Free Traffic Legal Advice

Evidence of a medical emergency that prevented you from keeping to the parking conditions

https://www.popla.co.uk/appeal-guide

This POPLA guide states that a medical emergency may be perceived as supporting reason for failure to leave within  3 hours.

Any views?

I have received communication from POPLA along with the response from CE - I have 7 days from the date of the POPLA letter to provide further info to support my claim. Attached correspondence.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

further correspondence attached

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

You didn't show us your appeal that you actually sent to POPLA. How are we supposed to advise if we don't know exactly what you finally put in your POPLA appeal?

All I can advise is to try your luck with the following which can be copied and pasted into the POPLA webform for responding to the operators evidence:

The operator claims to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to hold the keeper liable. However, the location of the alleged contravention is Horfield Leisure Centre, which is situated in the middle of Horfield Common—land that is under statutory control by Bristol City Council. As such, the land is not “relevant land” as defined under Schedule 4 of PoFA, and the operator is therefore not entitled to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

Although the byelaws made in 1910 for Horfield Common were revoked, they were replaced by updated byelaws adopted by Bristol City Council. Schedule 1 of those byelaws clearly lists “Horfield Common Open Space, Gloucester Road, Horfield, Bristol” as land to which the current byelaws apply. Therefore, the site remains subject to statutory control, meaning PoFA cannot apply.

The operator has also included a generic “Confirmation of Authority” document, which is wholly inadequate as evidence of any contractual right to operate at this specific location. The document makes no mention of Horfield Leisure Centre or Horfield Common, and refers vaguely to “multiple sites,” with the specifics allegedly contained in a missing “Schedule 1.” Without that annex, the document is incomplete and lacks any site-specific relevance.

Moreover, the document fails to meet the requirements of Section 14.1 of the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP). That section mandates that before any parking charge can be issued, written confirmation must be obtained from the landowner that includes:

- the identity of the landowner;
- a boundary map of the land to be managed;
- any byelaws that apply to the land;
- the permission granted to the parking operator and its duration;
- the parking terms and conditions, including permitted exemptions;
- the means by which parking charges will be issued;
- responsibility for obtaining relevant consents;
- the obligations under which the operator is working;
- documentation that may be required by authorised bodies; and
- the operator’s approach to handling appeals.

The operator has failed to provide any of the above. There is no landowner identified, no boundary map, no proof that the parking management arrangements are compatible with the statutory byelaws, and no evidence of planning consents or proper governance.

Further, the “Confirmation of Authority” is signed by someone named Gary Teagle, but the operator has provided no evidence as to who this person is or what authority he holds. His job title is not given, nor is there any confirmation that he is a director or authorised officer of Sports and Leisure Management Ltd. In the absence of any verification of his authority to act, the document carries no evidential weight.

Finally, even if Sports and Leisure Management Ltd were entitled to manage the leisure centre building, they are not the landowner of Horfield Common. The land remains under the control of Bristol City Council, and no chain of authority has been shown from the statutory landowner to the operator. As such, the operator cannot demonstrate any lawful authority to issue PCNs at this location.

In conclusion, the operator is not entitled to rely on PoFA, and has failed to provide sufficient evidence of any lawful contractual right to issue parking charges at Horfield Leisure Centre.

Addendum:

For the avoidance of doubt, the so-called "Confirmation of Authority" presented by the operator is wholly inadequate and cannot, under any reasonable scrutiny, constitute strict proof of any contractual rights to issue Parking Charge Notices at Horfield Leisure Centre.

It is a generic document, signed by an unverified individual but not printed on company letterhead. There is no indication of the signatory's position or authority within the company, nor any evidence that they have the legal capacity to grant enforcement rights. Crucially, the document contains no reference to the specific location in question and refers instead to “multiple sites,” with any relevant detail supposedly contained in a missing “Schedule 1.” In the absence of that schedule, this document proves nothing.

Given the ease with which such a vague and unheaded document could be fabricated, and the track record of some operators in cutting evidential corners, the possibility that it was manufactured for the purpose of this appeal cannot be ruled out. It would be wholly irrational to consider this as constituting strict proof of contractual authority—particularly in light of the standards laid out in Section 14.1 of the Private Parking Code of Practice, all of which the operator has failed to meet.

Should the POPLA assessor consider this document sufficient, the appellant will treat such a decision as a clear error of fact and law. The appellant reserves the right to challenge any such finding before a court, where evidential rigour and legal standards are applied properly—unlike the superficial analysis that would be required to accept this document as credible or binding.

Copy of my appeal to POPLA:

I am appealing against the issue of PCN 0943640437 issued on 23rd March 2025 at Horfield Leisure Centre. From a personal perspective, I was taken into the adjoining Southmead Hospital with a suspected heart attack and with the necessity of obtaining treatment being a priority, my wife decided to park at the leisure centre, where I have been a member for 20 years, rather than having to walk further using the hospital's main car park (A&E parking spaces were fully used). Due to the concern about my health, the stay in the car park was longer than the 3 hours specified in the sign dotted around the site. We were not aware that ANPR enforcement was active at the site, nor did we realise that a stay beyond the three-hour member allowance could result in enforcement action. There was no intention to misuse the car park or breach any terms. The vehicle was parked solely in relation to leisure centre use and proximity to the hospital. I attach my discharge letter covering my inpatient stay over 4 days.

I would also like to add that the operator has failed to comply FULLY with ALL the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Additionally, Civil Enforcement do not have the authority to demand parking charges in their own name as their client, Everyone Active, manage the leisure centre under contract from Bristol City Council and occupy the site licence which does not entitle Everyone Active and therefore their agent to demand parking charges as creditor. It is important to also note that the PCN states that £70 will be added at a later date, whereas the signs merely say that a nebulous 'additional charge' will be incurred.

I'm not sure they have blown both feet off... If I've read it correctly, the OP has said his wife was driving. Unless he has provided her name, all he would seem to have done is confirmed that he wasn't the driver.

Indeed - the first half does essentially directly admit that the driver breached the terms, which isn't ideal, but thankfully doesn't ruin the PoFA argument.

However, as it is brought up by the operator in their evidence, the appellant can raise those points in their response to that evidence.

Agreed, although by not being including those points in the initial appeal, it does open the door to the assessor arguing they are fresh grounds of appeal and not considering them.