Free Traffic Legal Advice

ill bump this one more time in the hope of a reply
Cheers

Thank you for reply

I attach the LOC

https://ibb.co/2330rSNf
https://ibb.co/xKHBYzdc

This is the template reply is this the correct one to send for the first direct contact to their website as stated in letter.

"Dear Sirs,

Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.

I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Yours faithfully,"



Thanks

Hi all

After receiving letters from Debt recovery plus then Empira I now have a letter of claim from Gladstone solicitors.

What is the next step please

A reply

unsuccessful


Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay period.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been summarised: • The notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the operator issues a vague and ambiguous invitation without stating the 28 day period or the conditions under which keeper liability arises • The statement that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge is misleading as they only have the right if they comply with all of Schedule 4, which they have failed to do so • The notice to keeper wrongly implies that it is necessary to identify the driver, as there is no legal requirement • The signage is inadequate and non-compliant with the Code of Practice and there is 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 • The operator has not shown that they have landowner authority to issue PCN’s and requires a full, unredacted copy of the contract • they have breached the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan as no warning letter has been issued • the operator sent a generic response and failed to engage with the issue or address the core points raised After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail regarding PoFA 2012, signage, landowner authority, the management plan and the operators response to their appeal. The appellant has provided images of the entrance and the sign as evidence towards their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant says that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the operator issues a vague and ambiguous invitation without stating the 28 day period or the conditions under which keeper liability arises. The statement that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge is misleading as they only have the right if they comply with all of Schedule 4, which they have failed to do so. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. As the driver has not been identified on the date of the contravention, I am considering keeper liability and will ensure that the Parking Charge Notice issued complies with Section 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. After reviewing the Notice to Keeper document supplied within the operator’s evidence, I can see that the keeper was invited to supply the driver details to the operator within the 28-day period, beginning with the day after that on which the notice was issued. As this information has not been supplied, then the operator reserves the right to pursue the keeper of the vehicle. In accordance, I will be considering keeper liability for this charge. The notice to keeper wrongly implies that it is necessary to identify the driver, as there is no legal requirement. Section (2) (e) of PoFA 2012 states, ‘’state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;’’. Upon review of the PCN, I can see that this states, ‘’As we (the creditor) do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, you are now invitied to either pay the charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver’s full name and current postal address using the contact details overleaf within 28 days and pass this Parking Charge to them’’. As the required information has been provided, I am satisfied that this complies with PoFA 2012. The appellant says that the signage is inadequate and non-compliant with the Code of Practice and there is no prominent display of the parking charge amount. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case, the parking operator’s evidence shows that an entrance sign is present within an appropriate place and makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3 states that parking operators need to have signage that clearly set out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by both parties, I can see that these clearly state that terms are applicable. Bold text makes it clear that the maximum stay is 5 hours and any breaches would result in a £70 PCN being issued. The parking operator has also provided a site map and multiple images which show that signs are placed throughout site ensuring that motorists can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with the Code of Practice. I note that the appellant says that the signs are difficult to read, especially at dusk, and the font used for the charge is significantly smaller than other information. Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. Within the operator’s evidence, I can see signs that are located either on or within close proximity of a lighting pole, ensuring that they are visible in hours of dusk. As the ANPR pictures on the PCN show that the driver had their headlights on at the time of the contravention, which would have provided additional visibility. I am therefore satisfied that the signage would have been visible during the hours of darkness and the appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before entering the contract, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B. I note that the appellant states the amount of the charge was not appropriately brought to their attention. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The appellant says that the operator has not shown that they have landowner authority to issue PCN’s and requires a full, unredacted copy of the contract. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the document supplied by the operator shows that they have sufficient authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. The appellant states that the operator has breached the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan as no warning letter has been issued. However, POPLA assess all appeals with the relevant code of practice. Therefore, the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan would not make a material difference to the outcome of the decision. The appellant says that the operator sent a generic response and failed to engage with the issue or address the core points raised. POPLA’s role is to determine whether the PCN was issued correctly. It is not within POPLA’s remit to comment on nor investigate the operator’s appeal process or any customer service issues. Any further dissatisfaction regarding this will need to be raised with the parking operator directly. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments to make about these grounds at this stage. Based on the evidence provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that a breach occurred as the driver exceeded the maximum stay. I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the appeal is refused.

Hi b789

Going through the reply before sending can I use this

"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."

Forgive me if Ive missed something but they do show a copy of the pcn in their evidence pack.

cheers

Hopefully this works!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S_PDD0xKNGYdVx4bPd-471lhXGYYuIIV/view?usp=sharing

Ok thanks will do popla appeal in the next day or so and see how it goes

4th draft  New evidence included

Dear POPLA

I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued on the 5th February 2025 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appeal is on the following points.

1, Notice to Keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012.
2, Notice to keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012.
3, Breaches of the private parking sector single Code of Practice.
4, ANPR
5, Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park management Plan not being adhered to.


1. I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of the “notice” and the highlighted section.

"As we (the creditor do not know the drivers name or current postal address, you are now invited to either pay the charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver's full name and current postal address using the contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this Parking Charge to them. This Parking Charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act."

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant for the following reason:

Their wording is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA because they are required to give the Keeper 28 days starting from the day after the date the notice was given.

PoFA Wording Requirement (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f))

“Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”.

In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period does not have a start date. Their wording is not compliant therefore, irrespective of whether they have used correct PoFA wording elsewhere, the NtK does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable.

2. Also their statement:
“We have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you”
is misleading and incorrect. They only have the right to recover the charge from the registered keeper if they fully comply with all the conditions of Schedule 4 of PoFA. They have not done so in this case. This deviation introduces confusion and does not match the strict requirements of PoFA. Horizon Parking’s NtK does not correctly convey that liability will only transfer to the keeper if specific PoFA conditions are met. The NtK's failure to use precise language, as PoFA mandates, further invalidates any keeper liability.

No Obligation to Identify the Driver

The NtK wording implies that Horizon Parking may pursue the keeper because the driver has not been identified. However, PoFA imposes no obligation on the keeper to identify the driver. As the registered keeper, I have chosen not to provide driver details, and there is no legal requirement for me to do so.

Without strict compliance with PoFA, Horizon Parking has no legal grounds to hold the keeper liable, regardless of whether the driver’s identity is disclosed.

Request for Strict Proof of Full Compliance with PoFA

Horizon Parking claims the right to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. I request that POPLA requires Horizon Parking to provide strict proof of compliance with all aspects of PoFA, not just selected parts. Horizon Parking must demonstrate that the NtK:
• States the mandatory 28-day period correctly, beginning the day after the notice is deemed served.

• Contains the precise wording mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), regarding the conditions for holding the keeper liable.

• Complies with every other requirement in Schedule 4 of PoFA, as partial compliance is legally insufficient.

If Horizon Parking cannot demonstrate full compliance with PoFA, POPLA must conclude that there is no keeper liability in this case and the PCN must be cancelled.

3 Breaches of the private parking sector single Code of Practice.

There are no signs on the entrance to the parking area. The PPSCoP states:

3.1. Signs

3.1.1. An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited.

Also Annex A
A.1.1              Signs at the entrance to a parking area must clearly show the type of parking available and if, when and how any payment is required to be made. If public parking is not welcomed, that must be made clear. If public parking is welcomed, but subject to a tariff, then the existence of the tariff must be made clear.

I enclose a picture of the entrance devoid of any signage.

3.1.4. Signs informing drivers that a parking charge may be applicable and of the level of that charge must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers.

As you can see from the picture of the sign the charge is not of comparable size to the main text of Maximum stay No return within 1 hour.

3.1.6. Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair.

Annex A
A.3.2 Signs must always be readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times

The photo was taken at dusk any longer and the sign would be in complete darkness rendering it impossible to read and at such a height that it would not be even visible by headlight. The terms and conditions are written in such a small font size its impossible to read even in daylight.

3.1.3. Note 1 In larger areas of controlled land or premises, interim repeater signs may be used to display key information and direct drivers to where more comprehensive information can be found.

j) display the parking charge that the parking operator may apply for breaches of such terms and conditions as may apply in a large font;

I repeat that the font is not large. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. There are no signs on entering the car park.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

4. The poor quality of the photographs give doubt to the veracity of the said photographs and the location, the driver may have entered, left and returned. There is ample evidence in the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary circumstances, such as two visits ('double dip', a well known phenomenon).

I ask Horizon to prove to POPLA that the CCTV and ANPR equipment that was specifically used for the alleged contravention are in alignment with the PPSCoP  General Principles for ANPR and no cases of “double dip” visits have been reported for  this vehicle or any other reports by other vehicles at this site in this potential flaw in ANPR technology and a proper evidenced based search of the database has been carried out to rule out any such multiple entry. The following points are also required.
• Fit for purpose: approved technical design to comply with the relevant requirements and Acts of Parliament;
• Calibrated: calibration certificates for all components to be made available to POPLA to confirm they are current and relevant;
• Operator competency: Operator is competent and trained to use the equipment and also that the operator on the day was competent and converse with the Data Protection Act.
5. With regard to the Submission of details pursuant to Clause 6.1 (Car Park Management Plan) of the Third Schedule of the S106 dated 9.12.2014 (Ref:13/3285/O) of the Royal Borough of Greenwich
I draw your attention to the enforcement of the car park.
https://planning.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_GRNW_DCAPR_97196
Numbers 14 and 15 of the plan.
14. Vehicles that overstay will subsequently receive a warning letter through the post informing them that they have exceeded the five hour parking restriction.
15. Vehicles that ignore the initial warning letter and subsequently reoffend will be issued with a parking charge notice (PCN) through the post.
There has been no warning letter sent as stated in the Car Park management plan.
Horizon did not address my initial point in the first 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 which I have demonstrated is non compliant with PPSCoP 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.
I expected Horizon to at least attempt a proper rebuttal of the points raised in my appeal. Instead, they have copy and pasted 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.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]