DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 43628--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: b789
Date: November 2, 2024, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The KEEPER (the person to whom the NtK is addressed) appeals to
Horizon, only as the Keeper, using the wording above, if it is
for the same location and reason.
#Post#: 43956--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: November 4, 2024, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Im about to start my appeal with POPLA. Do you think they will
they ask for evidence of who was driving? Just asking because I
saw this on the bottom section of appeal. SS attached.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 43959--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 4, 2024, 1:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That option is not true, as you are the Registered Keeper.
Definitely don't select that. Choose 'other' under grounds for
appeal.
#Post#: 43961--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: November 4, 2024, 2:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
100% sure? I thought I was appealing as being the registered
keeer but not the driver at the time of parking? Therefore they
can’t hold me liable under the points on b789’s template.
#Post#: 43965--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 4, 2024, 2:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mocede28 link ---
>
> I thought I was appealing as being the registered keeer
>
--- End Quote ---
And the option you had selected above says "I was not the driver
or the registered keeper", so if you are appealing as the
keeper, that is the wrong option.
Select "other" for your reason for appeal, the text you will be
submitted tells them what your reasoning is.
#Post#: 43977--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: November 4, 2024, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow evening I will appeal under other as you stated. Thank
you for your input. 🖤
#Post#: 44135--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: November 5, 2024, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 46483--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: November 21, 2024, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 46502--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 21, 2024, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't fire anything off yet but some initial thoughts re. their
claim to have complied with PoFA
--- Quote ---
> [indent]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:
>
> [indent]"the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the
day after that on which the notice is given"[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]"after the period of 28 days from the second working
day after the date of this Parking Charge"[/indent]
>
> 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][/indent]
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 46506--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING CHARGE TESCO OVERSTAY
DIR By: b789
Date: November 21, 2024, 9:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page