Good afternoon!
A new 24 hour PureGym opened in a retail park by me in Bridgend, which I have been using recently and tend to visit later in the night as it is a smaller gym and often very busy in the evening. I have recently received a parking charge notice from the private landowner, GroupNexus, which states I contravened their terms. I have looked at the signage and it conveniently omits some details. So first thing to acknowledge, which may limit any ground I have here, is I did assume common sense would prevail when appealing and the form to complete required me to identify as the driver. In hindsight, probably not the best move but the research I did online before submitting my appeal suggested that if the keeper doesn't identify the driver, that new legislation meant the keeper can be held responsible for the debt anyway. Not sure there's any truth to that so live and learn.
In my appeal, I provided evidence I had used the facilities for the intended purpose based on screenshots within the PureGym app of my visit, and noted that the signage was unclear (and conveniently in smaller print) about the terms of stay, that being that 2.5 hours is free and that both statements for 'Between' could be reasonably assumed to apply after the free period. As I now understand it from the signage, any stay a minute past 11pm, is subject to the £5 charge. This seems unreasonable in a retail park that hosts a 24 hour facility where the nearest parking would be in an industrial estate which presents a whole host of safeguarding issues but I am not sure that is relevant when appealing.
Their response included
"Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the need to validate their vehicle registration, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected. Gym members are required to validate their parking by entering their full vehicle registration into the console on every visit and we have no record of a valid electronic permit being registered for your vehicle on the date in question."
and they have reduced the fine to £20 'on this occasion only'. None of this is detailed on the sign so I believe this is unfair as they are asking me to assume the terms around registering on an electronic device.
In the time between my alleged breach, my partner also received a PCN for the same and has raised it with the gym in the first instance. I am expecting another to come through for a similar incident of a driver visiting on 31 August, prior to when I received this PCN in the post.
Is it worth appealing to POPLA here, or am I better to ask the company if they will honour the £20 on both PCNs (assuming a second is posted, which it likely will as it's ANPR and they clearly have zero tolerance) as I could not have been aware of the terms for the second alleged breach as the original letter had not been received. Should I avoid referencing the second alleged breach as I will need to acknowledge who the driver was?
As you can imagine, I signed up to the gym to help with my wellbeing, and I'm already debating cancelling membership there as these tactics are predatory!
I've added the relevant images to an album here:
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCth86