3. HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY  (Read 1708 times)

0 Members and 110 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
« Reply #15 on: »
Tomorrow evening I will appeal under other as you stated. Thank you for your input. 🖤
Logged
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
« Reply #16 on: »
I submitted the appeal to POPLA now and I’ll wait to hear from them and update you all here on the outcome. Hopefully some good news.

Thanks to all who have taken the time to read and reply. Very much appreciate the help.
Logged
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
« Reply #17 on: »
Hi all.

I have received operator information and evidence in my Popla account today. It’s a 27 page pdf mainly a recap of what’s been going on but I have taken a SS of the main reasons they clarify to reject my initial appeal with popla.
I have been given 7 days to reply.

What are your thoughts on this? They seem very firm in what they said.

Thanks in advance.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
« Reply #18 on: »
Don't fire anything off yet but some initial thoughts re. their claim to have complied with PoFA

Quote
The operator claims that their notice is fully compliant with PoFA and has 'zero failings', but entirely fails to substantiate this point with any evidence, and makes absolutely no effort to engage with the specific issues raised in my appeal regarding their lack of compliance. As I set out explicitly in point #1 of my appeal, Horizon have used the wrong period of time in their notice, meaning that it does not comply with 9(2)(f) of PoFA.

9(2)(f) of PoFA specifies the relevant time period for this paragraph as:

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

Parking Charge date: 15th October 2024
Date the Notice was given: 17th October 2024
Beginning of the 28 day period per the above wording: 18th October

Horizon's notice states:

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

Parking Charge date: 15th October 2024
Beginning of the 28 day period per the above wording: 17th October 2024

As can be seen from the information above, Horizon's defective wording means that an incorrect date was communicated by their notice, such that the keeper was not properly warned of the date from which the operator would be able to recover the unpaid charges from him. As a result of this failure, Horizon's notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA, and as such my appeal should be upheld.[/i]

I'd be minded to include dates like I suggest above just to make it as clear as possible that this isn't a silly quibble over a difference in wording that ultimately conveys the same meaning, but that the wording here creates a material difference in meaning.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2024, 03:03:22 pm by DWMB2 »
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
« Reply #19 on: »
Here is a suggested response well within the 10,000 character limit that you can copy and paste into their webform:

Quote
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.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
« Reply #20 on: »

I submitted a reply to Popla. I just copied and pasted what b789 quoted. Going to have to wait and see what they come back with.

In regards to my other ntk for the same place and same reason but in a different vehicle owned by a different person. Was advised to quote this below?

Quote from: b789 on November 02, 2024, 10:52:22 am
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:

Quote
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.


Or would it be better to respond with something similar I found within this website on another thread? Copied and pasted below.

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

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. 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 registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Not sure but I think that was also done by b789 and horizon replied with cancellation.
Logged
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
« Reply #21 on: »
Quote from: Mocede28 on December 02, 2024, 03:59:30 pm
In regards to my other ntk for the same place and same reason but in a different vehicle owned by a different person. Was advised to quote this below?
We operate a 'one case, one thread' rule here - to avoid confusion start a new forum topic for this case.

When you do so please clarify your relationship to the vehicle, as you say it is owned by someone else, but you have received a Notice to Keeper, which is issued to the person registered with the DVLA as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
« Reply #22 on: »
Hello to all hope everyone is good and well.

I have had a response from popla today. The operator decided to withdraw. See attached email SS.

Thank you so much to everyone who have taken their time to help me in this matter. Appreciate your kindness.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Winner Winner x 1 View List
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY