It's only a POPLA appeal. Even if unsuccessful, it is not binding and you do not need to pay. It has no bearing on anything going forwards.
POPLA Rebuttal – Parking Charge HP3584189
I would like to respond to Horizon Parking’s evidence pack and highlight where it fails to properly address my appeal.
1. Notice to Keeper (NtK) – PoFA Non-Compliance
Horizon claims the NtK is compliant but fails to address the specific issue I raised: it does not include the statutory wording required under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The notice must state that the creditor may recover the charge from the keeper if it is not paid within “28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.” Horizon does not include a copy of the full NtK in their evidence pack for verification and simply repeats the conclusion that it is compliant, which is not sufficient.
2. Signage – No Entrance Sign / Outdated Evidence
Horizon fails to provide any photo showing a clear, legible entrance sign visible to drivers as they enter the site. The plan provided simply uses red dots to indicate where such signs are supposed to be, but they have not produced photographic proof that an entrance sign is actually in place.
Furthermore, the signage photographs in Section E are at least 5 to 7 years old. This is evident from the resolution, condition of the signs, and absence of recent site context. The operator has also included facsimile, computer-generated versions of signs. These are not proof that the actual signs currently in place contain the same terms, are still there, or are in the same locations. Signage can deteriorate, be relocated, or be changed over time. Horizon’s reliance on old, illustrative images rather than current photographic evidence means they have failed to prove that adequate signage was in place and visible at the time of the alleged contravention.
They also do not respond to my point about poor lighting conditions—particularly important since the vehicle exited at 22:21, long after sunset. No night-time images have been provided.
3. No Valid Evidence of Landowner Authority
Section F does not contain a full, signed, and dated contract with the landowner. It merely references Horizon’s authority in vague terms without showing that they are authorised to issue or enforce charges, or take legal action. As per the Code of Practice, operators must provide a full, unredacted contract or witness statement. POPLA has previously ruled that unsigned or summary pages do not satisfy this requirement.
4. Breach of Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan
Horizon has dismissed this point by claiming they “have nothing to do with the Royal Borough of Greenwich,” despite the car park clearly being subject to a Section 106 planning agreement with the Council (ref: 13/3285/O). This agreement specifically states that PCNs can only be issued after a warning letter has been sent to a first-time overstaying vehicle. Horizon has provided no evidence of such a warning letter or any exemption from this obligation.
5. Horizon’s Appeal Response Was Generic and Non-Specific
My initial appeal raised clear points of law and evidence, including PoFA defects, signage inadequacy, breach of planning conditions, and a demand for strict proof. Horizon’s response was generic and did not engage with these points in any detail. Repeating the phrase "the charge is PoFA compliant" without addressing the actual breach or showing the full notice is not a rebuttal.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to provide evidence that signage was visible and compliant at the material time, that the NtK met PoFA requirements, that they have landowner authority, or that they complied with the site’s local authority-imposed planning conditions. Their evidence is outdated, incomplete, and fails to address material issues raised.
I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the parking charge cancelled.
I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. This appeal is based on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
2. The signage at the site is inadequate and breaches the requirements of the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
3. Horizon Parking has not shown that it has the authority from the landowner to issue charges and enforce terms.
4. Horizon has failed to comply with the site-specific Car Park Management Plan imposed by the Royal Borough of Greenwich.
5. Horizon failed to address the points raised in my original appeal, relying on a generic rejection that ignored core legal issues.
1. The Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant.
The wording on the NtK does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4. The law requires the notice to warn the keeper that if, after 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is given, the amount remains unpaid, the creditor may recover it from the keeper. Horizon’s NtK omits this clear statutory wording and instead issues a vague and ambiguous invitation without correctly setting out the 28-day period or the conditions under which keeper liability arises.
Furthermore, the statement: “We have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you” is misleading. Horizon only has that right if they comply with all of PoFA Schedule 4, which they have failed to do.
There is also no legal requirement for a keeper to identify the driver. The NtK wrongly implies this is necessary.
As the NtK fails to meet the requirements of PoFA, Horizon cannot transfer liability to the keeper, and the charge must be cancelled.
2. The signage at the site is inadequate and non-compliant with the Code of Practice.
There is no signage at the entrance to the car park, in breach of section 3.1.1 of the Private Parking Code of Practice. This means no contract could have been formed upon entry. There is also no prominent display of the parking charge amount. The signs are difficult to read, especially at dusk, and the font used for the charge is significantly smaller than other information, contrary to section 3.1.4.
Photos provided show the sign is not legible in low lighting and does not meet the requirements for visibility, prominence, or adequate notice as defined in PoFA Schedule 4 and PPSCoP.
In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court noted that the signs in that case were large, prominent, and clearly displayed the charge in large bold font. Horizon’s signs fall well short of this standard.
3. Horizon has not shown landowner authority.
I request that Horizon provide POPLA with a full and unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner. This contract must show that Horizon has the authority to issue charges, pursue unpaid charges in court, and enforce the terms and conditions. This is required under the Code of Practice, and in the absence of such evidence, the appeal must be upheld.
4. Breach of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan.
The site is subject to a Section 106 agreement with the Royal Borough of Greenwich (Ref: 13/3285/O), which states:
“14. Vehicles that overstay will subsequently receive a warning letter.” “15. Vehicles that ignore the initial warning and subsequently reoffend will be issued with a PCN.”
No warning letter was issued in this case. Horizon’s enforcement is in direct breach of the approved Car Park Management Plan and thus lacks lawful basis.
5. Horizon failed to address the core points raised in my appeal.
My initial appeal raised the PoFA non-compliance, absence of entrance signage, and breaches of planning conditions. Horizon failed to engage with any of these issues and instead sent a generic response that focused solely on signage and driver responsibility. This shows Horizon has not acted in good faith and has attempted to sidestep the central legal issues.
For all the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct Horizon Parking to cancel the PCN.
as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it: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 misleading and unfair practices 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.
Your NtK contains contradictory information regarding the timeframe for payment and liability, as it incorrectly states on the front that debt recovery action will commence after 28 days but fails to specify when the 28-day period starts, creating ambiguity. This differs from the 28 days from the date the NtK is given, as required by PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 9(2)(f) and 9(6). This misleading and prominent error invalidates PoFA compliance.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under any misinterpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. You have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.