Free Traffic Legal Advice

Ha! No one pays a penny to the eejits at Horizon. 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:

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. Horizon 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. Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Have a read of PoFA 9(2)(f) and then have a read on the back of the NtK and do the maths.

Compare the wording on the NtK vs PoFA 9(2)(f):

What the NtK states:


What PoFA 9(2)(f) actually states:


Under Paragraph 9(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):

Hi, quick update, just got this email from Horizon, appeal rejected as expected, will do POPLA appeal as advised previously.


pablo neruda poems if you forget me

Hi, was just doing appeal for POPLA and not sure if I'm being stupid but I make the last date for the 28 day period the 27th Feb if I include 31st Jan (the day after deemed given) and Horizon's NtK date for same period 26th Feb counting 30th Jan as day 1 of the 28 day period or have I got it wrong?

Thanks.

The original poster is asking about the PoFA 28 day period here.

Does this look ok to submit to POPLA today?

Thanks.


POPLA Appeal Submission: Horizon Parking Ltd

POPLA Reference Number: 3760535012
Vehicle Registration Number: LF18 ZHR
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issue Date: January 28th 2025
Location: Tesco Brent Cross Hendon Way (2131)

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 PoFA, particularly Paragraph 9
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: Thur 23rd January 2025

• PCN Issue Date: Tues 28th January 2025

Under PoFA, the notice is deemed given on the second working day after the issue date:

• First working day: Wednesday 29th January 2025

• Second working day: Thur 30th January 2025

Therefore, the notice is deemed given on Thur 30th January 2025

According to PoFA 9(2)(f), the 28-day period must begin the day after the notice is given:

• Start of 28-day period: Friday 31st January 2025

• End of 28-day period: Thur 27th February 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  30th January 2025 and their liability deadline ends on 26th January 2025. This is 1 day earlier than the correct deadline of Thur 27th 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 which fails to strictly comply with PoFA 9(2)(f).

The incorrect wording could mislead the keeper into thinking they have one less day to name the driver or challenge the charge before the operator claims the right to pursue them.

2. 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.


3. 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.

Summary

Horizon Parking’s NtK fails to comply with the following key requirements of PoFA:

• PoFA 9(2)(f): Incorrect liability period.

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,


Registered Keeper of Vehicle LF18 ZHR

Presumably since Horizon only cares about getting money, it’s now worked out that a significant percentage of people whose appeals are rejected simply pay up and don’t go to POPLA. It says something that they’re less clever than those who had already worked this out! My memory from Pepipoo is similar to yours, I agree.