DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 50079--------------------------------------------------
Overstayed Parking
DIR By: Muhammad
Date: December 16, 2024, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi folks i received a parking ticket for overstaying in a
parking space .Is there any groumds for appeal.Please let me
know ..Thank you
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1dznYp0Ij0aoHmaK3YBari_hMK72uxbrM
#Post#: 50081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed Parking
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: December 16, 2024, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Private parking so have asked for move to correct section.
#Post#: 50098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed Parking
DIR By: b789
Date: December 16, 2024, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Where is the back of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)? What does the
sign at the location actually say?
Horizon NtKs are not usually PoFA compliant which means that
they cannot hold the Keeper liable, only the driver and unless
you blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise, they have no
idea who was driving.
So, please read this and then show us the back of the NtK:
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
One other point, you may want to try and protect yourself from
identity theft by not revealing your name, your VRM and you
really should redact the PCN number if you don't want someone to
really screw your appeal up.
#Post#: 50574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed Parking
DIR By: Muhammad
Date: December 20, 2024, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi i have uploaded the back side of PCN ..Please have a look and
guide me how to solve this problem..
Many thanks
#Post#: 50592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed Parking
DIR By: b789
Date: December 20, 2024, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are several failures in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that
you can rely on. Horizon have failed to stipulate the appeal
deadline in breach of section 8.1.2(e) of the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Also, they have failed to
correctly comply with PoFA 9(2)(f) deadlines for Keeper
liability.
Here is the suggested appeal to Horizon:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Horizon Parking Appeals Team,
>
> I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued on
11th December 2024 as the registered keeper of the vehicle
AO61ANR.
>
> Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) claims to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), yet it fails to meet the
requirements of either. The fact that you proclaim compliance
while failing to meet basic legal and regulatory standards is
not only baffling but indicates a lack of professionalism within
your organisation.
>
> Allow me to explain why your NtK fails on multiple counts:
>
> 1. PoFA Non-Compliance
>
> Your NtK misrepresents the timeframe for transferring
liability under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA.
>
> PoFA specifies that the keeper can only be held liable "...at
the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after
that on which the notice is given."
>
> Here are the relevant dates:
>
> [indent]• Alleged Contravention Date: 6th December 2024
>
> • PCN Issue Date: 11th December 2024
>
> • Notice Given Date: 13th December 2024 (two working days
after issue date)
>
> • PoFA-Compliant Start Date: 14th December 2024
>
> • Correct Deadline: 10th January 2025[/indent]
>
> Your NtK instead starts the liability period from 10th
December 2024, resulting in an incorrect deadline of 6th January
2025, which is four days early. This fundamental error makes
your NtK non-compliant with PoFA.
>
> 2. Breach of the PPSCoP – Section 8.1.2(e)
>
> Your NtK also fails to comply with Section 8.1.2(e) of the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (2024), which states:
>
> [indent]"The parking operator must ensure that a notice
informs the recipient that they have 28 days from the date of
receiving the parking charge to submit an appeal."[/indent]
>
> On the back of your NtK, under the "Contesting the Parking
Charge" section, you focus on appeals made within 14 days to
preserve the discounted rate. However, the NtK does not
explicitly state the overall appeal deadline of 28 days from
receiving the notice, as required by the PPSCoP.
>
> This omission creates ambiguity and could mislead recipients
into believing they cannot appeal after the 14-day discount
period, even though they still have the legal right to appeal
for 28 days. Such a failure is contrary to the PPSCoP's goal of
promoting fairness and transparency in private parking
enforcement.
>
> By failing to clearly communicate the full 28-day appeal
deadline, you breach Section 8.1.2(e), and this failure
undermines the enforceability of your notice.
>
> 3. Keeper Liability is Inapplicable
>
> As the registered keeper, I have no legal obligation to
identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.
Your NtK can only hold the driver liable unless strict
compliance with PoFA and the PPSCoP is achieved, which it is
not. This NtK is unenforceable as far as keeper liability is
concerned.
>
> 4. Please Consult a Competent Adult
>
> If you cannot understand why your NtK fails to comply with
PoFA or the PPSCoP, I suggest passing this appeal to a competent
adult at Horizon who has the necessary understanding of these
requirements. Assuming such a person exists, they might be able
to avoid wasting further time by cancelling this Parking Charge
now.
>
> 5. Horizon Has No Hope at POPLA
>
> Your failures to comply with PoFA and the PPSCoP ensure that
this charge would fail at POPLA. I urge you to save us both the
time and effort by cancelling this Parking Charge immediately.
>
> If you choose to continue pursuing this baseless charge, I
require a full response addressing all the points raised above,
along with a POPLA code so that I may escalate my appeal.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
>
> Registered Keeper of AO61ANR
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 50616--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed Parking
DIR By: Boomer
Date: December 20, 2024, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, the Parking Charge Number and Vehicle Registration number
are both visible on your image uploads (see the black background
"How to Pay" sections).
Best edit those n'all!
#Post#: 53231--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed Parking
DIR By: Muhammad
Date: January 13, 2025, 7:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi the horizon parking has rejected my appeal stating the reason
that there are clear signs of overstayed parking upon the
entrance and within the parking .What you guys suggest me to do
now..Please guide me
I have attcahed the link below
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1dznYp0Ij0aoHmaK3YBari_hMK72uxbrM
#Post#: 53263--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed Parking
DIR By: b789
Date: January 14, 2025, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So you submit an appeal to POPLA. You have 33 days from the
appeal rejection date of the appeal to submit your POPLA appeal.
As long as you submit it before 15th February, there will not be
an issue.
Horizon have conveniently for them, ignored the points raised in
the initial appeal. As you will raise them again in the POPLA
appeal, they will have to deal with them by way of rebuttal.
Here is a suggested POPLA appeal that should lead the assessor
to understanding why Horizons NtK does not fully comply with all
the requirements of PoFA, especially because of their choice of
wording to interpret Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA. I have left all
your identifying marks in because you have not bothered to
redact them in your own images. If you want them redacted (POPLA
ref no and VRM, then redact them in your won images and let me
know and I will redact them here.
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal Submission: Horizon Parking Ltd
>
> POPLA Reference Number: 3760135148
> Vehicle Registration Number: AO61 ANR
> Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issue Date: 11th December 2024
> Location: Tesco Romford Gallows Corner Extra
>
> To the POPLA Assessor,
>
> I am submitting this appeal against the Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) issued by Horizon Parking Ltd on the grounds that
Horizon's Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the
statutory requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), thereby making the charge
unenforceable against me as the registered keeper. Horizon
Parking cannot hold the registered keeper liable due to their
failure to meet the strict wording and procedural requirements
of PoFA.
>
> I will explain in detail below how Horizon's NtK falls short
of compliance with several key paragraphs of PoFA, particularly
Paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f), and why this renders their
attempt to transfer liability to the keeper invalid.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 9(2)(f) – Incorrect Liability
Period
>
> Horizon Parking’s NtK includes the following wording:
>
> [indent]“You are advised that if after the period of 28 days
from the second working day after the date of this Parking
Charge, the amount due has not been paid in full and we do not
know both the name and current address of the driver, we have
the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from
you. This Parking Charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f)
of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is
subject to our complying with the applicable conditions on the
Schedule for of that Act.”[/indent]
>
> This wording does not comply with the legal requirements of
PoFA. Let me explain why.
>
> According to PoFA 9(2)(f), the NtK MUST state:
>
> [indent]“The notice must warn the keeper that if, at the end
of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on
which the notice is given, the amount of the unpaid parking
charges specified under this paragraph has not been paid in
full, and 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.”[/indent]
>
> The key difference is that PoFA requires the 28-day countdown
to begin “with the day after that on which the notice is given”,
while Horizon’s NtK states that the 28-day countdown begins
“from the second working day after the date of this Parking
Charge”. This is a fundamental error that makes Horizon’s NtK
non-compliant with PoFA.
>
> Let’s calculate the dates correctly.
>
> Important Dates:
>
> [indent]• Alleged Contravention Date: Friday, 6th December
2024
>
> • PCN Issue Date: Wednesday, 11th December 2024[/indent]
>
> Under PoFA, the notice is deemed given on the second working
day after the issue date:
>
> [indent]• First working day: Thursday, 12th December 2024
>
> • Second working day: Friday, 13th December 2024[/indent]
>
> Therefore, the notice is deemed given on Friday, 13th December
2024.
>
> According to PoFA 9(2)(f), the 28-day period must begin the
day after the notice is given:
>
> [indent]• Start of 28-day period: Saturday, 14th December 2024
>
> • End of 28-day period: Friday, 10th January 2025[/indent]
>
> However, Horizon’s NtK incorrectly starts the 28-day period
from the second working day after the issue date, implying they
begin counting from Friday, 13th December 2024, and their
liability deadline ends on Thursday, 9th January 2025. This is
four days earlier than the correct deadline of Friday, 10th
January 2025.
>
> This premature deadline is a clear breach of PoFA. Liability
cannot be transferred to the registered keeper when the NtK
fails to comply with this mandatory requirement.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. Failure to Comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) – Missing Invitation
to Pay
>
> PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires that the NtK:
>
> [indent]“State that the creditor does not know both the name
of the driver and a current address for service for the driver
AND invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking
charges.”[/indent]
>
> According to Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper
(NtK) must include a specific "invitation" to the keeper to pay
the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper
understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
>
> Horizon cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge
Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a
clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:
>
> [indent]• Pay the parking charge, or
> • Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper
was not the driver).[/indent]
>
> This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly
stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay
because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict
wording requirements of PoFA.
>
> PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention
is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and
unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking
charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of
wording that PoFA expects.
>
> If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be
paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the
keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must
link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an
unambiguous way.
>
> The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they
fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a
valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent
adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of
explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. Horizon Parking’s Misleading Use of PoFA References
>
> Horizon Parking claims in their NtK that they are relying on
PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable. However, they fail to
comply with the specific wording and all the requirements set
out in PoFA. Simply referencing PoFA does not make their notice
compliant.
>
> Their statement:
>
> [indent]“We have the right to recover any unpaid part of the
parking charge from you”[/indent]
>
> is misleading and incorrect. They only have the right to
recover the charge from the registered keeper if they fully
comply with all the conditions of Schedule 4 of PoFA. They have
not done so in this case.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4. No Evidence of Who Was Driving
>
> As the registered keeper, I am under no legal obligation to
identify the driver to Horizon Parking, an unregulated private
company. Horizon cannot assume nor infer that I was the driver.
Since their NtK fails to fully comply with all the requirements
of PoFA, they cannot transfer liability to me as the keeper.
Horizon must provide strict proof of who was driving if they
wish to enforce this charge, and they have not done so.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5. Inadequate Signage
>
> The signage at the site is inadequate and does not meet the
standards set out by the British Parking Association (BPA) in
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
The terms and conditions are displayed in small, hard-to-read
text, and the parking charge amount is not clearly prominent.
Without clear signage, it is impossible to form a valid contract
with the driver.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 6. Summary
>
> Horizon Parking’s NtK fails to comply with the following key
requirements of PoFA:
>
> [indent]• PoFA 9(2)(f): Incorrect liability period.
>
> • PoFA 9(2)(e): Missing invitation to pay.[/indent]
>
> As a result, Horizon Parking cannot hold the registered keeper
liable for this charge. Furthermore, Horizon has not provided
any evidence of who was driving the vehicle. Therefore, I
respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel
the Parking Charge Notice.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> Registered Keeper of Vehicle AO61 ANR
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 53274--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed Parking
DIR By: Muhammad
Date: January 14, 2025, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much
#Post#: 57368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Overstayed Parking
DIR By: Muhammad
Date: February 10, 2025, 3:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Folks..
i have won the case against the horizon parking through
POPLA..Thank you to all of you for your help and guidance ..Keep
up the good work..Many thanks
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/12yE973d6tvuUzKLNnUbBp_36sO_KYRHw/view?usp=drivesdk
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page