DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59730--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: b789
Date: February 26, 2025, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll repeat the reasoning again:
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) incorrectly states:
“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…”
This phrasing does not align with the statutory requirement in
Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA, which states:
"(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 key issue here is how the 28-day period is calculated:
PoFA’s Correct Calculation:
[indent]- Under PoFA, a Notice to Keeper is deemed given (i.e.,
legally considered delivered) on the second working day after
the date of issue (unless the operator can prove earlier
delivery).
The 28-day period should then begin the day after the NtK is
deemed given.[/indent]
The NtK’s Incorrect Calculation:
[indent]- The NtK states that the 28-day period starts from the
second working day after the date of issue rather than the
correct method: from the day after the NtK is deemed given.
This shortens the actual compliance period by one day.[/indent]
Example Using the Given Dates:
[indent]- The NtK is dated 28th January 2025 (Tuesday).
The second working day after that date is Thursday, 30th January
2025 (assuming no bank holidays).
Under PoFA, the 28-day period should begin on Friday, 31st
January 2025 and end on Thursday, 27th February 2025.
However, the NtK incorrectly suggests that the 28-day period
begins from 30th January 2025, which would make the deadline
Wednesday, 26th February 2025 instead of Thursday, 27th February
2025.[/indent]
Why This Matters
[indent]- This misstatement of the deadline means the notice
fails to strictly comply with PoFA 9(2)(f).
Because PoFA imposes strict statutory conditions for holding the
keeper liable, any deviation from the prescribed wording can
render keeper liability unenforceable.
The incorrect wording could mislead the keeper into thinking
they have one less day to name the driver or challenge the
charge before the operator claims the right to pursue
them.[/indent]
Conclusion
The operator’s miscalculation of the 28-day period results in
non-compliance with PoFA 9(2)(f). This invalidates any attempt
to transfer liability to the registered keeper under Schedule 4
of PoFA.
#Post#: 63553--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: JLA
Date: March 21, 2025, 1:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does this look ok to submit to POPLA today?
Thanks.
POPLA Appeal Submission: Horizon Parking Ltd
POPLA Reference Number: 3760535012
Vehicle Registration Number: LF18 ZHR
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issue Date: January 28th 2025
Location: Tesco Brent Cross Hendon Way (2131)
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 PoFA, particularly Paragraph 9
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:
“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.”
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:
“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.”
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:
• Alleged Contravention Date: Thur 23rd January 2025
• PCN Issue Date: Tues 28th January 2025
Under PoFA, the notice is deemed given on the second working day
after the issue date:
• First working day: Wednesday 29th January 2025
• Second working day: Thur 30th January 2025
Therefore, the notice is deemed given on Thur 30th January 2025
According to PoFA 9(2)(f), the 28-day period must begin the day
after the notice is given:
• Start of 28-day period: Friday 31st January 2025
• End of 28-day period: Thur 27th February 2025
However, Horizon’s NtK incorrectly starts the 28-day period from
the second working day after the issue date, implying they begin
counting from 30th January 2025 and their liability deadline
ends on 26th January 2025. This is 1 day earlier than the
correct deadline of Thur 27th 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 which fails to
strictly comply with PoFA 9(2)(f).
The incorrect wording could mislead the keeper into thinking
they have one less day to name the driver or challenge the
charge before the operator claims the right to pursue them.
2. 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:
“We have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking
charge from you”
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.
3. 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.
Summary
Horizon Parking’s NtK fails to comply with the following key
requirements of PoFA:
• PoFA 9(2)(f): Incorrect liability period.
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,
Registered Keeper of Vehicle LF18 ZHR
#Post#: 63565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: March 21, 2025, 4:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow - since when have Horizon started rejected appeals where
it's clearly not PoFA compliant?
It's been a while since I've posted but they always used to
accept through gritted teeth. I suspect they are playing the
numbers game hoping people won't bother with POPLA. I guess
they'll simply fail to contest...
The irony is that they always tend to meet the 14 day
requirement but just don't bother to put the necessary wording
on the PCN.
#Post#: 63566--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 21, 2025, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Presumably since Horizon only cares about getting money, it’s
now worked out that a significant percentage of people whose
appeals are rejected simply pay up and don’t go to POPLA. It
says something that they’re less clever than those who had
already worked this out! My memory from Pepipoo is similar to
yours, I agree.
#Post#: 63598--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 21, 2025, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JLA link ---
>
> According to PoFA 9(2)(f), the 28-day period must begin the
day after the notice is given:
>
> • Start of 28-day period: Friday 31st January 2025
>
> • End of 28-day period: Thur 27th February 2025
>
> However, Horizon’s NtK incorrectly starts the 28-day period
from the second working day after the issue date, implying they
begin counting from 30th January 2025 and their liability
deadline ends on 26th January 2025. This is 1 day earlier than
the correct deadline of Thur 27th January 2025.
>
--- End Quote ---
You seem to have got your January and February mixed up in this
section.
--- Quote ---
>
> Wow - since when have Horizon started rejected appeals where
it's clearly not PoFA compliant?
>
> It's been a while since I've posted but they always used to
accept through gritted teeth.
--- End Quote ---
Were you Jlc on PePiPoo? If so, good to see you back. Horizon
changed their boilerplate a little while ago, from not bothering
at all with PoFA, to attempting to comply, so they now routinely
reject appeals where they have made their failed attempt to
comply with PoFA. They still occasionally don't bother to comply
(for reasons unknown), and tend to accept appeals in those
cases.
#Post#: 63601--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: JLA
Date: March 21, 2025, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, have corrected date mix up so all good to submit?
#Post#: 63630--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: b789
Date: March 21, 2025, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As long as your dates are correct, send away!
Horizon have been desperately trying to amend their NtKs to make
them PoFA compliant. However, despite doing their incompetent
best, they have still managed to fail miserably.
However, expect them to try again and adjust their wording,
especially after appeals such as the which highlight their
incompetence.
#Post#: 63636--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: March 21, 2025, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Horizon have been desperately trying to amend their NtKs to
make them PoFA compliant.
>
--- End Quote ---
It's not hard. It's not like they've had 13 years to perfect
it...
#Post#: 63637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: March 21, 2025, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Were you Jlc on PePiPoo? If so, good to see you back.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yup... It's depressing to see very little has changed as the
industry still has its nose in the trough...
#Post#: 63645--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking Charge Overstay Tesco 1am
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 21, 2025, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's hope the assessor can follow, assuming it gets that far.
OP, on points of accuracy:
The incorrect wording could mislead the keeper into thinking
they have one less day to name the driver or challenge the
charge before the operator claims the right to pursue them.
No. The keeper can relieve themselves of liability by naming the
driver at any stage before legal proceedings are commenced
anyway. And no, appealing has nothing to do with the wording of
9(2)(f), in fact PoFA is virtually silent on matters of appeals.
Here's what it says:
9(2)(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt
payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or
complaints that are available;
The point of 9(2)(f) is not just that the creditor may not hold
the keeper liable before the prescribed period has elapsed, it's
that their Notice to Keeper must inform the keeper by stating
this clearly.
Personally, your reference regarding what the incorrect wording
could lead to is unnecessary and I'd leave it out.
So far we've skirted the issue of whether there was a breach and
if so its particulars. Even Horizon's rejection was silent on
this point.
I would add to your appeal that you haven't seen any evidence or
reasoning which specifies the breach and therefore have been
unable to consider this and make reference in your appeal.
Do you know the substance of the breach? Being on site for the
period specified isn't a breach as such. It might be if only 10
minutes was allowed, but not if 3 hours was allowed!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page