Received a rejection of my appeal...
The operator’s case is that the motorist exceeded the noti ed maximum free parking period of 3hours.For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points,and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • Theywere taken into Southmead Hospital with a suspected heart attack. • Their wife decided to park in theleisure centre car park, rather than having to walk further using the hospital’s main car park. • Theyhave been a member of the leisure centre for 20 years. • Due to concerns with their health, theyexceeded the three-hour maximum stay time. • They were unaware that automatic number platerecognition enforcement was active at the site, or that overstaying would result in enforcementaction. • They did not intend to misuse the car park or breach any parking conditions. • The operatorhas failed to fully comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • Theoperator does not have the authority to issue parking charge notices on behalf of Everyone Active. •The parking charge notice states that £70 will be added at a later date, whereas the signs state thatan ‘additional charge’ will be incurred. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • A copy ofa redacted NHS letter; and • Copies of the parking charge notice. This evidence has been consideredin making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has providedcomments relating to their grounds of appeal.When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator issued the Parking ChargeNotice (PCN) correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the carpark as set out on the signs. The terms and conditions of the site state that the maximum stay time isthree hours for members whilst using the sports centre. Failure to comply with this will result in aPCN of £100. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked for six hours andeight minutes. The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, each of which I will addressseparately: • The appellant has stated that the operator has failed to fully comply with therequirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 isa law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event thatthe driver or hirer is not identi ed. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warningthe registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the nameand address of the driver. In this case, both the appellant and the operator have provided copies ofthe PCN. Having reviewed this evidence, I am satis ed that it has the necessary information and theparking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the appellant as theregistered keeper. • The appellant has stated that they were unaware that automatic number platerecognition enforcement was active at the site, or that overstaying would result in enforcementaction. Regarding signage, section 19 of the applicable British Parking Association Code of Practicestates that parking operators needs to have signs that clearly set out the terms of parking. Section22.1 states that the signs at the car park must tell drivers if automatic number plate recognitiontechnology is in use. The operator has provided photographs of the signage on site within itsevidence le. Having reviewed this evidence, I can see that the signs clearly set out the consequencesof failing to comply with the parking conditions, and that automatic number plate recognitiontechnology is in use. • The appellant has stated that they were taken into Southmead Hospital with asuspected heart attack and their wife decided to park in the leisure centre car park, rather thanhaving to walk further using the hospital’s main car park. Due to concerns with their health, they haveexplained that this caused them to exceed the maximum stay time. I acknowledge that the appellanthas provided a redacted copy of a hospital letter in support of their appeal and I am sorry to hear ofthe nature of their visit to the site that day. While I sincerely empathise with the circumstances, theseare not grounds in which I can allow the appeal alone. When looking at appeals, POPLA can onlyconsider whether a PCN has been issued correctly in line with the terms and conditions of the site;POPLA simply cannot allow an appeal based on mitigating circumstances. • The appellant has statedthat they have been a member of the leisure centre for 20 years. Although it is appreciated that theappellant is a member of the leisure centre, this did not permit the motorist to exceed the three-hourmaximum stay time that day. While there is a facility for members to register for additional time, theappellant was not in attendance at the leisure centre that day so this was not an available option tothem. • The have stated that they did not intend to misuse the car park or breach any parkingconditions. It is appreciated that the motorist intended to comply, but I must reiterate that POPLA’srole is solely to assess the validity of the PCN; it is not within our remit to allow an appeal based onwillingness or intent alone. • The appellant has stated that the operator does not have the authorityto issue parking charge notices on behalf of Everyone Active. Section 14.1 of the applicable PrivateParking Sector Single Code of Practice states that where controlled land is being managed on behalfof a landowner, written con rmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. Inresponse to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of a letter signed by or on behalfof the landowner. Having reviewed this and taking into consideration the fact that there are manysigns at the site, I am satis ed that the operator has su cient authority to issue PCNs on the land. Iunderstand that the appellant has maintained that the land is under control of the council and hasdisputed the contents of the letter, but POPLA can only base decisions on the evidence provided byboth parties. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, I can only be satis ed that the site isprivately managed and that the operator has the appropriate authority to manage the site. • Theappellant has stated that the PCN advises that £70 will be added at a later date, whereas the signsstate that an ‘additional charge’ will be incurred. As explained, POPLA can only assess whether thecharge was issued correctly. We cannot become involved in the payment side of appeals, or theaddition of debt recovery charges. After considering the evidence from both parties, I am satis edthat the motorist exceeded the maximum stay time and therefore did not comply with the terms andconditions of the site. As such, the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal
