Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello to all

I have received this parking charge letter is attached here.

I replied via online portal to horizon with the following pofa template.

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper Mr …….for vehicle VRM …….

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours …..

I have received a reply to my email as follows


 31st October 2024
 
Dear Appellant,
 
Parking Charge:HP……..
 
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.
 
One of the terms and conditions is that vehicles must not exceed the maximum stay period allowed. As this vehicle was found to be parked longer than the maximum period allowed, a Parking Charge was correctly issued.
 
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.
 
If parking cannot be made without breaching the terms and conditions of the car park, alternative parking arrangements must be sought or motorists will be issued with a Parking Charge as per the car park terms stated on the signage on site.
 
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 £40.00  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
 
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 …………
 
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.

Any help appreciated.

Thank you for your time reading this.

The front certainly doesn't look PoFA compliant - can you show us the back?

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant for the following reason:

PoFA Wording Requirement (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f))

PoFA states:


This means the 28-day period begins the day after the NtK is deemed to have been given to the keeper.

For an NtK sent by post, it is deemed to be “given” on the second working day after the date it was issued.

Therefore, the 28-day countdown under PoFA starts on the third working day after the issue date.

Wording in the NtK Provided


In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period starts on the second working day after the issue date, not on the day after it is deemed given, as required by PoFA.

Key Difference

PoFA: The 28-day period starts on the third working day (the day after it is deemed given).

NtK Wording: The 28-day period starts on the second working day after the issue date, effectively starting one day earlier than required by PoFA.

Conclusion

The NtK wording incorrectly starts the 28-day period a day too soon, which fails to align with PoFA's required timing. This discrepancy renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA.

As long as the driver is not identified, appeal as the Keeper with the above précis to POPLA.

If nobody beats me to it I should have some time Sunday evening to help draft something up.

Here is a suggestion for a POPLA appeal that can be enhanced if necessary. It is based on the fact that the NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and am appealing Horizon Parking’s Parking Charge Notice on the grounds that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued fails to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically Schedule 4, Paragraph 9. Due to these deficiencies, Horizon Parking has no right to hold me, the keeper, liable. This appeal will demonstrate that Horizon Parking's NtK does not meet all mandatory requirements of PoFA, and partial or substantial compliance is legally insufficient.

1. Failure to Comply with the Mandatory 28-Day Notice Period

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires that:

"...the notice must state that the creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given..."

This wording mandates that the 28-day period begins the day after the NtK is deemed served. For an NtK sent by post, it is “given” two working days after the date of issue, and the 28-day countdown should start the following day (the third working day after the issue date).

However, Horizon Parking's NtK states:

"You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge..."

This is incorrect. Horizon Parking has improperly commenced the 28-day period from the second working day after the date of issue rather than from the day after it is deemed served. This error results in the 28-day period beginning one day earlier than PoFA prescribes.

2. Strict Compliance with PoFA is Required – Partial Compliance is Insufficient

The wording and timing of PoFA are explicit, and courts have held that strict compliance with PoFA is required to transfer liability to the keeper. Horizon Parking’s NtK fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) exactly as prescribed. This failure means that Horizon Parking cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged charge.

The fact that Horizon Parking’s NtK almost meets the requirements is irrelevant under PoFA. Any minor deviation from the exact language or requirements in PoFA renders the NtK non-compliant. Therefore, partial or substantial compliance does not satisfy PoFA; Horizon Parking must meet every single requirement precisely.

3. Incorrect Wording on Keeper Liability

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires the following wording:

"...the creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper if, at the end of the period of 28 days... the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."

Horizon Parking's NtK uses ambiguous wording by stating:

"...we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you."

This deviation introduces confusion and does not match the strict requirements of PoFA. Horizon Parking’s NtK does not correctly convey that liability will only transfer to the keeper if specific PoFA conditions are met. The NtK's failure to use precise language, as PoFA mandates, further invalidates any keeper liability.

4. No Obligation to Identify the Driver

The NtK wording implies that Horizon Parking may pursue the keeper because the driver has not been identified. However, PoFA imposes no obligation on the keeper to identify the driver. As the registered keeper, I have chosen not to provide driver details, and there is no legal requirement for me to do so.

Without strict compliance with PoFA, Horizon Parking has no legal grounds to hold the keeper liable, regardless of whether the driver’s identity is disclosed.

5. Request for Strict Proof of Full Compliance with PoFA

Horizon Parking claims the right to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. I request that POPLA requires Horizon Parking to provide strict proof of compliance with all aspects of PoFA, not just selected parts. Horizon Parking must demonstrate that the NtK:

• States the mandatory 28-day period correctly, beginning the day after the notice is deemed served.

• Contains the precise wording mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), regarding the conditions for holding the keeper liable.

• Complies with every other requirement in Schedule 4 of PoFA, as partial compliance is legally insufficient.

If Horizon Parking cannot demonstrate full compliance with PoFA, POPLA must conclude that there is no keeper liability in this case and the PCN must be cancelled.

The KEEPER (the person to whom the NtK is addressed) appeals to Horizon, only as the Keeper, using the wording above, if it is for the same location and reason.

That option is not true, as you are the Registered Keeper. Definitely don't select that. Choose 'other' under grounds for appeal.

I thought I was appealing as being the registered keeer

And the option you had selected above says "I was not the driver or the registered keeper", so if you are appealing as the keeper, that is the wrong option.

Select "other" for your reason for appeal, the text you will be submitted tells them what your reasoning is.