Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome to FTLA.

I have split this into its own topic in line with rule #2 of our House Rules.

To help us provide the best advice, please read the following thread carefully and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide.

If you follow the instructions above, then we will be able to advise you.

Horizon being the eejits they usually are...

You now appeal to POPLA with the following fatal points to their Notice to Keeper (NtK) that I pointed out in a similar thread earlier today:

There are several failures in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that you can rely on. Horizon have failed to stipulate the appeal deadline in breach of section 8.1.2(e) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Also, they have failed to correctly comply with PoFA 9(2)(f) deadlines for Keeper liability.

Here is the suggested appeal to Horizon POPLA:

Quote

Dear Horizon Parking Appeals Team POPLA,

I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued on 11th December 2024 as the registered keeper of the vehicle [Your VRM].

Your The Notice to Keeper (NtK) claims to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), yet it fails to meet the requirements of either. The fact that you the operator proclaims compliance while failing to meet basic legal and regulatory standards is not only baffling but indicates a lack of professionalism within your their organisation.

Allow me to explain why your the NtK fails on multiple counts:

1. PoFA Non-Compliance

Your The NtK misrepresents the timeframe for transferring liability under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA.

PoFA specifies that the keeper can only be held liable "...at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given."

Here are the relevant dates:

• Alleged Contravention Date: 1st December 2024

• PCN Issue Date: 5th December 2024

• Notice Given Date: 9th December 2024 (two working days after issue date)

• PoFA-Compliant Start Date: 10th December 2024

• Correct Deadline: 6th January 2025

Your NtK instead starts the liability period from 7th December 2024, resulting in an incorrect deadline of 3rd January 2025, which is three days early. This fundamental error makes your NtK non-compliant with PoFA.

2. Breach of the PPSCoP – Section 8.1.2(e)

Your NtK also fails to comply with Section 8.1.2(e) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (2024), which states:

"The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient that they have 28 days from the date of receiving the parking charge to submit an appeal."

On the back of your NtK, under the "Contesting the Parking Charge" section, you focus on appeals made within 14 days to preserve the discounted rate. However, the NtK does not explicitly state the overall appeal deadline of 28 days from receiving the notice, as required by the PPSCoP.

This omission creates ambiguity and could mislead recipients into believing they cannot appeal after the 14-day discount period, even though they still have the legal right to appeal for 28 days. Such a failure is contrary to the PPSCoP's goal of promoting fairness and transparency in private parking enforcement.

By failing to clearly communicate the full 28-day appeal deadline, you breach Section 8.1.2(e), and this failure undermines the enforceability of your notice.

3. Keeper Liability is Inapplicable

As the registered keeper, I have no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. Your The NtK can only hold the driver liable unless strict compliance with PoFA and the PPSCoP is achieved, which it is not. This NtK is unenforceable as far as keeper liability is concerned.

4. Please Consult a Competent Adult

If you cannot understand why your NtK fails to comply with PoFA or the PPSCoP, I suggest passing this appeal to a competent adult at Horizon who has the necessary understanding of these requirements. Assuming such a person exists, they might be able to avoid wasting further time by cancelling this Parking Charge now.

5. Horizon Has No Hope at POPLA

Your failures to comply with PoFA and the PPSCoP ensure that this charge would fail at POPLA. I urge you to save us both the time and effort by cancelling this Parking Charge immediately.

If you choose to continue pursuing this baseless charge, I require a full response addressing all the points raised above, along with a POPLA code so that I may escalate my appeal.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]

Registered Keeper of [vehicle VRM]

I need help with the POPLA appeal form. Trying not to make a silly mistake. There are 5 steps in the form. A couple of questions:

Step 1. Grounds for appeal. Should the grounds for appeal be:
1. I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking? Or,
2. Other?
I was not the driver of the vehicle.

Step 4, Additional Evidence. "I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.
Can you upload additional evidence to support your position?"
What should I do here? Details of driver or other?

Many thanks

Many thanks. Appeal submitted.

And what does said evidence contain?

And what does said evidence contain?

Copy pasted from the POPLA doc:

Horizon response to appeal and appellants contention

Parking Charge: HP1234567

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.

Given the above, and whilst we have considered your representations carefully, on
this occasion your appeal has been rejected.

Evidence Provided by Appellant
No evidence provided.
 

Evidence to Support our claim
Below is an image of the signage on site which states, “A Parking Charge of £70.00
may be issued in the following circumstances: Exceeding the maximum stay”.

(I’ll attach the images of signage in the doc shown by Horizon)

Because the vehicle was found to have been in the car park for a total of 26 minutes,
the terms and conditions were breached meaning the Parking Charge was correctly
issued. The vehicle entered the car park at 19.42 and exited at 20.09.

As stated on the signage above, the maximum stay period on a Sunday between 6pm
and 12am is 15 minutes. Given that the vehicle was found in the car park for a total
of 26 minutes, the maximum stay was exceeded. Therefore, the terms and
conditions were breached, and the Parking Charge was correctly issued.

In response to point 1, the Appellant has raised several points within their appeal. In
response to point 1, the Parking Charge is full compliant with the Protection Of
Freedom At 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.

In response to point 2 & 3, the Parking Charge has been issued in full compliance
with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) and therefore, in the event the
driver of the vehicle is not identified, the Registered Keeper can be held liable for the
Parking Charge their vehicle has been issued.

It is the driver'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 £70.00
Parking Charge may 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.
 

Section C
Parking Charge and Liability Notes

Section D
Original Representations & Notice of Rejection

Section E
Images and Signage Location Plan. 1 location plan & 6 photos.