Free Traffic Legal Advice

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 POPLA 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.

Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the BPA Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.

Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.

Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

The appellant has raised several points in their appeal to POPLA.

In response to Point 1, as shown in Section E, there is ample signage throughout the car park clearly displaying the terms and conditions that must be adhered to. Al signs state al the specific parking terms and parking charges ni the event of a breach. nI accordance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, al signage on site is conspicuous, legible and written in intelligible language. By entering this car park and choosing to remain on site, the Appellant has entered into a contract with Horizon Parking and has consented to comply with the terms and conditions set out on the signs in that car park which are clearly visible.

In response to Point 2, again all signs state all the specific parking terms and parking charges in the event of a breach. In accordance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, al signage on site si conspicuous, legible and written in intelligible language. 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 is required for parking.

In response to Point 3, The Parking Charge fuly adheres to the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and the Registered Keeper was advised of this on both pages of the letter they have received - please see below.

(POFA). The Appellant is the Registered Keeper and they have not confirmed whether they were the driver or who was the driver. Therefore, because the charge is fully compliant with POFA, the Registered Keeper is held liable for the Parking Charge their vehicle has been issued.

In response to Point 4, Horizon Parking Limited has the authority of the legal occupier of the land to provide parking management services in accordance with the stated terms and conditions of parking. This is evidenced simply by the existence of Horizon's equipment being on the legal occupier's land. Such equipment could not be on the land without the consent of the legal occupier. Regardless of these facts, it is settled law that only a third party with a higher proprietary interest in the land can challenge Horizon's authority to act. In absence of such higher proprietary interest, Horizon is under neither a duty nor obligation to disclose commercial documents between Horizon and its clients.

In response to Point 5, the vehicle breached the car park terms and conditions on 16/08/25 and the Parking Charge was then issued, and the letter sent on 26/08/25.Therefore, we have sent the Parking Charge letter within the timeframe set out in the Private Parking Sector Single code. It must be noted that once the Parking Charge is issued it is not within the control of Horizon Parking about the delivery of the letter. It is up to the local post office to deliver the letter to its destination on time. If the Appellant has any issue regarding the delivery, they wil have to take it up with their local post office.

When entering a car park located on private land and choosing to remain on site, the motorist enters a valid contract and agreed to abide by the car park's terms and conditions which are detailed on signs, which are on display at various points within the car park itself. The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use and one of the conditions is that a £85.00 Parking Charge will be issued when the terms and conditions are breached.

It is the keeper's responsibility when parking on private land to ensure they familiarize themselves with the terms and conditions on site via the signage, this ensures they are aware of the charge should they breach the terms and conditions on site.

By parking the vehicle on the site, the appellant entered a valid contract and agreed to abide by its terms and conditions. The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use. One of the conditions is that a £85.00 Parking Charge wil be issued when the terms and conditions are breached.

Our position remains that this Parking Charge was issued correctly. We maintain the appellant entered a valid contract and should pay the valid parking charges as per the signage on the site.

Comments on Point 4 – Authority to Operate:

Horizon’s response is an exercise in deflection and demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of the legal concept of authority or a deliberate attempt to conceal the absence of it. Their claim that the presence of “equipment being on the land” constitutes proof of authority is legally meaningless. It might indicate that permission existed at some point in time, but it cannot possibly establish that such authority was valid and extant on 16 August 2025 — the date of the alleged event. Contracts expire, are terminated, or replaced, and physical signage or cameras are often left behind. Horizon’s reasoning is therefore not evidence of authority; it is pure conjecture dressed up as fact.

Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) exists precisely to prevent this sort of evasive behaviour. It requires operators to hold — and to be prepared to produce — a written agreement with the landowner specifying the boundaries, duration, rights granted, and authority to issue parking charges in their own name. Those requirements are not discretionary, and they are not met by simply asserting “trust us”.

Horizon’s further suggestion that only someone with a “higher proprietary interest” can challenge their authority is equally flawed. The question before POPLA is not one of competing property rights, but whether Horizon had standing to form or enforce a parking contract. POPLA’s role includes assessing whether a parking operator has demonstrated that it has the legal capacity to contract with motorists — not to take the operator’s word for it.

If any assessor were to accept Horizon’s argument at face value, it would represent a fundamental failure to apply basic principles of contract law and the very Code they are bound to uphold. The operator has produced no evidence whatsoever of authority, merely a circular claim that their own signs prove their entitlement. In any legal setting, such reasoning would be laughed out of court. Should this point alone not give reason to cancel this PCN, in court is exactly where this will be challenged and ridiculed.

Absent a dated, signed, and contemporaneous agreement conferring authority from the landholder, Horizon’s claim to issue or enforce this Parking Charge is without legal foundation. The appeal must therefore be allowed.

Point 5 – “We sent it on time; delivery is the post office’s problem”

This is a masterclass in buck-passing. PoFA Schedule 4 doesn’t care about Horizon’s “issue date”, internal print logs, or their feelings about the post. It requires the Notice to Keeper to be given within the relevant period. For ANPR cases, that means:

- Para 9(4): the notice must be given within 14 days of the alleged parking event.
- Paras 9(5)–9(6): when sent by post, service is presumed on the second working day after posting — but only if the operator proves the date of posting.

Three fatal problems for Horizon:

1.  “We issued it” is not “we posted it”.
A template print date or a back-office “generated” timestamp proves nothing. The clock runs from entry into the postal system, not when Horizon’s mail-merge spat out a PDF. If they use a consolidator (Whistl, Citipost, UK Mail, etc.), “handed to consolidator” is still not “posted”. The presumption in PoFA 9(6) only arises from actual posting.

2. The burden of proof is on the operator, not Royal Mail.
PoFA places the duty squarely on Horizon to evidence compliance. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires operators to retain a record of the date of posting. Not “date of generation”, not “we think it went out”, but the day it was put into the postal system. If Horizon can’t produce a postal manifest, DSA/OBA handover record, or equivalent third-party log proving posting, they don’t get to wave the statutory presumption around like a comfort blanket.

3. Their “not within our control” line is legally illiterate.
Horizon chose to rely on keeper liability via post. With that choice comes the statutory risk of proving service. If they won’t (or can’t) evidence posting, PoFA fails. End of story. Telling the keeper to “take it up with the post office” is the corporate equivalent of shrugging and hoping POPLA fills in the gaps for them. That isn’t law; it’s laziness.

PoFA 9(6) — what it actually says and what it means (for the avoidance of any doubt)

“(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so ‘given’ for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose ‘working day’ means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”

Plain meaning:

- The presumption of delivery only starts after the day of posting, and only on the second working day thereafter.
- The words “unless the contrary is proved” make this a rebuttable presumption. It is not automatic. It can be displaced by evidence.
- To benefit from the presumption at all, the operator must first prove the predicate fact: that the notice was posted on a specific date.
- Therefore, the burden of proof sits with the operator to produce independent evidence of posting (e.g., Royal Mail manifest, DSA/OBA handover, consolidator’s final handover to Royal Mail). Internal “generated” dates or PDF metadata are not proof of posting.

What the assessor must apply:

- No posting proof means no presumption under 9(6).
- No presumption means the operator cannot show the notice was “given” within 14 days per 9(4).
- Failure on this single statutory limb collapses keeper liability in its entirety.

Horizon’s argument is not only wrong but embarrassingly ignorant of the very statute they claim to rely on. Their line that “it’s up to the post office” shows a complete failure to grasp what PoFA 9(6) actually says or means. The law could not be clearer: the notice is only presumed to be “given” on the second working day after posting, unless the contrary is proved.

That phrase makes it a rebuttable presumption, not an automatic one. It exists only if the operator can first prove the predicate fact that the notice was actually posted on a specific date. Without that proof, the presumption never arises.

Producing a copy of the NtK proves nothing about when or how it entered the postal system. Horizon was put to strict proof of postal evidence, such as a Royal Mail or consolidator handover record, proof of first-class or equivalent postage, and a clear reconciliation showing that—after applying working-day rules—the notice was “given” within 14 days of the alleged event. They provided none of this.

Instead, they tried to shift responsibility to the postal service, which is legally absurd. Horizon chose to use the postal route to create keeper liability, so the burden of proving service is theirs alone. Their excuse that delivery is “not within our control” is a confession that they have no proof of compliance. This is not a minor oversight; it is a complete failure of a statutory condition precedent.

Keeper liability therefore fails, and the appeal must be allowed.