DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 49533--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: December 12, 2024, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to understand how you appealed. Did you appeal in
your name as a representative (director or whatever) of the
company or did you simply appeal as "the company" without being
named as an individual?
How was that appeal signed off? "Yours faithfully, XYZ company"
or "Yours faithfully, John Doe, Director (or whatever), XYZ
Company"?
#Post#: 49535--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 12, 2024, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No sign off or anything.
As above I have posted, this is exactly letter for letter what I
wrote:
“ 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.”
Hope this clarifies.
#Post#: 49536--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 12, 2024, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course I had to log into the horizon portal with the pcn
reference number and car reg. I just hit the challenge button
and pasted the above. There was no inputs required anywhere to
enter the name or company or any other details.
#Post#: 49540--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: December 12, 2024, 11:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. So you need to use the following points in your POPLA
appeal:
--- Quote ---
> 1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Received
> 2. Evidence of Posting the NtK Required
> 3. Reservation of Rights to Challenge PoFA Compliance
> 4. Non-Compliance with BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice
> 5. Evidence of Landowner Authority Required
>
> 1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Received
>
> The Company, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, did not
receive the Notice to Keeper (NtK). Upon receiving a reminder
letter, the Company contacted the operator to complain that the
original NtK had not been received. During this telephone
conversation, the operator’s representative admitted that the
NtK was “probably lost in the post” and advised that the Company
could either pay the charge or appeal using the reminder letter.
This statement demonstrates that no NtK was received.
>
> The operator is attempting to rely on the provisions of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to transfer liability
from the driver to the Keeper. For this transfer of liability to
be valid, the operator must comply with the strict statutory
requirements of PoFA, which include the timely delivery of a
compliant NtK to the Keeper. The failure to deliver the NtK
undermines the operator's case.
>
> 2. Evidence of Posting the NtK Required
>
> Under PoFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), the NtK must be given
to the Keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking event. It is
the operator’s responsibility to demonstrate compliance with
this requirement.
>
> The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that the
original NtK was sent and delivered by requiring them to provide
the following evidence:
>
> [indent]• A Certificate of Posting, showing the date on which
the NtK was sent.
>
> or
>
> • A delivery receipt or equivalent proof of service,
confirming when the NtK was delivered to the Keeper.[/indent]
>
> Assertions alone by the operator that the NtK was sent are
insufficient. Without documented evidence of posting or
delivery, the operator cannot demonstrate compliance with PoFA’s
requirements.
>
> Failure to prove that the NtK was sent and delivered within
the required timeframe renders the operator unable to transfer
liability to the Keeper under PoFA.
>
> 3. Reservation of Rights to Challenge PoFA Compliance
>
> Since no NtK was received, the Appellant cannot assess whether
the operator complied with all the requirements of PoFA. The
Appellant explicitly reserves the right to challenge the PoFA
compliance of any NtK presented by the operator in their
evidence pack, if/when received.
>
> POPLA assessors are reminded that:
>
> [indent]PoFA compliance must be absolute; partial or
substantial compliance is insufficient to transfer liability to
the Keeper.
> This includes strict adherence to all prescribed wording,
deadlines, and content requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph
9.
> Should the operator provide a copy of the NtK, the Appellant
reserves the right to highlight any deficiencies or
non-compliance in their response to the operator’s
evidence.[/indent]
>
> 4. Non-Compliance with BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP)
>
> The operator must comply with the BPA/IPC Single Code of
Practice (SCoP) as a condition of their membership and in
accordance with industry standards. In this case, the operator
has failed to comply with the following SCoP provisions:
>
> [indent]• Transparency in Communication: The operator failed
to ensure that a compliant NtK was received by the Keeper, which
is a fundamental procedural failure.
> • Proper Escalation Processes: The operator advised the Keeper
to appeal using the reminder letter, despite the absence of the
original NtK. This does not align with fair and professional
practices expected under the SCoP.
> • Predatory Practices: The operator appears to rely on missing
NtKs to proceed with charges against Keepers, contrary to the
fair treatment principles outlined in the SCoP.[/indent]
>
> The operator is required to adhere to these standards, and
their failure to do so casts doubt on the validity of the charge
and the fairness of their conduct.
>
> 5. Evidence of Landowner Authority Required
>
> The operator is required to have a valid, written contract
with the landowner that:
>
> [indent]• Grants them the authority to issue parking charges
in their own name.
> • Confirms their legal right to enforce parking terms on the
land in question.[/indent]
>
> This is a mandatory requirement under both PoFA and the
BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice. The Appellant puts the operator
to strict proof to produce an unredacted copy of their contract
with the landowner, showing that it:
>
> [indent]• Grants them the authority to issue Parking Charge
Notices (PCNs) in their own name.
> • Covers the location where the parking event allegedly took
place.
> • Was valid on the date of the parking event.[/indent]
>
> Without such evidence, the operator has no legal standing to
pursue this charge, and the PCN should be cancelled.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The operator has failed to establish Keeper liability under
PoFA or demonstrate compliance with other legal and procedural
requirements. Specifically:
>
> [indent]• The original NtK was not received, as evidenced by
the operator’s admission that it was “probably lost in the
post.”
> • The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that the
original NtK was posted and delivered, which requires verifiable
evidence such as a Certificate of Posting or delivery receipt.
> • The operator has failed to comply with key requirements of
the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice.
> • The operator has not demonstrated that they hold a valid
contract with the landowner giving them the authority to issue
PCNs in their own name.[/indent]
>
> Given the above points, I request that POPLA uphold this
appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 49551--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 12, 2024, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks b789.
I’ll just copy and paste the whole thing into my popla.
Will do tonight later.
#Post#: 49552--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 12, 2024, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Do I submit as “other” as the reason for appeal in popla and
should I use the business details as name as was addressed on
the letter from horizon?
#Post#: 49556--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 12, 2024, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Select "Other". Use the business name if that's the one the
notice was addressed to.
I'd recommend putting b789's suggested wording into a PDF and
uploading that to the POPLA portal, rather than copying and
pasting it into the online appeal form.
#Post#: 49560--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 12, 2024, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks DWMB2
Will convert to pdf and submit to popla.
#Post#: 51474--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 31, 2024, 7:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received a response within popla from horizon. A 35 page
pdf mainly pics of signage and previous letters.
I have taken SS of pdf, their main reason they state the charge
is valid.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 51500--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: December 31, 2024, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have they responded to or rebutted all the points made in the
POPLA appeal?
Have they included a copy of the NtK?
Have they provided evidence of posting or delivery of the NtK in
the form of a "proof of posting" certificate or a "signed for"
receipt?
Have they answered or given any explanations of points #3 and #4
of your appeal?
What evidence of landowner authority have they provided?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page