Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for considering my response to Horizon Parking’s submission. I must address their claim that “this particular car park is enforced with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and therefore, if the driver’s details are not provided, the registered keeper of the vehicle is held liable for the Parking Charge that has been issued to their vehicle.”

This statement is absurd. A car park cannot be "enforced" with PoFA. The Act simply provides parking operators with a legal mechanism to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, provided they comply with every requirement of Schedule 4. It is not a blanket permission slip for operators to hold keepers liable whenever they feel like it. Horizon Parking’s claim either demonstrates a lack of understanding of PoFA or a deliberate attempt to mislead. As I explained in my appeal, their Notice to Keeper does not meet the statutory requirements of PoFA, and liability does not transfer automatically simply because the driver’s details are not provided.

As I set out explicitly in point #1 of my appeal, Horizon Parking has used the wrong period of time in their notice, meaning it does not comply with Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA. This paragraph specifies the relevant time period as follows:

"the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given."

Using the dates from their NtK:

* Parking Charge date: 15th October 2024
* Date the Notice was given: 17th October 2024 (two working days after the issue date)
* Beginning of the 28-day period per PoFA: 18th October 2024

However, Horizon’s Notice incorrectly states:

* "after the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge."

This means their calculation is as follows:

* Parking Charge date: 15th October 2024
* Beginning of the 28-day period per their defective wording: 17th October 2024

As shown above, Horizon’s defective wording incorrectly communicates the start of the 28-day period, leading to a flawed understanding of when the operator could recover unpaid charges from the keeper. This is a direct failure to meet the statutory requirements of PoFA and invalidates their claim of compliance.

The operator also states, “The Appellant has raised several points within their appeal. In response to points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the Parking Charge is fully compliant with the Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 (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.”

Simply listing the points I raised, followed by the unsupported assertion that the Parking Charge is "fully compliant with PoFA," does not constitute a rebuttal. The operator fails entirely to engage with the specific legal arguments and evidence I provided. The incorrect calculation of the 28-day period under Paragraph 9(2)(f) is a clear statutory failing, yet the operator does not address or explain this defect.

They further state, “In response to the points raised, the wording on the Parking Charge itself is fully compliant with POFA. The Appellant is questioning whether the relevant information is presented. If the Appellant has indeed read the Parking Charge letter in its entirety, they would be fully aware of the compliance of the charge with POFA and indeed that the Registered Keeper can be held liable.”

This is not a rebuttal; it is another example of the operator repeating the phrase "fully compliant with PoFA" without addressing the specific failings I identified. They confuse the “Parking Charge” with the Notice to Keeper (NtK)—the relevant document for establishing keeper liability under PoFA. Their failure to distinguish between these documents only underscores their lack of understanding. The suggestion that I have not read the NtK properly is insulting. My appeal points directly identify their failures, such as the defective calculation of the 28-day period and their non-compliant wording.

Finally, the operator states, “Finally, in response to the points raised, the Parking Charge has zero failings and although the Appellant was not the driver, they are held liable for this Parking Charge due to POFA.”

Repeating “zero failings” does not make it true. My appeal outlined multiple clear failings in the NtK, including their failure to comply with the 28-day notice requirement and the omission of the precise wording required to transfer liability. The operator provides no rebuttal, relying instead on baseless assertions. This approach does not meet the evidential standard required to prove compliance.

The operator’s inability to address my appeal points demonstrates that their NtK fails to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA. Without such compliance, there can be no keeper liability. I respectfully request that POPLA upholds my appeal and instructs Horizon Parking to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.