Show Posts - kragnar

Hi all,Just a quick update and huge thanks to everyone here for the guidance — especially around Horizon’s failure to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4.I used the appeal format discussed in my earlier post, clearly stating I was the hirer (not the driver), and pointed out their non-compliance. I also attached receipts from the day of the incident, while making it clear that these did not identify the driver — and that I had no intention of doing so.Horizon has now responded and cancelled the charge as a “gesture of goodwill”. Here’s what they said:"Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge, which we have reviewed.I can confirm as a gesture of goodwill the Parking Charge has now been cancelled and no further action will be taken in this matter.Please note that further Parking Charges may not be cancelled."Whether it was goodwill or just them avoiding a losing battle, I’ll take it — and I wouldn't have got there without this forum.Thanks again!Consider this case closed.

Hi all,Thanks again for the guidance so far — especially around Horizon's non-compliance with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4.Based on what you've told me, I've drafted the following appeal to send to Horizon Parking as the hirer (not the driver). I haven’t submitted it yet and would appreciate any final feedback before I do.Draft Appeal to Horizon Parking:Subject: Appeal against PCN – Notice to Hirer – [PCN Number]Dear Horizon Parking,I am the hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be making a formal complaint about this predatory and unfair charge to your client (the landowner).Your Notice to Hirer fails to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Specifically, it was not accompanied by:A copy of the Notice to KeeperA copy of the hire agreementA statement of liability signed by the hirerPartial or substantial compliance is not sufficient. Because these documents were not included, you have no right under PoFA 2012 to transfer liability to the hirer.There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences can be made. You may not pursue the hirer under contract law without the proper legal basis to do so.Your Notice to Hirer can only hold the driver liable, and I will not be naming them. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you test your position at POPLA, where I will be making a strong submission based on your non-compliance.You are urged to cancel this Parking Charge Notice now and avoid wasting further time.Questions for the forum:Does the above appeal look good to send to Horizon? Anything you'd change or add?I’m also considering contacting Rontec, who operate the petrol station where this happened. I’ve had success in the past with a restaurant PCN — I contacted them directly and they cancelled it without needing proof.In this case, I plan to attach the PCN and a redacted bank statement showing purchases made on the same day, and submit it through Rontec’s website as a complaint.Would you recommend going ahead with that? I’ve already drafted a professional and polite message for Rontec and can post it here if helpful.Thanks again for your help — I really appreciate the time and advice.

Thanks again for the guidance — I’ve now read through the forum guide you linked and understand the importance of not revealing who was driving.To clarify my earlier post: while I may have used “I” a lot when describing the events, I haven’t made any formal contact with Horizon or anyone else in writing. I haven’t identified the driver at any stage.All that has happened so far is:I received the Notice to Hirer today (04/09/2025).On my way to a job earlier today, I briefly stopped by the petrol station to try and find a contact email or number for the site operator to potentially raise a complaint.I only asked the person there about who to contact regarding a PCN and didn’t give any details or discuss the incident.I haven’t submitted any appeals or correspondence to Horizon at all.In response to your other question — nothing else came with the Notice to Hirer. It was just the single-page letter titled Parking Charge Notice to Hirer (which I've already attached in the thread). There were:No copy of the Notice to KeeperNo copy of the hire agreementNo copy of a statement of liability signed by me (the hirer)

Hi all,I've received a Notice to Hirer PCN from Horizon Parking, and I would really appreciate some help and advice before I take further action.Background:The alleged contravention took place at a petrol station that I use regularly. I'm an Uber driver, and due to my airport runs, I often stop at this location multiple times a day as it's ideally situated for:Filling up on fuelTopping up tire pressureUsing the personal vacuums providedOccasionally buying items from the shop insideI do not use the location for general parking, as I'm aware of the 20-minute time limit, and have always been careful to stick to that.On the day in question:I used multiple services offered at the petrol station.I have bank statement evidence showing purchases made on the day, which support that I was a paying customer. Note: The bank statement date appears as 5th August, but this refers to purchases made on the 4th. I will attach a full view of the transaction which, when clicked on, shows the correct transaction date (4th August).I suspect I may have returned to the site more than once in a short timeframe, which could be why this PCN was issued.The signage with the T&Cs is not easily visible, though I will admit I am familiar with the time restriction from past visits and do try to follow it carefully.This is the first time I've had any issue at this location, despite frequent visits. I’m currently planning to raise a formal complaint with the petrol station operators, as I believe this charge is unfair – especially given that I was actively using their paid services and not misusing their parking area as i have done in a similar case before and it worked .However, before I proceed, I thought it best to seek advice from this forum first, in case there are steps I should be taking now regarding Horizon Parking or any templates that might apply (e.g. BVRLA guidance, hire car rules, POFA compliance, etc.).I have attached:Photos/scans of the PCNPhotos of the terms and conditions/signage from the locationRelevant info from my bank statement (with sensitive details redacted)Any advice on how to proceed with appealing this or getting it cancelled would be massively appreciated. I’d also be grateful if anyone could confirm whether the PCN is compliant and enforceable, especially given it’s a Notice to Hirer.Thanks in advance for your time and help!location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/gnPVDj9C2kBkZ1Ey7Images: https://imgur.com/a/VGJKsNb

Just wanted to give a quick update and say thank you to everyone who offered help and guidance regarding the PCN for O/S 2 YORK WAY N1 – Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) from TfL.After weighing everything up, I’ve decided to just pay the charge today as it’s the final day before the 50% discount expires. I genuinely appreciate all the support and the time people took to share their knowledge and advice — it really does mean a lot, especially as it's done out of pure goodwill. Blessings to you all for that.This PCN is now closed and dealt with.THANK YOU.

Please advice. This is the Final appeal letter i crafted based on what has been discussed so far. Dear NCP,I am writing to formally challenge the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice.I am the hirer of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. Please note that I am not identifying the driver, and there is no evidence in your correspondence that establishes who the driver was.Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), a private parking operator may only hold a vehicle’s registered keeper or hirer liable for a parking charge if specific statutory conditions are met. One such condition is that the land in question must be “relevant land”. Gatwick Airport is subject to statutory control under airport byelaws, which makes it not “relevant land” as defined under PoFA.This means NCP cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability for the parking charge to either the keeper or the hirer. Only the driver could be held liable, and since the identity of the driver has not been provided, there is no lawful basis for pursuing this charge.If Gatwick Airport wished to pursue liability under its byelaws, that would be a matter for the landowner, not NCP. Your charge is a civil contractual claim issued for your company’s own commercial interest, and it does not meet the requirements of a statutory penalty issued under byelaws.Furthermore, you cannot infer or presume that the hirer was the driver, nor rely on any “agency” theory to bypass PoFA, which is the only legal route available for transferring liability under such circumstances.Given these points, I respectfully request that you cancel this PCN. Should you choose not to cancel it, please issue a formal rejection notice along with a POPLA code so I may refer the matter for independent adjudication.

Quote from: H C Andersen on 15 Jul, 2025 08:21OP, let's sort out who's who first pl.You are not the registered keeper; you do not have a PCN in your own name; whether to appeal to the tribunal is not your decision although you may act for the keeper with their consent.If the keeper lost at appeal would they charge you a fee for processing payment of the penalty?TfL say you were stopped for 4 minutes, you say you had your brake lights on all the time which proves it was more momentary. The CCTV will show, I suspect TfL are correct. You then drove off without anyone boarding and you don't have any job sheet or similar record for the day. Barring there being procedural grounds to make an appeal worthwhile then why risk the discount?We really need to know who's who.Thanks for the reply — let me clarify the situation:I'm not the registered keeper of the vehicle, but I hire it directly from the company that owns it — no third party involved. I was also the driver on the night in question. If I do decide to challenge it at tribunal, there won’t be any extra charges from the company that owns the vehicle — they’re not involved beyond the hire. So the only risk on my end would be losing the discount and having to pay the full PCN amount. I’ve never taken a case this far before, so I’m not fully sure what costs or steps might come with the tribunal process.Normally, if I make a mistake or stop somewhere I shouldn't, I take the hit, pay the PCN, and treat it as a lesson. I don’t usually challenge things unless I genuinely believe there’s some justification — and in this case, I was genuinely there to pick up a passenger.Unfortunately, if the PCN had arrived even a few days earlier, I might’ve been able to retrieve the relevant job record or cancellation proof. But by the time it came through, that data was gone. So at this point, there’s no point dwelling on what I could’ve done.I’m seriously considering just paying the discounted rate now — unless there’s a clear procedural ground to challenge it. I'm aware that appealing and then losing means paying full price, and with limited evidence and no guarantee, it may not be worth the time and stress.You can treat this as more of a last attempt to check if there’s any solid ground to go on. If I’d known about this forum earlier, I would’ve started here — but it is what it is.Thanks again to everyone who's taken the time to help.Please Advice.

Quote from: Incandescent on 14 Jul, 2025 22:23So, looking at the GSV view and also reading your narrative, it is clear you stopped and were stationary for 5 minutes on the double-red lines in the street alongside Kings Cross Station.This is what Transport for London say about Taxis and Private Hire vehicles on their website: -QuoteTaxi & private hireAlways display your licence and exemption sticker. Private hire vehicle owners will now be offered red route exemption stickers at the point of inspection. We will not, under any circumstances, issue a red route sign to an individual whose vehicle is not on site for a licensing inspection.You can pick up and drop off passengers on most red routes as long as you display your private hire vehicle (PHV) license. It will tell police, CCTV operators and other road users that you're allowed to do this. It also means that you'll avoid receiving a penalty charge.You can't stop on the parts of the red route with a wide red line, pedestrian crossings or zigzags.So provided you display your PHV licence you should be exempt, and any PCN served incorrectly should be cancelled by TfL. However, you have not posted up the other information we need to see, like your PCN, and the correspondence between you and TfL, so please do so.The problem is that I see no PHV licence visible on your vehicle, so that seems to be the problem. I assume it's a yellow plate with your licence details on it. However, maybe London is different. Here in Crewe ply-for-hire cabs have white plates, and privated hire cars yellow ones. They are always mounted as near the rear number plate as possible.Thanks for your reply and for taking the time to look into this — I really appreciate the help from everyone so far.Regarding the PHV licence display: in London, TfL issues private hire vehicle licence badges in the form of two small circular stickers. These are attached from the inside of the vehicle — one on the top left corner of the front windscreen and the other in the same position on the rear window. Unlike some other councils where large external plates are used, TfL’s method makes the badges harder to spot unless you're viewing the vehicle from quite close up, especially at night or from certain angles. In most cases, the front badge is the most likely one to be picked up by a camera, but even then, visibility can vary.That could very well be why the licence wasn't clearly visible in this case — even though it was there. I’ve always kept it in place as required.As for the correspondence with TfL and the actual PCN, I’ll upload those shortly for context. I’m just going through and gathering everything properly before posting.Again, thank you to everyone who's responded — your help has been genuinely appreciated.One other thing, If i do try to take the appeal further as TFL has Suggested, on what statutory grounds could i even appeal under and what are the chances of me winning the appeal.

Quote from: DWMB2 on 14 Jul, 2025 22:14So, in terms of why you can't be liable as the hirer... Private parking charges are based on contract law. The driver (allegedly) enters into a contract with the parking company whereby he agrees to abide with the conditions of the parking contract, as detailed on the relevant signage on the site, 'agreeing' to pay a parking charge of £100 if he does not. That contract exists between the driver and the parking company.The parking company have no idea who the driver is, unless you tell them, which makes it rather hard for them to enforce against the driver.There is a piece of legislation, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"), which provides a mechanism for parking companies to hold the registered keeper, or the hirer of the vehicle, liable for a parking charge, in cases where they do not know who the driver is. However, there are a number of conditions set out in PoFA, and only if these conditions are met can a parking company hold the keeper/hirer liable. One of those conditions is that the place where the car was parked/stopped is "relevant land". PoFA defines relevant land as:"(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.The bit I have highlighted in bold is relevant here. Gatwick Airport is subject to byelaws, which govern all sorts of conduct within the airport land, including parking. This means the airport is not "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA, meaning they cannot hold the keeper/hirer liable for any parking charges. They can only hold the driver liable, and unless you tell them, they don't know who the driver is!It's a complicated sounding argument, but it's a well-trodden one, and the appeal suggested further up sets it out to NCP, who are well aware of it, and are likely to cancel.Thank you so much for the detailed explanation — it’s starting to make a lot more sense now. I’ll admit the legal parts still go over my head a bit, but I can now see the core of the argument and why it’s being used.I also understand now why other users pointed out my original wording, especially things like using “I” in ways that could imply I was the driver. That clarification really helped. From what I’ve gathered, the best thing I can do now is respond using the legal position around PoFA and relevant land — and not include any extra info that could unintentionally confirm who was driving.I had originally planned to raise other points — like the lack of full context in the photos, the absence of clear time stamps, or how NCP may have found my details through AutoPay registration — but I now realise bringing those up might undermine the key legal argument by indirectly identifying myself as the driver.I’m genuinely grateful for your help and the time you’ve taken to explain this. Unless anyone has anything further to add or correct, I’ll start drafting the actual appeal shortly based on the points and guidance already provided.

Quote from: jfollows on 14 Jul, 2025 20:54Quote from: kragnar on 14 Jul, 2025 17:32Quote from: jfollows on 14 Jul, 2025 17:16Your first post still identifies the driver!Where ?.Your use of the word “I” gives it away, but if you don’t want to listen to advice, that’s your choice.Remember, “I” is the hirer but not necessarily the driver.I’m genuinely here to ask for help, not to argue. I’m just asking questions because I don’t fully understand — that’s the nature of asking. I haven’t written the appeal yet for that exact reason, and the point being used against me seems to come from how I worded things while trying to get help with the PCN. I don’t yet know what arguments apply or what wording is right, which is why I ask and fill things in based on what I think I understand. Even after some incredibly helpful people pointed me in the right direction and explained which arguments to use, I still don’t fully understand why those arguments work or what they really mean — which is why I’m taking the time to look into it and learn. I’m not here to just copy and paste something blindly. I want to actually understand the proper way to handle these things.To those replying to my post, I really ask for a bit of patience — this is all completely new to me. I’ve always relied on myself and basic reasoning when appealing PCNs, and even reaching out for help on this forum has been a bit overwhelming, as I’m not used to doing this.To those genuinely trying to help, I’m truly grateful — whether the PCN gets cancelled or not. I just ask that it's not held against me when I’m confused or asking about something I don’t yet fully grasp.

Quote from: jfollows on 14 Jul, 2025 17:16Your first post still identifies the driver!Where ?. From re-reading it, the only thing i can see that could identify me as the driver would be the auto-pay system i mentioned but Having AutoPay set up in your name with Gatwick does not confirm you were the driver in a legal sense, unless you directly state it or respond in a way that implies it. Especially for the day in question. I have also been in contact with the owners of the car and they haven't found a PCN that was sent to them so far. It currently seems like i am the only one who has received a PCN. I intend to wait for a week to see if anything extra turns up and i will keep the forum up-to dated on further developments

Quote from: H C Andersen on 14 Jul, 2025 16:46I’m currently hiring this vehicle from a company and have been *****for a long time,An example of how you must amend your posts. Never admit to being the driver at this stage. Anyway, at this stage the issue is procedural, so pl answer the questions.What documents did you receive with the 'Parking charge to hirer'?No other Documents were sent to me other than the one page "Parking charge to hirer" with a back page on how i should appeal and what if i wasn't the driver. I will include a photo of the back page now with the other photos but other than that nothing else. I haven't appealed or done anything regarding the PCN as of now without final advice on how it is i should appeal and when.

Hi everyone,I'm hoping to get some help or guidance here, as I’ve been going back and forth with TfL for the past couple of months over a PCN I received, and I’m now at a point where I’m not sure what to do next.The PCN is for allegedly stopping where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) outside 2 York Way, N1, near King’s Cross station. I'm a PCO licensed driver, and from what I can recall, I was there to pick up a passenger at the time of the contravention.As many fellow drivers will know, ride-hailing apps (Uber, Bolt, etc.) often place the passenger pickup point at the closest possible GPS location, even if that’s not a safe or legal place to stop. This often leads to confusion for the passenger, and we’re left trying to guide them to where we actually are — all while on a red route or in a restricted area we didn’t choose. From memory, this is what happened on the night in question.Unfortunately, I no longer have the trip receipt as some apps like Bolt only store job history for a short time, while others keep it for years. I explained all this to TfL and even provided my PCO badge number in the appeal, hoping it would support my case and prove I was working at the time — but they rejected it anyway.It’s been a very frustrating and exhausting process over the past 2 months. I had genuinely believed that being a licensed PCO driver, with the understanding that pickups can sometimes happen on red routes under certain operational allowances, would result in the PCN being cancelled. Sadly, that hasn't been the case.I’ve attached the wording I used in my appeal below for reference.I now have about 1 day left before the 50% discounted payment period expires, and I’m stuck between paying it or taking it to the tribunal. I wasn’t stopped for long — certainly not more than 5 minutes, as per the platform’s rules around waiting time before cancellation — and I was there for a legitimate passenger job.I’d really appreciate any advice on whether it's worth taking this to tribunal or if I should just pay and move on. This whole experience has been discouraging, and I feel like I’ve been backed into a corner despite trying to do the right thing.Thanks in advance for any help or guidance.Location of contravention: https://maps.app.goo.gl/y8D9H4xEGa6vo87x7https://imgur.com/a/rsdrpZg

Quote from: jfollows on 14 Jul, 2025 14:21Standard appeal for Gatwick, assuming the driver is not identified, isQuoteI am the registered keeper. NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, NCP will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Gatwick Airport is not 'relevant land'.If Gatwick Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because NCP is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP 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. NCP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.You need to modify your posts so that the driver is not identified.See the READ THIS FIRST linked from Reply #1 above.However, you’re not the registered keeper, so you can’t respond exactly as above.Taking the notice as a Notice to Hirer, as well as not being relevant land as above, if it were then it also fails the requirements of PoFA 2012 by not including specific documents required by law.So many points to appeal on.Thanks, I forgot that i needed to hide such details as it could lead to issues. I wanted to give as much details as possible and provided too much in my haste. I have amended and hidden any details per the forums standard. Let me know if there is anything else i need to do.

I have updated my post with the additional information you requested. Let me know if you need anything further