So you submit an appeal to POPLA. You have 33 days from the appeal rejection date of the appeal to submit your POPLA appeal. As long as you submit it before 15th February, there will not be an issue.
Horizon have conveniently for them, ignored the points raised in the initial appeal. As you will raise them again in the POPLA appeal, they will have to deal with them by way of rebuttal.
Here is a suggested POPLA appeal that should lead the assessor to understanding why Horizons NtK does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA, especially because of their choice of wording to interpret Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA. I have left all your identifying marks in because you have not bothered to redact them in your own images. If you want them redacted (POPLA ref no and VRM, then redact them in your won images and let me know and I will redact them here.
POPLA Appeal Submission: Horizon Parking Ltd
POPLA Reference Number: 3760135148
Vehicle Registration Number: AO61 ANR
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issue Date: 11th December 2024
Location: Tesco Romford Gallows Corner Extra
To the POPLA Assessor,
I am submitting this appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Horizon Parking Ltd on the grounds that Horizon's Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the statutory requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), thereby making the charge unenforceable against me as the registered keeper. Horizon Parking cannot hold the registered keeper liable due to their failure to meet the strict wording and procedural requirements of PoFA.
I will explain in detail below how Horizon's NtK falls short of compliance with several key paragraphs of PoFA, particularly Paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f), and why this renders their attempt to transfer liability to the keeper invalid.
1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 9(2)(f) – Incorrect Liability Period
Horizon Parking’s NtK includes the following wording:
“You are advised that if after the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge, the amount due has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. 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 on the Schedule for of that Act.”
This wording does not comply with the legal requirements of PoFA. Let me explain why.
According to PoFA 9(2)(f), the NtK MUST state:
“The notice must warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given, the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under this paragraph has not been paid in full, and the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.”
The key difference is that PoFA requires the 28-day countdown to begin “with the day after that on which the notice is given”, while Horizon’s NtK states that the 28-day countdown begins “from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge”. This is a fundamental error that makes Horizon’s NtK non-compliant with PoFA.
Let’s calculate the dates correctly.
Important Dates:
• Alleged Contravention Date: Friday, 6th December 2024
• PCN Issue Date: Wednesday, 11th December 2024
Under PoFA, the notice is deemed given on the second working day after the issue date:
• First working day: Thursday, 12th December 2024
• Second working day: Friday, 13th December 2024
Therefore, the notice is deemed given on Friday, 13th December 2024.
According to PoFA 9(2)(f), the 28-day period must begin the day after the notice is given:
• Start of 28-day period: Saturday, 14th December 2024
• End of 28-day period: Friday, 10th January 2025
However, Horizon’s NtK incorrectly starts the 28-day period from the second working day after the issue date, implying they begin counting from Friday, 13th December 2024, and their liability deadline ends on Thursday, 9th January 2025. This is four days earlier than the correct deadline of Friday, 10th January 2025.
This premature deadline is a clear breach of PoFA. Liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper when the NtK fails to comply with this mandatory requirement.
2. Failure to Comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) – Missing Invitation to Pay
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires that the NtK:
“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 to pay the unpaid parking charges.”
According to Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific "invitation" to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
Horizon cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:
• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).
This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.
PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.
If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.
The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
3. Horizon Parking’s Misleading Use of PoFA References
Horizon Parking claims in their NtK that they are relying on PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable. However, they fail to comply with the specific wording and all the requirements set out in PoFA. Simply referencing PoFA does not make their notice compliant.
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.
4. No Evidence of Who Was Driving
As the registered keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to Horizon Parking, an unregulated private company. Horizon cannot assume nor infer that I was the driver. Since their NtK fails to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA, they cannot transfer liability to me as the keeper. Horizon must provide strict proof of who was driving if they wish to enforce this charge, and they have not done so.
5. Inadequate Signage
The signage at the site is inadequate and does not meet the standards set out by the British Parking Association (BPA) in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The terms and conditions are displayed in small, hard-to-read text, and the parking charge amount is not clearly prominent. Without clear signage, it is impossible to form a valid contract with the driver.
6. Summary
Horizon Parking’s NtK fails to comply with the following key requirements of PoFA:
• PoFA 9(2)(f): Incorrect liability period.
• PoFA 9(2)(e): Missing invitation to pay.
As a result, Horizon Parking cannot hold the registered keeper liable for this charge. Furthermore, Horizon has not provided any evidence of who was driving the vehicle. Therefore, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle AO61 ANR
Winner x 3
View List