Following the death of 14-year-old Mahmut Işıldak, who died after being electrocuted during the heavy rain in Istanbul on October 14, allegations regarding the operation of the parking lot where the incident took place came to the fore.
It was claimed that the parking lot where Işıldak, who was reported to have been electrocuted while walking barefoot to prevent his shoes from getting wet, lost his life, had been operated without permission for years.
The findings in the Court of Accounts reports prepared in previous years regarding the parking lot were also a matter of discussion.
ALLEGED THAT THE PARKING PARK IS OPERATED BY İSMAİLAĞA COMMUNITY
According to the news of Evrensel's Nisa Sude Demirel, it was claimed that the parking lot in Çukurbostan Park in Fatih district was operated through actual occupation.
In the news, it was claimed that the parking lot was operated by the İsmailağa community, based on the information provided by the neighborhood residents and the headman.
It was stated that the activities of the business in question were reflected in the Court of Accounts reports in the past years, but despite this, the parking lot continued to operate.
FINDINGS IN THE COURT OF ACCOUNT REPORTS ARE ON THE AGENDA
It was stated that the Court of Accounts' 2021 and 2023 audit reports regarding Fatih Municipality included findings regarding parking lot management and real estate occupation in parking areas.
According to the news, a part of Çukurbostan Park in Çarşamba District is used as a commercial parking lot, although it appears as a "park and recreation area" in the municipality's records.
In the Court of Accounts report, it was stated that the parking area within the 1913 block of Balat District was operated by an economic enterprise of an association and the real estate was occupied.
The following statements were stated in the report:
"It has been observed that parking lot management is carried out by an economic enterprise of an association in the park area within the 1913 Island of Balat District, however, as a result of the occupation of the immovable properties in question, the administration regularly accrues remuneration and provides continuity to the occupations."
CLAIM: "THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT INTERVENE FOR YEARS"
In the news, it was claimed that the findings that the parking lot was operated without permission were recorded in official records years ago, but the activities continued.
Attention was drawn to the Court of Accounts' assessment that the regular accrual of fines for occupied real estate led to the continuation of the occupation.
It was claimed that Fatih Municipality did not intervene in the parking lot operation in question for at least five years.
However, the legal and actual connection between the business mentioned in the reports and the parking lot where Mahmut Işıldak lost his life needs to be separately verified.
CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE IN ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION
Following Mahmut Işıldak's death, the safety of the electrical installation in the parking lot became a matter of discussion.
It was claimed in the news that the electrical cables, which were laid close to the ground, were damaged during vehicle passage.
While it was stated that the electricity leakage that occurred during heavy rain caused fatal consequences, the question of whether the necessary security measures were taken in the installation was raised.
Evaluations were also included that if there was a leakage current relay in the parking lot, the electric current could be cut off and the incident could be prevented.
However, no definitive technical examination results were shared regarding the technical condition of the electrical installation in the parking lot, whether there was a leakage current relay, and the role of possible negligence in the incident that resulted in death.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DEATH OF 14 YEAR OLD MAHMUT ARE WAITING FOR ANSWERS
Following the death of Mahmut Işıldak, it is expected that the allegations regarding the parking lot's operating permits, inspection processes and electrical safety will be clarified.
In particular, the questions of which institution or organization operates the car park, whether the necessary permits are available, and what actions are taken following the findings in the Court of Accounts reports remain on the agenda.
