Please see reasoning;
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Jamie Macrae
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not purchasing the appropriate parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The driver has not been identified, no presumption of driver liability. • The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is not applicable as the land in question, Milton County Park, is subject to statutory control under byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State and in operation since 2 May 1994. 1. The land is not relevant land; the registered keeper cannot be held liable if the driver has not been identified. • The driver has not been identified. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a byelaws document as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, I am satisfied that the keeper of the vehicle is entitled to appeal the validity of this PCN as the operator has issued a notice to the keeper’s address. I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
