Free Traffic Legal Advice

@b789
Thanks for following up. And i most certainly will definitely be challenging this. I'm being a little thick here and i seem to have misunderstood the advice in reference to your last comment "Just follow the advice if you want to defeat these scavengers". Do I simply select "i was not the driver" from the drop down? and how best to supplement this with the comments?

Parking Charge Reference       HP4109103
Vehicle Registration Number    LD63ZFM
Breach of Terms and Conditions Failure to Pay for Full Duration of Stay ANPR
Date and Time of Breach        16th August 202505:28 PM
Location Name                  Mercury Shopping Centre
POPLA Code                     3762745340
Date of this Correspondence    1st October 2025
 

1st October 2025

 
Dear Appellant,
 
Parking Charge:HP4109103

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.

As clearly stipulated on signage within the car park, payment for parking must be made for the full duration of the vehicles stay.  Our systems do not show any evidence of payment made against this vehicle on the incident date.

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 £85.00  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 3762745340

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,

As registered keeper, I challenge this PCN on the following grounds:

1: No terms/conditions displayed at entry point:
At the main entry point of the car park, there is only a basic "car park" sign with no terms, conditions, or parking charges displayed. This actively invites drivers to enter while providing no notice of the terms they will be bound by. The parking charges and terms are only displayed on signage positioned further down the entrance path, AFTER a driver has already turned in and committed to entering the car park.

The BPA Code of Practice Section 19.3 explicitly requires "the size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible." By placing only an invitational "car park" sign at the entrance with no terms displayed, the operator:

   •   Invites drivers to enter without informing them of charges or conditions
   •   Provides no opportunity to view terms and decide whether to enter
   •   Positions the actual terms sign after the point where drivers have already committed to entering private land
   •   Makes it impossible for drivers to give informed consent before parking

This creates an unfair catch-22: by the time the driver encounters the terms further down the entrance path, they have already entered private land. Reading the terms and deciding to leave would itself constitute a "breach" under the operator's rules. Adequate notice requires charges and key terms to be displayed at the decision point to enter, not after entry has occurred.|

2: Operator Must Prove Actual Notice Was Given
The operator cannot rely on theoretical visibility or generic site photos. They must prove actual notice was given to the driver at this specific location. The operator must prove the driver actually saw and understood the terms, not merely that signs existed somewhere on site. Generic site photographs are insufficient.

I put the operator to strict proof that:

- Signage was visible and readable from the vehicle's specific parking location on the material date
- The driver could reasonably see and read the terms before committing to park
- The parking charge was displayed prominently and in "large lettering" as required
- Photographic evidence showing the driver's actual view from the parking space

3: No Valid Contract Formed - Keeper Liability Cannot Exist
Due to the signage failures detailed above, no valid contract was formed between the driver and the operator. Without clear, visible, and prominent signage that the driver actually saw and understood:

- No offer was properly communicated
- No acceptance could occur
- No enforceable contract exists

Under PoFA Schedule 4, keeper liability is conditional upon the operator first establishing driver liability through adequate notice. Since adequate notice was not provided, the operator has failed to satisfy Paragraph 5, and therefore cannot pursue the keeper under Schedule 4 regardless of Notice to Keeper compliance.

I request the operator provide:

- Close-up photographs of all signage at the location on the material date
- Photographs showing sign visibility specifically from the parking space in question
- Evidence the entrance sign is visible when entering (not just when stationary)

As registered keeper, I challenge this PCN on the following grounds:

Ground 1: No Charges Displayed at Entrance
Photographic evidence (Exhibits A-D) proves:

- Entrance shows "ASDA Welcome" with no charges (Exhibit B)
- Street sign shows ASDA branding, no tariff (Exhibit A)
- Charges only visible inside car park after entry (Exhibits C-D)

This violates BPA Code Section 19.3 requiring signs to "take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance." The operator actively invited drivers to enter while concealing a complex charging structure (different rates by duration, Saturday rates, Sunday free, Asda discounts).

Drivers cannot be expected to research website tariffs before entering - adequate notice must be given at the site. By the time charges are visible inside, the driver has already committed to entering and would be in "breach" if attempting to leave.

No valid contract formed.

Ground 2: Operator Cannot Prove Actual Notice
Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] requires operators prove the driver actually saw and understood terms. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 upheld £85 only because of 20 large, prominent noticeboards throughout the site with charges in "largest font size."

Mercury fails this standard:

- no charges at entrance decision point;
- signs inside car park too late.

I require strict proof that:

- Charges were visible at entrance before entry commitment
- Signage met Beavis standard
- Photographic evidence from entrance on 16th August 2025


Ground 3: PoFA Schedule 4 Not Satisfied
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 requires "the driver must have been given adequate notice of the parking charges" - a mandatory condition. Paragraph 4(2): keeper liability "applies only if conditions in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are met."

Exhibits A-D prove Paragraph 5 not satisfied. Former POPLA Lead Adjudicator: "If not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

The operator cannot pursue the keeper regardless of Notice to Keeper compliance.

Ground 4: No Proof of Valid Authority
The operator must prove valid authority to issue PCNs. The prominent ASDA branding creates ambiguity about landowner identity.

I require strict proof of:

- Valid contract with landowner (Mercury Shopping Centre/Asda) in force on 16th August 2025
- Authorization to issue PCNs in Horizon Parking's own name
- Confirmation of landowner identity

Without proof of authority, the operator has no standing to pursue this charge.


Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled because:

- No adequate notice - "ASDA Welcome" invitation concealed charges until after entry
- Operator cannot prove driver saw/understood terms (Vine/Beavis standard not met)
- PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 not satisfied - keeper liability cannot exist
- No proof of valid authority from landowner

The photographic evidence proves drivers entering this car park see only invitational ASDA-branded signage with no indication of charges.

I respectfully request this appeal be allowed.