Free Traffic Legal Advice

A few more screen shots from the POPLA appeal doc attached.

Re-emphasise that the operator has not rebutted the main point that the Keeper cannot be liable because of their failure to comply with PoFA 9(2)(f). Reiterate why they have failed to comply with 9(2)(f) showing the deference between the wording in their NtK and the wording in PoFA and then rework the calculation shown to prove the point.

AS you cannot format the text in the webform response, simply copy and paste the following into the POPLA webform as your response:

The operator’s response is nothing more than a template rejection letter, showing a complete failure to address the specific points raised in my appeal. Horizon Parking has entirely ignored the central arguments relating to their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), particularly the statutory wording required under Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA and the 28-day appeal deadline.

Instead of addressing these legal failures, they have simply trotted out a generic copy-and-paste response about signage and driver responsibility, completely sidestepping the substantive issues at hand. This demonstrates that Horizon has not engaged with the appeal in any meaningful way and instead relies on boilerplate responses to brush off valid challenges.

Let me remind POPLA of the key points the operator has failed to address:

1. Failure to Comply with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f)

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) provided by Horizon misrepresents the timeframe for transferring liability to the registered keeper, as set out in Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The Act clearly states that liability can only be transferred at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.
For clarity, I will reiterate the dates:

* Alleged Contravention: 1st December 2024

* PCN Issue Date: 5th December 2024

* Date the Notice is Deemed Given: 9th December 2024 (two working days after posting)

* PoFA-Compliant Liability Start Date: 10th December 2024

* Correct Deadline for Keeper Liability to Apply: 6th January 2025

The NtK instead begins counting liability from 7th December 2024, a full three days early. This is a fundamental error that renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA.

Horizon Parking’s response utterly fails to address this point. Instead, they have made the blanket assertion that the charge is PoFA-compliant without engaging with the specific requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(f) or acknowledging their incorrect liability start date. This shows either a complete lack of understanding of the legislation they purport to rely on, or a deliberate attempt to evade scrutiny by issuing template responses.

2. Failure to Comply with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e)

The operator has also failed to address my point regarding the NtK’s breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024), specifically Section 8.1.2(e), which requires the notice to clearly inform recipients that they have 28 days from the date of receiving the notice to submit an appeal.

Horizon’s NtK does not clearly communicate this 28-day appeal period. Instead, it focuses on encouraging early appeals within 14 days to preserve a discounted rate, creating the misleading impression that the appeal window is shorter than it actually is. This omission is in direct breach of Section 8.1.2(e), which promotes fairness and transparency in private parking enforcement.

Horizon’s response has, once again, entirely ignored this point. They have made no attempt to defend or justify their failure to meet the PPSCoP requirements. Instead, they have lazily repeated that the charge is fully compliant with PoFA, which it demonstrably is not.

3. Keeper Liability is Inapplicable Due to Non-Compliance

Because of the operator’s failure to meet the basic legal requirements of PoFA and PPSCoP, the Registered Keeper cannot be held liable for this charge. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and since the NtK fails to comply with PoFA’s mandatory requirements, keeper liability simply does not apply.

Horizon’s refusal to address this issue is telling. Their business model relies heavily on bullying keepers into paying charges that are legally unenforceable. They have clearly not bothered to check their own notice for compliance before issuing it, and they are now doubling down on that laziness by sending a boilerplate response to this appeal.

Operator’s Response is a Copy-and-Paste Sham

I must point out the sheer irrelevance of most of Horizon’s response. They have wasted time talking about signage and maximum stay periods – neither of which I have disputed. Their refusal to engage with the actual legal failures in their notice, and their reliance on a generic, pre-written rejection template, shows a complete lack of professionalism and a cavalier attitude toward the appeals process.

I expected Horizon to at least attempt a proper rebuttal of the points raised in my appeal. Instead, they have copy-pasted their usual spiel without even reading what was submitted. This demonstrates that Horizon has not acted in good faith in this appeal and is attempting to mislead both POPLA and the appellant by sidestepping the legal non-compliance issues.

Summary of Failures:

* The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f) due to an incorrect liability start date.

* The NtK is non-compliant with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e) due to a failure to clearly communicate the 28-day appeal deadline.

* Keeper liability cannot apply due to these non-compliances.

* Horizon’s response is a lazy, template rejection that fails to address any of these legal points.

Given these glaring failures, the Parking Charge is unenforceable against the Registered Keeper. I urge POPLA to uphold this appeal and cancel the charge, recognising that Horizon has not met their legal obligations and has instead opted for a lazy, boilerplate response that ignores the core issues raised.

This appeal submission was made in good faith, and I provided detailed reasoning supported by PoFA and PPSCoP. Horizon Parking’s response, by contrast, shows a blatant disregard for the appeals process and is nothing more than a copy-and-paste attempt to dismiss valid challenges.

For these reasons, the appeal should be upheld, and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled in full.