The operator’s response is nothing more than a template rejection letter, showing a complete failure to address the specific points raised in my appeal. Horizon Parking has entirely ignored the central arguments relating to their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), particularly the statutory wording required under Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA and the 28-day appeal deadline.
Instead of addressing these legal failures, they have simply trotted out a generic copy-and-paste response about signage and driver responsibility, completely sidestepping the substantive issues at hand. This demonstrates that Horizon has not engaged with the appeal in any meaningful way and instead relies on boilerplate responses to brush off valid challenges.
Let me remind POPLA of the key points the operator has failed to address:
1. Failure to Comply with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f)
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) provided by Horizon misrepresents the timeframe for transferring liability to the registered keeper, as set out in Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The Act clearly states that liability can only be transferred at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.
For clarity, I will reiterate the dates:
* Alleged Contravention: 1st December 2024
* PCN Issue Date: 5th December 2024
* Date the Notice is Deemed Given: 9th December 2024 (two working days after posting)
* PoFA-Compliant Liability Start Date: 10th December 2024
* Correct Deadline for Keeper Liability to Apply: 6th January 2025
The NtK instead begins counting liability from 7th December 2024, a full three days early. This is a fundamental error that renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA.
Horizon Parking’s response utterly fails to address this point. Instead, they have made the blanket assertion that the charge is PoFA-compliant without engaging with the specific requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(f) or acknowledging their incorrect liability start date. This shows either a complete lack of understanding of the legislation they purport to rely on, or a deliberate attempt to evade scrutiny by issuing template responses.
2. Failure to Comply with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e)
The operator has also failed to address my point regarding the NtK’s breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024), specifically Section 8.1.2(e), which requires the notice to clearly inform recipients that they have 28 days from the date of receiving the notice to submit an appeal.
Horizon’s NtK does not clearly communicate this 28-day appeal period. Instead, it focuses on encouraging early appeals within 14 days to preserve a discounted rate, creating the misleading impression that the appeal window is shorter than it actually is. This omission is in direct breach of Section 8.1.2(e), which promotes fairness and transparency in private parking enforcement.
Horizon’s response has, once again, entirely ignored this point. They have made no attempt to defend or justify their failure to meet the PPSCoP requirements. Instead, they have lazily repeated that the charge is fully compliant with PoFA, which it demonstrably is not.
3. Keeper Liability is Inapplicable Due to Non-Compliance
Because of the operator’s failure to meet the basic legal requirements of PoFA and PPSCoP, the Registered Keeper cannot be held liable for this charge. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and since the NtK fails to comply with PoFA’s mandatory requirements, keeper liability simply does not apply.
Horizon’s refusal to address this issue is telling. Their business model relies heavily on bullying keepers into paying charges that are legally unenforceable. They have clearly not bothered to check their own notice for compliance before issuing it, and they are now doubling down on that laziness by sending a boilerplate response to this appeal.
Operator’s Response is a Copy-and-Paste Sham
I must point out the sheer irrelevance of most of Horizon’s response. They have wasted time talking about signage and maximum stay periods – neither of which I have disputed. Their refusal to engage with the actual legal failures in their notice, and their reliance on a generic, pre-written rejection template, shows a complete lack of professionalism and a cavalier attitude toward the appeals process.
I expected Horizon to at least attempt a proper rebuttal of the points raised in my appeal. Instead, they have copy-pasted their usual spiel without even reading what was submitted. This demonstrates that Horizon has not acted in good faith in this appeal and is attempting to mislead both POPLA and the appellant by sidestepping the legal non-compliance issues.
Summary of Failures:
* The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f) due to an incorrect liability start date.
* The NtK is non-compliant with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e) due to a failure to clearly communicate the 28-day appeal deadline.
* Keeper liability cannot apply due to these non-compliances.
* Horizon’s response is a lazy, template rejection that fails to address any of these legal points.
Given these glaring failures, the Parking Charge is unenforceable against the Registered Keeper. I urge POPLA to uphold this appeal and cancel the charge, recognising that Horizon has not met their legal obligations and has instead opted for a lazy, boilerplate response that ignores the core issues raised.
This appeal submission was made in good faith, and I provided detailed reasoning supported by PoFA and PPSCoP. Horizon Parking’s response, by contrast, shows a blatant disregard for the appeals process and is nothing more than a copy-and-paste attempt to dismiss valid challenges.
For these reasons, the appeal should be upheld, and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled in full.
And what does said evidence contain?Copy pasted from the POPLA doc:
There are several failures in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that you can rely on. Horizon have failed to stipulate the appeal deadline in breach of section 8.1.2(e) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Also, they have failed to correctly comply with PoFA 9(2)(f) deadlines for Keeper liability.
Here is the suggested appeal toHorizonPOPLA:QuoteDearHorizon Parking Appeals TeamPOPLA,
I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued on 11th December 2024 as the registered keeper of the vehicle [Your VRM].YourThe Notice to Keeper (NtK) claims to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), yet it fails to meet the requirements of either. The fact thatyouthe operator proclaims compliance while failing to meet basic legal and regulatory standards is not only baffling but indicates a lack of professionalism withinyourtheir organisation.
Allow me to explain whyyourthe NtK fails on multiple counts:
1. PoFA Non-ComplianceYourThe NtK misrepresents the timeframe for transferring liability under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA.
PoFA specifies that the keeper can only be held liable "...at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given."
Here are the relevant dates:• Alleged Contravention Date: 1st December 2024
• PCN Issue Date: 5th December 2024
• Notice Given Date: 9th December 2024 (two working days after issue date)
• PoFA-Compliant Start Date: 10th December 2024
• Correct Deadline: 6th January 2025
Your NtK instead starts the liability period from 7th December 2024, resulting in an incorrect deadline of 3rd January 2025, which is three days early. This fundamental error makes your NtK non-compliant with PoFA.
2. Breach of the PPSCoP – Section 8.1.2(e)
Your NtK also fails to comply with Section 8.1.2(e) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (2024), which states:"The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient that they have 28 days from the date of receiving the parking charge to submit an appeal."
On the back of your NtK, under the "Contesting the Parking Charge" section, you focus on appeals made within 14 days to preserve the discounted rate. However, the NtK does not explicitly state the overall appeal deadline of 28 days from receiving the notice, as required by the PPSCoP.
This omission creates ambiguity and could mislead recipients into believing they cannot appeal after the 14-day discount period, even though they still have the legal right to appeal for 28 days. Such a failure is contrary to the PPSCoP's goal of promoting fairness and transparency in private parking enforcement.
By failing to clearly communicate the full 28-day appeal deadline, you breach Section 8.1.2(e), and this failure undermines the enforceability of your notice.
3. Keeper Liability is Inapplicable
As the registered keeper, I have no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.YourThe NtK can only hold the driver liable unless strict compliance with PoFA and the PPSCoP is achieved, which it is not. This NtK is unenforceable as far as keeper liability is concerned.4. Please Consult a Competent Adult
If you cannot understand why your NtK fails to comply with PoFA or the PPSCoP, I suggest passing this appeal to a competent adult at Horizon who has the necessary understanding of these requirements. Assuming such a person exists, they might be able to avoid wasting further time by cancelling this Parking Charge now.5. Horizon Has No Hope at POPLA
Your failures to comply with PoFA and the PPSCoP ensure that this charge would fail at POPLA. I urge you to save us both the time and effort by cancelling this Parking Charge immediately.
If you choose to continue pursuing this baseless charge, I require a full response addressing all the points raised above, along with a POPLA code so that I may escalate my appeal.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper of [vehicle VRM]
With a bit of luck, your sister hasn’t appealed to Horizon yet. If she’d sent what she’d sent to YPS, she’d have blown the easiest way to get this cancelled.
Tell your sister to never, ever, ever, ever, ever, identify the driver unless advised to do so. By blabbing the identity of the driver, inadvertently or otherwise, is to throw away the most likely best reason to get a PCNcp cancelled.
No one is suggesting lying. It is a simple fact that the keeper of the vehicle is the person who has received the Notice to Keeper(NtK). The driver is unknown to the operator. Only the driver is liable, unless the NtK is fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA. The Horizon NtK does not invoke PoFA and so the keeper cannot be liable unless they were also the driver and blab that bit of info.
There is no legal obligation for the keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company and the keeper should decline to do so. Tell your sister to appeal with the following, verbatim:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Horizon has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.