DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 51545--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: December 31, 2024, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much b789.
All done. When I hear back I’ll update here.
#Post#: 68223--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: April 23, 2025, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi to all hope you’re all doing good.
I have had a response from popla finally. Unfortunately it’s
been unsuccessful.
I can’t see the full thread of messages between me and popla. It
only shows their outcome.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 68266--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: April 23, 2025, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If further evidence was needed of the utter incompetence of some
POPLA assessors, you have it in that response.
Whilst a POPLA decision is not binding on you and you must not
pay this, it does warrant a formal complaint to POPLA about such
blatant ineptitude, even though they will not reconsider the
appeal. It provides a paper trail that they cannot ignore.
Send the following to POPLA as a pdf attachment to an email to
info@popla.co.uk and CC in yourself:
--- Quote ---
> To: Lead Adjudicator
> POPLA Complaints
>
> To: info@popla.co.uk
>
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Appeal Decision [Insert POPLA
Verification Code]
>
> Dear Lead Adjudicator,
>
> I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the
decision issued in appeal verification code [INSERT CODE],
assessed by Larenz Gumbs. The decision reflects a total failure
to engage with the grounds of appeal or apply even basic
principles of contract law, PoFA, or the Private Parking Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The following details each specific
error, as demonstrated by a point-by-point review of the
assessor's language compared against the content of the appeal
and rebuttal.
>
> 1. Failure to engage with the core issue of non-receipt of the
NtK
>
> [indent]"The appellant has stated that there was no notice to
keeper received... they have stated that the operator was not
compliant with POFA 2012."[/indent]
>
> The assessor merely summarised this without addressing the
legal consequences of non-receipt under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4,
Paragraphs 9(1) and 9(6). There was no recognition that proof of
delivery is required to establish Keeper liability. Issuance is
not the test; delivery is. This is a basic error in statutory
interpretation.
>
> [indent]"The operator has provided the landowner agreement...
The date of the parking charge incident was on 7th October 2024
and the Parking Charge Notice was issued to the registered
keeper on 11th October 2024 which is within the time limit
allowed via PoFA."[/indent]
>
> This statement is misleading. Issuance alone is not
sufficient. Under Paragraph 9(6), the NtK must be given (i.e.,
delivered or deemed delivered). The assessor treated the issue
date as if it alone satisfied compliance, which it does not.
>
> 2. Uncritical acceptance of the operator’s assertions
>
> [indent]"From the evidence provided, I am unable to conclude
the parking charge notice is not compliant with POFA."[/indent]
>
> This shifts the burden of proof wrongly onto the appellant.
The operator failed to prove delivery. The appeal explicitly put
the operator to strict proof. They did not provide any such
proof—no Certificate of Posting, no delivery record—nothing. The
assessor’s logic assumes that the absence of evidence is
acceptable. That is legally and procedurally incorrect.
>
> [indent]"This is sufficient to allow the motorist to know they
will be liable to pay the Parking Charge."[/indent]
>
> Wrong. Belief that liability might exist is not the same as
legally established liability under statute. Paragraph 9(2)(f)
of PoFA only transfers liability if every statutory requirement
is fulfilled. The assessor ignored this.
>
> 3. Misinterpretation of Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA
>
> [indent]"Information is also given of what action to take if
the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle."[/indent]
>
> This glosses over a central point raised in the rebuttal: the
NtK stated liability begins "28 days after the second working
day after the date of issue", which is not what PoFA requires.
PoFA says liability arises "at the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the day AFTER that on which the notice is given."
The operator's calculation is wrong and inconsistent with the
law. The assessor completely ignored this fundamental defect.
>
> 4. Dismissal of the rebuttal evidence
>
> [indent]"The appellant has stated that they had a call with
the operator which discusses the parking charge notice not being
received and being lost within the post. I am unable to comment
on this further as I was not privy to this
conversation."[/indent]
>
> This is unacceptable. The operator's own staff reportedly
stated the NtK was "probably lost in the post"—a clear admission
that delivery did not occur. It was not denied or countered.
Rather than treating it as evidence, the assessor dismissed it
with a blanket disclaimer. This shows a complete failure to
weigh probative value of uncontested admissions.
>
> 5. Superficial treatment of landowner authority
>
> [indent]"The operator has provided the landowner agreement to
manage the car park. This shows that the operator has a
legitimate interest in the parking incident."[/I][/indent]
>
> This is a superficial and legally insufficient assessment. The
appeal rebuttal pointed out that:
>
> [indent]• The agreement was heavily redacted;
> • It lacked site specificity;
> • It omitted boundary plans;
> • It contained no visible execution dates or
signatures.[/indent]
>
> The assessor did not address these at all. They accepted a
redacted, generic document without examining whether it met
PPSCoP standards for valid landowner authority.
>
> 6. Misapplication of POPLA’s role
>
> [indent][i]"Our role at POPLA is to consider if the PCN has
been issued correctly..."[/indent]
>
> That is an unacceptably narrow definition. POPLA’s role is to
assess if the charge is enforceable, which includes checking
compliance with PoFA, the Code of Practice, and fairness under
contract principles. Issuing a PCN does not equate to
establishing liability. This statement reveals either a
misunderstanding of POPLA’s remit or an intentional
mischaracterisation to sidestep the need to assess
enforceability.
>
> Summary
>
> This decision reflects a complete failure in competence,
judgment, and legal understanding. Larenz Gumbs either lacks the
training to assess PoFA-based cases or did not read the appeal
properly. I am aware that POPLA does not rescind adjudications,
but this matter must be escalated to senior level.
>
> I expect:
>
> [indent]• A formal review of this decision;
> • Clarification of POPLA’s official position on Paragraph
9(2)(f) of PoFA;
> • Confirmation of retraining or disciplinary action for the
assessor involved;
> • Written assurance that cases involving disputed PoFA
compliance will be assessed by trained staff with working
knowledge of the legislation and Code of Practice.[/indent]
>
> If this is not addressed meaningfully, I will escalate the
matter to Ombudsman Services, as POPLA’s administrator, and to
the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), which is the
designated competent authority responsible for regulating ADR
bodies under the ADR Regulations 2015. This is not just about
one bad decision—it is about systemic failure within POPLA to
ensure its assessors are competent, impartial, and capable of
applying statutory consumer law, particularly the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 and the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice. I will also be raising these concerns with the DVLA,
given the potential misuse of Keeper data based on decisions
that fail to assess the legal validity of liability transfer.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> [Contact details]
--- End Quote ---
Apart from that, you now wait for the inevitable debt recovery
letters which you can safely ignore. Never, ever communicate
with a debt collector. They re powerless except to try and make
the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out of
ignorance and fear. They are powerless. Ignore them.
Come back when you get a response to your POPLA complaint and
when you receive a Letter of Claim (loC). You won't be paying a
penny to Horizon.
#Post#: 68316--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: April 23, 2025, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi b789
Thanks for your time again and reply.
I went shopping to that Tesco store today and seen a lady friend
who works there. I discussed this rejection of appeal from popla
she said to leave it with her and she will get it written off.
She obtained original letter with horizon reference and car reg
details. I’m posting this reply from the car park.
Worth waiting or would you advice to proceed with above actions?
I searched up that adjudicator larenz gumbs he is a dispute
resolution executive and works within ombudsmen services. I
honestly can’t believe his ignorant method of resolution. What a
world we live in. The world is beautiful indeed unfortunately
it’s the people that make it.
#Post#: 68317--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: April 23, 2025, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please send that formal complaint to POPLA. they need to be
alerted to some of there atrocious decisions some of these
assessors make, and this one is a classic example.
Hopefully your friend can get the PCN cancelled anyway. However,
unless you have it in writing from an official source, don't
hold your breath until it is actually cancelled.
#Post#: 68332--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: April 23, 2025, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just sent that email now so I’ll update here when I hear back.
#Post#: 71295--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: May 13, 2025, 9:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi I have had a written email response today.
Copy pasted below:
Thank you for your email received 23 April 2025, outlining the
reasons why you are unhappy with the decision that has been
reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by
the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.
POPLA is a one-stage process, and we would not change a decision
because either party disputes the assessor’s decision. However,
we may consider an appeal if there has been a procedural error,
for example – if we failed to allow a motorist to comment on a
parking operator’s evidence pack. My role as a complaints
handler is to determine whether a procedural error has occurred
during the assessment of your appeal.
It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our
website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal
service and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree
with our decision.
The crux of your complaint is that the assessor failed to
address the legal consequences of non-receipt of the Notice to
Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and
there was no recognition that proof of delivery is required to
establish keeper liability as issuance is not the test, delivery
is, therefore the assessor has made a basic error in statutory
interpretation.
You advise the assessor has misinterpreted Paragraph 9 (f) of
POFA as they stated information is given of what action to take
if the keeper was not the driver, however the Notice to Keeper
stated liability begins 28 days after the second working day
after the date of issue which is not what POFA requires.
POFA states liability arises at the end of the period of 28 days
beginning the day after that on which the notice is given and
therefore, the operator calculation is wrong and inconsistent
with the law which the assessor ignored.
I have now reviewed the appeal and I can confirm Paragraph
9(2)(f) states that the notice to keeper must: “(f)warn the
keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the
day after that on which the notice is given”…“the creditor does
not know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable
conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to
recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains
unpaid.”
Paragraph 9(6) then defines the given date as: “the second
working day after the day on which it is posted”.
In this instance, as the notice was issued on Monday 11 October
2024, the given date is Wednesday 16 October. As POFA states
that motorists must be given 28 days from the day after the
notice is given, the 28 days should have begun from 17 October.
The Notice to Keeper states “You are advised that if, after a
period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of
this Parking Charge…”, therefore it does not meet the
requirements of POFA.
It should be noted within POFA Paragraph 9 (6) it states a
notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, to have been delivered:
image001.png
You explain the assessor accepted Horizon Parking’s assertions
without criticism which wrongly shifts the burden of proof onto
the appellant as the operator failed to provide proof of
delivery such as certificate of posting and or delivery record.
You state the assessor dismissed evidence by stating they were
unable to comment on a call they were not privy to which is
unacceptable as the operators own staff reportedly stated the
Notice to Keeper was probably lost in the post which is a clear
admission that delivery did not occur and was not denied or
countered which the assessor dismissed rather than treating this
as evidence.
You explain the assessor stated they were satisfied the operator
provided a land owner agreement and on reviewing this, they were
satisfied the operator has a legitimate interest in the parking
event which you state Is superficial and legally, an
insufficient assessment.
You advise the document was heavily redacted did not
specifically confirm the site omitted boundary plans and did not
have a visible execution dates or signatures which the assessor
failed to address and they accepted a redacted generic document
without examining whether it met PPSCoP standards for valid
landowner authority.
You state the assessor provided a narrow definition of POPLAs
role by stating our role is to consider if the parking charge
notice has been issued correctly.
You explain that POPLAs role is to assess if the charge is
enforceable which includes checking compliance with POFA, the
code of practice and fairness under contract principles. You
advise issuing a parking charge notice does not equate to
establishing liability and the assessor statement reveals either
a misunderstanding of POPLAs remit or an intentional
mischaracterisation to side step the need to assess
enforceability.
To clarify, POPLAs remit extends only to determining if the
parking charge notice has been issued correctly based on the
evidence presented at the time of the appeal. We accept evidence
from both parties in good faith unless the opposite is proven.
The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued
the parking charge notice correctly. If they do that by
providing evidence that support its version of events, the
burden of proof then passes to the appellant.
I acknowledge in the appeal it was stated the operator advised
on a call the Notice to Keeper was possibly lost in the post,
however, as no evidence of this call was provided with the
appeal to POLPLA, the assessor was unable to comment further.
There is no requirement in both POFA or the Single Code of
Practice that an operator must send the Notice to Keeper by
recorded delivery or provide proof of postage or delivery of the
notice.
Section 14.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that a
parking operator must obtain written confirmation from the
landowner confirming it has the relevant authority to pursue
charges on a car park.
This authority must confirm the site and provide a boundary map.
Within its case file, Horizon Parking provided a copy of the
contract it has with landowner. Contracts with the landowner may
contain commercially sensitive information, therefore, we will
accept redacted landowner documents as long as the assessor is
satisfied it meets the requirements of Section 14.1 of the
Single Code of Practice.
I note the operator also provided a site map within it case file
showing the location of the signage and the site boundary.
In this instance, as no evidence was provided to cast doubt on
this contract, the assessor was satisfied Horizon Parking has
the appropriate authority to issue charges on this land.
You state you expect a formal review of the decision,
clarification of POPLAs official position on POFA, confirmation
of retraining or disciplinary action for the assessor and
written assurance that cases involving disputed POFA compliance
will be assessed by trained staff with working knowledge of the
legislation and code of practice.
When considering POFA, POPLA assessors will consider whether the
notice to keeper has been issued correctly and meets the strict
requirements set out in Paragraph 9 (f).
Assessors will make decisions based on:
Relevant law
The Single Code of Practice
Evidence provided by both parties
Assessors have been trained on these areas and our
decision-making guidelines. They have also passed an
accreditation process following our training programme and
receive regular internal quality audits as well as coaching and
personal development.
In this instance, while I am disappointed to note the assessor
has misinterpreted POFA and fully accept that the assessor is
wrong to state that the notice is complaint with POFA and I
would like to apologise for this error, on reviewing the case,
it is clear the assessor has misinterpreted POFA rather than
missed evidence provided.
In order to improve the quality of future appeal decisions, I
will, of course provide the relevant feedback to the assessor.
However, as all of the evidence provided has been considered, no
procedural error has occurred and therefore, the outcome will
not change.
You advise if your complaint is not addressed, you will escalate
the matter to Ombudsman Services as POPLAs administrator and to
the Charted Trading Standards Institute.
Complaints about POLA are reviewed and responded to by the
complaints team. TAG Services (Formerly Ombudsman Services) have
no involvement in our complaints handling procedure.
It is worth explaining that POPLA was previously audited
externally by Independent Scrutiny board for Parking on Private
Land Appeals (ISPA) at one stage. Unfortunately, funding stopped
for ISPA and they ceased to continue which means that POPLA does
not currently have an independent body reviewing our appeals or
dealing with complaints about our service. As such there is no
platform for you currently to complain about POPLA externally.
If you wish to take the matter further, you will need to seek
independent legal advice.
I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not
been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has
now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It
will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this
matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your
case, but not responded to.
You are of course, free to pursue this matter further, through
other means, such as the Courts. For independent legal advice,
please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or
call 0345 404 05 06
Yours sincerely,
Paul Garrity​​​​
POPLA Complaints
complaints@popla.co.uk
flexibleresolutionservices.co.uk
#Post#: 71322--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: May 13, 2025, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I checked up with horizon it was cancelled by Tesco.
#Post#: 71326--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: b789
Date: May 13, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That response from POPLA is notable for two things:
[indent]1. Admission of error – POPLA expressly admits that the
assessor misinterpreted PoFA and that the NtK did not comply
with paragraph 9(2)(f). This is a rare but significant
concession.
2. Denial of recourse or escalation – Despite this admission,
they claim there is no mechanism to escalate complaints
externally, contradicting their status as a regulated ADR
provider under the ADR Regulations 2015.[/indent]
You should submit a formal regulatory complaint to the Chartered
Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), which regulates ADR
providers such as POPLA under UK law. CTSI is empowered to
investigate ADR non-compliance, particularly in cases of:
[indent]• Failure to apply the law correctly
• Procedural unfairness
• Lack of independence or transparency
• Inadequate complaints resolution mechanisms[/indent]
You can email the following to adr@tsi.org.uk and CC in
yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Regulatory Complaint – Non-compliance by POPLA
(Parking on Private Land Appeals)
>
> Dear CTSI ADR Team,
>
> I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the conduct and
operation of POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), which is
operated by TAG Services (formerly Ombudsman Services) and
approved as an ADR entity under the Alternative Dispute
Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and
Information) Regulations 2015.
>
> POPLA recently handled my appeal under verification code
[INSERT CODE]. I later submitted a formal complaint regarding
serious legal and procedural errors in the decision. The POPLA
complaints handler has since admitted that the decision was
based on a misinterpretation of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA) and that the Notice to Keeper in question did not
comply with paragraph 9(2)(f).
>
> Despite this, POPLA have stated they refuse to reconsider the
outcome, asserting that it is a “one-stage process.” They
further state that no external complaints process exists, and
that TAG Services (the ADR entity administrator) “have no
involvement in our complaints handling procedure.”
>
> This raises several regulatory concerns:
>
> [indent]• POPLA admits its decision was incorrect in law, yet
refuses to reconsider the outcome or offer any remedy.
> • The internal complaints system lacks independence or
escalation, directly contradicting the spirit of the ADR
Regulations.
> • POPLA claims that neither TAG Services nor any external body
can investigate complaints, suggesting a complete lack of
accountability.
> • POPLA assessors appear untrained or improperly supervised,
as the admitted legal error concerns one of PoFA's most basic
requirements.
> • POPLA’s refusal to reassess a clearly flawed decision
undermines consumer protection and confidence in the ADR
system.[/indent]
>
> Under the ADR Regulations 2015, ADR entities must:
>
> [indent]• Ensure decisions are reached by impartial and
legally competent assessors;
> • Have a transparent and accessible complaints process;
> • Offer effective redress in the event of a serious procedural
or legal error;
> • Allow complaints about the ADR service to be handled
independently.[/indent]
>
> I request CTSI urgently investigate POPLA’s non-compliance
with its statutory duties as an approved ADR provider and advise
whether it remains suitable to continue handling parking appeals
without an effective external accountability mechanism.
>
> I am happy to supply copies of the original appeal, the
rebuttal, and POPLA’s full complaint response, including their
admission of legal error.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> [Address]
> [Email Address]
> [Phone – optional]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 71413--------------------------------------------------
Re: HORIZON PARKING OVERSTAY @ Tesco PCN
DIR By: Mocede28
Date: May 14, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just sent off that email now. Update you when I hear back.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page