Free Traffic Legal Advice

Revised outline of a draft appeal to the TPT:

Reiterate the DART PCN decision 2018.

Accept that under regulation 2 part 4, the CAZ authority is entitled to specify whether the road user charge is to be levied in addition to the penalty charge, and the Bradford Clean Air Zones Charging Order article 12 states "A penalty charge will be payable, in addition to the charge imposed under article 7".

However the PCN received states that the road user charge is to be paid in addition to the penalty charge, whereas regulation Part 3, Regulation 7, 7.3(f) states that only the penalty be paid, and there is no regulation to demand both the penalty and initial road user charge, which are separate elements.

Bradford's Notice of Rejection of Representation states that the successful Dart PCN appeal "has no relevance to the Bradford Clean Air Zone or the Bradford Clean Air Zones charging scheme order.  The decision at the time was not made in reference to the Bradford Clean Air Zone or can be used to determine the outcomes of this case.  The decision was made in 2018.  The Bradford Clean Air Zone was live from September 2022".  I believe this analysis is flawed since the Bradford CAZ is regulated by both regulation 2 part 4 and Part 3, Regulation 7, 7.3(f).  Despite the Charging Scheme Order allowing for a penalty and the CAZ charge to be recovered, the regulations governing the PCN do not provide a mechanism to do both.

This amounts to a procedural impropriety and therefore the PCN should be cancelled.

It would be nice to get a view on this.  I've got another 2/3 weeks or so to decide ...

So part 2 says "whether a penalty charge ... is payable in addition to the road user charge or instead of such charge" and part 3 reg 7 only mentions "penalty charge".

So it's a matter of interpretation of the fine detail then?  Dart decided one way, and the difference there is that the road user paid the charge albeit a day late.

If the tribunal goes strictly by the letter of the regs, then the PCN would seem to be "an impropriety" unless "penalty" is defined as including the original charge?

Ok - so one piece of the legislation says they can decide whether to charge the penalty + PCN charge, and another says the PCN can only contain a penalty.

So Bradford's view is different and says they can charge both on the PCN, but the view here is that the PCN can only charge the penalty and there needs to be a separate mechanism to collect the outstanding CAZ charge?

And if so, I'd be a guinea pig?

Once I've had confirmation of cancellation I'll post the less redacted version.  As to the PoFA wording compliance, could you explain that for me and others coming after ?  I had a read of the legislation which says

"The notice must 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"

And the notice I received ( says that on the third paragraph of the current attachment ) has verbiage along those lines?

Got a charge notice from Horizon ( attached below ).

I appealed - using some research I used the text in https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/horizon-parking/msg1511/#msg1511 ( second one, I thin, but can't find a record ).

Appeal rejected ( see below ).  In the original PCN there's verbiage about keeper so I guess I'm knackered on this front?

Also the venue I was visiting apparently has a device to register the VRN, but there were no staff when I arrived and the device wasn't apparent.  I've asked them ( with supporting evidence of purchase ) to get the PCN cancelled but have not heard back yet.

Any other options open to me ?  Long targeted appeal to POPLA?  Ignore?

Here's the email from Horizon today:

Parking Charge Notice Reference   PCN ref
Vehicle Registration Number      VRN
Breach of Terms and Conditions    Exceeded Maximum Stay Period
Date and Time of Breach   <end of March 2024>
Location Name   <location>
POPLA Code      <POPLA code>
Date of this Correspondence    w/c 15th April
 

 w/c 15th April 2024

 

Dear Appellant,

 

Parking Charge Notice:<PCN ref>

Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the above referenced Parking Charge Notice.

 Review of your Appeal

The Parking Charge Notice was issued lawfully and in full and proper accordance with the Code of Practice issued by the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’).

There are signs located at the entrance to, and within the car park that state the terms and conditions that apply when parking.

One of the terms and conditions is that vehicles must not exceed the maximum stay period allowed As this vehicle was found to be parked longer than the maximum period allowed, a Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued.

The signs throughout the car park are clear and comply fully with the BPA’s prescribed rules and regulations.  When parking on private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park concerned.

As we have not been provided with the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. We have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this charge.

Given the above, and whilst we have considered your representations carefully, on this occasion your appeal has been rejected.

The Charge Amount and Methods of Payment

In good faith, Horizon will hold the charge at the current amount of £51.00  for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence to allow you further time to pay.

Payment of the outstanding charge can be made using our 24-hour payment line: 020 8106 0789 or online at https://horizonparking.co.uk/pay-parking-charge-notice/

Alternatively, payment can be made via cheque made payable to Horizon Parking Ltd and posted to Horizon Parking Ltd, Finitor House, 2 Hanbury Road Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3AE

Additional Types of Appeal

You have now reached the end of our appeals procedure.  Although we have rejected your appeal, the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) provides an independent appeals service. To use this service, you must appeal to POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.

For full instructions of how to appeal to POPLA, please visit their website at www.popla.co.uk. If you would rather progress this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.

Your POPLA reference number is <reference>

Please be advised that if you elect  for independent arbitration of your case, you will be required  to pay the charge at the full amount and as such will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. Please also be advised that POPLA will not accept an appeal where payment is made against the Parking Charge Notice in question.

We are required by law  to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal;  however ,  Horizon has not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.

Yours sincerely,

  [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

So a form of words challenging it as a procedural impropriety, in that there are no powers under the relevant legislation and regulations to charge a penalty as well as the original CAZ charge?

Using wording from the PDF provided above similar to "There is no power in Regulation 7 for the PCN to require the road user charge to be paid in addition to the penalty charge. Nor is there a power for the charging authority to refuse to allocate a payment made for a charge and hold it, possibly indefinitely, for future use."

Or do I need to be more watertight than that ?

That would be great, thanks.  I'd twigged it was a Tribunal appeal, but wasn't sure if my original submission would have knackered my chances...