Horizon’s “operator evidence” manages to miss the actual point of the appeal and then confidently argue with a position I have never taken.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not dispute that the car park is in England. Horizon’s long Google Maps diversion is irrelevant. The location of the car park does not answer the only question that matters for POPLA: on what lawful basis can Horizon pursue me, a Scottish-domiciled registered keeper who was not the driver, for this alleged contractual parking charge?
There are two separate issues here which Horizon have muddled together:
1. Who could ever have entered into a parking contract?
2. Whether there is any lawful route to transfer liability from that person to me as keeper.
On the first point, the only person who can possibly have entered into a parking contract is the driver. Only the driver was on site, saw any signs, and could have agreed to any terms. I am the registered keeper. I was not the driver. Horizon has produced no evidence to the contrary. Their assertion that “the appellant entered a valid contract” is therefore simply untrue: the “appellant” in this POPLA case is the keeper, and the keeper was not present.
On the second point, Horizon’s entire argument rests on waving PoFA Schedule 4 around and saying “this parking event occurred in England, therefore PoFA applies, therefore the keeper can be held liable”. That is legally sloppy. The Department for Transport’s own guidance expressly describes Schedule 4 as a regime for recovering unpaid private parking charges “on private land in England and Wales” and the sector’s own material openly recognises that Schedule 4 does not apply in Scotland and does not create keeper liability there. In Scotland, only the driver can be liable for a private parking charge. The fact that the alleged breach took place in England does not magically switch on an English keeper-liability regime against a Scottish consumer sitting in Glasgow.
As a Scottish-domiciled private individual, any realistic civil claim against me would have to be brought in Scotland and determined under Scots law. There is no Scottish equivalent of PoFA Schedule 4 in force. Horizon’s suggestion that they can “hold the Registered Keeper liable under PoFA” in circumstances where the keeper is domiciled in a different legal jurisdiction, which has deliberately not adopted keeper liability, is wishful thinking dressed up as law. A Google Maps screenshot of Boston does not extend the territorial reach of an English statute into Scotland.
Horizon also make much of the idea that I have been “given opportunities” to name the driver, as if that somehow cures their problem. It does not. There is no legal obligation on a Scottish keeper to identify the driver in these circumstances. If the driver is not named, the only question is whether there is any lawful keeper-liability mechanism that can apply. Here there is not. Horizon’s repeated failure to separate “where the car park is” from “what law can be used to pursue this particular consumer in their home jurisdiction” is the core error in their reasoning.
So the position for POPLA is simple. I am the registered keeper, resident in Scotland. I have clearly stated I was not the driver and Horizon has not proved otherwise. Outside PoFA, there is no general principle that makes a keeper liable for a driver’s alleged breach. PoFA’s keeper-liability regime does not operate against a Scottish-domiciled keeper. Horizon has therefore failed to show any lawful basis on which this charge can be enforced against me. Their submission consists largely of a geography lesson and a misstatement of who supposedly entered into a contract. On the evidence before you, the only person who could potentially be liable is the unidentified driver, who is not a party to this appeal. The appeal must therefore be allowed.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am permanently resident in Scotland.
Your operator’s rejection letter states that, because I have not provided the name and address of the driver, they have the right under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) to recover the parking charge from me as keeper. That is simply wrong in law.
PoFA Schedule 4 is a statute of the Westminster Parliament which creates a limited form of “keeper liability” for certain private parking charges. It applies only to land in England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland and it does not create any keeper liability in respect of a Scottish-domiciled keeper. In Scotland, liability (if any) for a private parking charge rests only with the driver.
In this appeal, I am acting only as the registered keeper. I was not the driver. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I will not be doing so. Since PoFA does not apply to this Scottish keeper, there is no lawful route by which Horizon can transfer liability from the unidentified driver to me.
Horizon’s assertions in their Notice to Keeper and rejection letter that they can recover this charge from the “Registered Keeper” under PoFA are therefore legally unfounded. POPLA cannot rely on PoFA to hold a Scottish keeper liable where Parliament has not conferred such power, and POPLA cannot assume that the keeper was the driver.
Because there is no keeper liability in this case, and the driver has not been identified, there is no lawful basis on which this charge can be enforced against me. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
Subject: Appeal Against PCN – [Insert PCN Reference]
Dear Horizon Parking,
The registered keeper of the vehicle is a Scottish resident and was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The keeper will not be identifying the driver as there is no legal obligation to do so.
Your Notice to Keeper relies on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue keeper liability. That statute does not apply in Scotland. Issuing a PoFA-based NtK to a Scottish resident is not just legally futile—it’s procedurally embarrassing.
If this is the level of legal understanding your operation runs on, I suggest you invest in a map and a copy of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
You now have two options:1. Cancel the PCN and spare yourselves further humiliation.
2. Issue a POPLA code and waste even more money defending a position you’ll inevitably have to concede.
Choose wisely. Until then, cease all correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]