Free Traffic Legal Advice

Oh dear... has there been any communication with Horizon that reveal the driver identity? For example has the Keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)), mentioned or given away that they were the driver?

That NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and so the keeper cannot be liable unless they have admitted to being the driver, inadvertently or otherwise.

Easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

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.

Horizon are likely to reject the appeal but POPLA should uphold it if so.

We've all been there, but please tell the driver that they risk receiving further parking charge notices if they use this car park as a proxy for legitimate on-street parking as part of the 'school run'.

If there is a 'customer' condition, this means during the period of parking IMO, not at any other time.

For what it's worth, of course they have the power to get it cancelled.

You'd be surprised at some of the contracts landowners agree to...

Oh yes, certainly far less hassle.

Horizon are likely to reject the appeal but POPLA should uphold it if so.

Have more faith in yourself!

..I just received this email from Horizon:

'Dear Appellant,
 
Parking Charge ref: Hidden
 
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge , which we have reviewed.
 
I can confirm the Parking Charge has now been cancelled and no further action will be taken in this matter.
 
Please note that once the Parking Charge is cancelled the contact details are removed from the Parking Charge and will not be retained for any purpose or shared with third parties.  We are, however, required to retain images and appeal correspondence for a period of 2 years by DVLA and 3 years by the BPA and are not therefore able to delete these from our system. You can review our privacy policy at https://horizonparking.co.uk/privacy-policy/ or you can request that a copy is sent to you in the post by contacting us at the address below, if you have any queries regarding your data.
 
Yours sincerely,
Horizon Parking'

I don't suppose they get more straight forward than that. Thanks very much for your help b789! 

Oh dear... has there been any communication with Horizon that reveal the driver identity? For example has the Keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)), mentioned or given away that they were the driver?

That NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and so the keeper cannot be liable unless they have admitted to being the driver, inadvertently or otherwise.

Easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote

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.

Can this be used this for an APCOA notice response which is basically the same as the mention Horizon one?