. Once
liability has been established, only the Operator has the
discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on
mitigating circumstances.
Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
My thoughts:
1. None of the images of my vehicle show a disabled parking only
signage - what is the adjudicator referring to?
2. The images which show disabled signages are not current but
date stamped from 2019 - 5 years ago. Other images given by
operator are from another outdoor forecourt car park which I
will not have driven past to the indoor car park - this was of
no relevance to my vehicle.
3. The adjudicator says he/she has some sympathy with appeallant
- why? I did not ask for sympathy nor any extenuating
circumstances or for forgiveness.
4. Adjudicator does not address issue with none service of NTK
or that operator was seeking keeper liability via POFA.
I am certain this was a copy and paste job form the adjudicator.
What can I expect next?
#Post#: 14401--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 27, 2024, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What can I expect next?
From the creditor: a series of letters demanding payment. I
think your unreasonably high expectations of a fair shake from
IAS have been dashed. C'est la vie. It changes nothing, the
assessor's decision is 'a guide'. I like playing a straight bat
in these situations so I would write to the creditor, note the
assessor's decision, respectfully disagree, reiterate that you
will not be paying the driver's alleged parking charge, advise
that you will not respond to any extra-procedural correspondence
from them and ask them to pursue you as keeper to a competent
court as soon as the law allows.
With respect, there's no point keep rehearsing your complaints
and understanding of events here because we're not decision
makers: the die is cast; the ball is in the creditor's court and
all you can do is wait..your problem is that the theoretical
time bar to them pursuing you doesn't come for nearly 6 years.
NB. don't complain to us, complain to the Ministry of Justice!
From PALS: I don't know whether you're still pursuing this
route.
#Post#: 14404--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 27, 2024, 8:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HCA is spot on, as usual. If Gemini takes the case to court at
any time in the next 6 years, follow the advice over on
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou/p1<br
/>and you should win.
Gemini is now part of APCOA, who rarely go to court.
I would also add that, in view of the 6 year time limit for
Gemini to commence court proceedings, it is vital that whenever
you move home in the next 6 years (in addition to updating your
driving licence and V5C vehicle registration as required by law)
you must notify Gemini's data protection officer of your new
address and require the erasure of your old address. The
easiest way to get a CCJ is to allow a PPC to sue you at your
old address. Royal Mail post forwarding is not 100% foolproof
and nobody keeps it going for 6 years.
Send this to DPO@Geminiparkingsolution.com and DPO@apcoa.com
after each move in the next 6 years:
Dear Sirs,
PCN [ ] VEHICLE [ ]
I dispute this charge and intend to defend any claim initiated
in relation to it.
Please note that I no longer reside at the address shown on the
PCN and correspondence sent to me there will not reach me. I
require you to erase my former address from your records. My
new address is [ ] and I attach proof
thereof.
Yours faithfully,
Be sure to attach proof of your new address, ideally a V5C
vehicle registration document (for any vehicle) but a utility
bill or some official communication will do.
#Post#: 14417--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: b789
Date: January 27, 2024, 12:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jumping in late on this but the OP appears to not understand
that they are safe from having to pay these scammers a penny.
The OP was advised that an appeal (Plan C) to the IAS was a
waste of time and effort yet went ahead anyway.
Ignore the response from the IAS. They are a kangaroo court. You
are home and dry on this. They would be stupid to try and
proceed to Plan D which is a court claim. They are relying on
there OPs gullibility to either dob themselves in by revealing
the identity of the driver which is the only way they would have
any grounds to continue on to a court claim.
[member=73]Driver86[/member], you need to understand that they
have no idea who was the driver. Only the driver can be held
liable for the PCN. The only way they would know the identity of
the driver is if you blab it.
In civil law, the "driver" and the "keeper" are two separate
entities. They cannot hold the "keeper" liable because they have
failed to adhere to PoFA in more ways than one. They failed to
issue a NtK within the prescribed period. They are not allowed
to "presume" anything, especially whether you were the driver
just because you are the keeper.
You are home and dry. Ignore all future correspondence from
these muppets and any debt collectors. The only thing you need
to respond to is a Letter of Claim/Letter Before Claim (LoC/LBC)
or an actual claim itself. As already pointed out, whilst they
are definitely intellectually malnourished, they would be
extremely stupid if they were to actually fork out money and
issue a county court claim because this is so easily defendable
if you follow the advice.
Carry on with your life and stop worrying. Come back if they are
stupid enough to issue a county court claim within the 6 years
from the date of the parking event. Unlikely but just be aware
of it.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page