Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello all

Outstayed the 5 hours going to cinema driver thought it was free!

Done a search on horizon and have seen some defences, however the wording has changed with regard to the 28 days as noted on other pcn's (Important information about this Parking Charge)

Is this still a defence?

They mention invitation to pay in 2nd paragraph so again not able to use?

The not saying who is driver relies on the ticket being non compliant?

Is there a defence?

Thanks in advance

 

Thanks for reply

Understand the point you make, as long as when they comeback I can be shown the specific case law in the contradictory PoFA statement. For the POPLA appeal and help drafting it.

Not sure on the second point I am adding, is it worth a shot?

First draft with thanks to b789 and other thread replies I am paraphrasing, anything to add or remove?

“I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'.

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.

I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of the “notice” “28 days to either pay or pass the notice to the driver” it fails to specify when the 28-day period starts, creating ambiguity.

Also under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

"(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;...."

Could you point out where this part of the legislation regarding the exact wording, posted is on your “notice”

These two points are very important and your reply has to acknowledge these points and if its possible refute them. A cut and paste reply without addressing these points would imply that you have ignored the points made and have not given this dispute due diligence.

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 parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.”

Thanks again for any input

Ok

Thanks b789 will contest it as the registered keeper

Will let you know the rhetorical answer.

Either £15 means it’s not worth the hassle, or you appeal to POPLA by leading them through precisely why PoFA was not complied with, then if they reject anyway you may have court papers served on you which you will need to defend. Your choice, but if it’s “only” £15 I’d pay up unless you feel there’s a principle to be defended here.

Contrariwise, you could think that Horizon don’t think they have much of a leg to stand on if they’re reducing their invoice by so much.

I have no intention of funding their scam as you say.

Not sure why I redacted date got a bit carried away.

Anyhow please advise on next phase of precedure

Is there any recourse in mentioning that Millennium Retail Park is not the place of alleged pcn it is in Millennium Leisure Park in Greenwich?

First draft

Dear POPLA
I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued on the 5th February 2025 as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

 I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of the “notice” “28 days to either pay or pass the notice to the driver” it fails to specify when the 28-day period starts, creating ambiguity.

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

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

“Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”.

In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period does not have a start date. This contradictory wording on the front causes confusion and fails to properly warn the keeper as required under paragraph 9(2) (f). Due to this discrepancy, Horizon Parking has failed to establish keeper liability.


POPLA assessors are reminded that:
PoFA compliance must be absolute; partial or substantial compliance is insufficient to transfer liability to the Keeper.
This includes strict adherence to all prescribed wording, deadlines, and content requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9.
Should the operator provide a copy of the NtK, the Appellant reserves the right to highlight any deficiencies or non-compliance in their response to the operator’s evidence.


The parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

Second draft

Dear POPLA
I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued on the 5th February 2025 as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of the “notice” and the highlighted section.

"As we (the creditor do not know the drivers name or current postal address, you are now invited to either pay the charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with the driver's full name and current postal address using the contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this Parking Charge to them. 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 under Schedule 4 of that Act."

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

Their wording is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA because they are required to give the Keeper 28 days starting from the day after the date the notice was given.

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

“Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”.

In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period does not have a start date. Their wording is not compliant therefore, irrespective of whether they have used correct PoFA wording elsewhere, the NtK does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable.

POPLA assessors are reminded that:
PoFA compliance must be absolute; partial or substantial compliance is insufficient to transfer liability to the Keeper.
This includes strict adherence to all prescribed wording, deadlines, and content requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9.
Should the operator provide a copy of the NtK, the Appellant reserves the right to highlight any deficiencies or non-compliance in their response to the operator’s evidence.

The parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

Again, what is the rush? You have 33 days from the appeal rejection to submit a POPLA appeal. What you have is good but I suggest you throw the kitchen sink at them. They have to win on every point raised. You only have to win on a single point.

Have a look at other POPLA appeals that also raise the issue of signs, landowner contract etc. After your appeal is submitted, the operator is required to submit their evidence pack. They must rebut every point you have raised. If they haven’t, you can then point this out to the assessor in your response to the operators evidence.

Remember, even if your POPLA appeal is not successful, it is not binding on you and has no adverse effect on anything going forward. POPLA is not a truly independent service. They are funded by the very companies who you are appealing against.