Free Traffic Legal Advice

Eeek! 😬
Is there any way I can salvage this?

Am I still okay to use this to appeal against them?

The NtK is was not given within the relevant period and therefore is not compliant with PoFA.

It's an easy one to deal with… 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:

Quote

I 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. Smart Parking 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. Smart have no hope should you refuse this appeal, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

When they reject that, you can appeal to the IAS with the following:

Quote

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.

1. The driver has not been identified. The parking operator has chosen not to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) or has failed to comply with its strict requirements—specifically, the Notice to Keeper was issued on 5 August 2025—17 days after the alleged contravention on 19 July 2025. This means that the notice cannot have been "given" within the relevant period defined in Schedule 4. As such, the operator cannot hold the keeper liable.

As this appeal is made solely in the capacity of the registered keeper, no admission is made as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences may be drawn. Smart Parking has alleged a contractual breach by the driver only.

The keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver, nor pursued under any misapplication of agency law. The IAS is not a court and cannot override statutory limitations with speculation. The persuasive appellate decision in VCS Limited v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] confirms that where PoFA conditions are not met and the driver is not identified, the keeper cannot be held liable.

Accordingly, the charge fails at the first hurdle. Irrespective of any alleged contravention, signage, or landowner authority, liability cannot pass to the keeper under statute.

2. Without prejudice to the above, and only in the event that the IAS chooses to ignore the statutory position, I require the operator to provide the following:

Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.

4. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.[/indent]

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.

Hi, thanks for your reply. My partner appealed the charge before I could use your response. They appealed with the same explanation I gave here, but I couldn’t get a copy of what they wrote so I don’t know what wording they used. I’ve attached the PCN company response.

POPLA assessment and decision
07/07/2025
Verification Code -

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Stuart Lumsden
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to exceeding the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The operator has failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 and cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. • The appellant has raised section 19.3 and 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice and states the signs are not illuminated. • The appellant has raised section 14.1 of The Private Parking Single Code of Practice and would like to see evidence the operator has authority to issue PCN’s. The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack and states The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • 3 images of the same sign. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and note they have raised many grounds, for the purposes of my decision, I will be focusing on signage. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with it’s Code of Practice which sets out minimum guidelines for private parking operators. Section 19.3 of the Code relates to specific terms signage and states: Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. It is evident due to the images of the vehicle’s entry and exit, that the appellant did not visit the car park in daylight hours. In relation to the contrast and illumination of signage, Appendix B of the British Parking Association Code of Practice explains that, “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual”. The appellant has provided 3 images of the same sign taken from the entrance to the site. The images are partially visible with clear lighting in the background showing there is lighting in place, but it’s unclear when the images were taken as they have no metadata. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack, and it has provided images of signs throughout the site and upon entry during daylight hours. It has also provided images of illuminated signs during the hours of darkness, showing that signs are lit and visible. Whilst I accept this, the images were taken on 15th May 2025, 2 months after the breach. Both the appellants images and the operator’s images do not demonstrate that signs were lit on or before the date of the breach. As the operator has failed to demonstrate that clear and compliant signs were lit and visible on or before the date of the breach, I cannot conclude that they were. As such, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

Hi,
Horizon has responded to the POPLA appeal with the document attached. I have blurred out all personal info. Any advice on what I should do next??

Thanks

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi, this is the reply I received from Horizon:

Dear Appellant,
 
Parking Charge:——-
 
Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the above referenced Parking Charge.
 
 
 Review of your Appeal
 
 The Parking Charge was issued lawfully and in full and proper accordance with the Private Parking Sector Single 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 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 £40.00  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
 
If you have no evidence that you wish to submit to us then 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 ———-
 
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 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,

Thank you so much!
So for the Horizon appeal, I should just copy and paste the message you sent.
I should only mention the lighting issue in the POPLA appeal