DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 57930--------------------------------------------------
Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: February 13, 2025, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all
Outstayed the 5 hours going to cinema driver thought it was
free!
Done a search on horizon and have seen some defences, however
the wording has changed with regard to the 28 days as noted on
other pcn's (Important information about this Parking Charge)
Is this still a defence?
They mention invitation to pay in 2nd paragraph so again not
able to use?
The not saying who is driver relies on the ticket being non
compliant?
Is there a defence?
Thanks in advance
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 58007--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: February 13, 2025, 1:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No Keeper liability is still a defence for the PCN you have
shown us. Whilst Horizon are trying desperately to get their
NtKs sorted, they have still failed to fully comply with the
requirements of PoFA.
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA because the
wording on the front of the notice incorrectly states that the
keeper has 28 days to either pay or pass the notice to the
driver, but it fails to specify when the 28-day period starts,
creating ambiguity. While the back of the notice contains the
correct PoFA wording, the contradictory wording on the front
causes confusion and fails to properly "warn" the keeper as
required under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA. Due to this
discrepancy, Horizon Parking has failed to establish keeper
liability.
If they reject an appeal, you could require the to provide
evidence of specific case law or adjudication decisions
confirming that a contradictory PoFA statement within the same
notice still meets the statutory requirements.
#Post#: 58125--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: February 14, 2025, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for reply
Understand the point you make, as long as when they comeback I
can be shown the specific case law in the contradictory PoFA
statement. For the POPLA appeal and help drafting it.
Not sure on the second point I am adding, is it worth a shot?
First draft with thanks to b789 and other thread replies I am
paraphrasing, anything to add or remove?
“I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'.
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.
I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of
the “notice” “28 days to either pay or pass the notice to the
driver” it fails to specify when the 28-day period starts,
creating ambiguity.
Also under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
"(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary
is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the
purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after
the day on which it is posted;...."
Could you point out where this part of the legislation regarding
the exact wording, posted is on your “notice”
These two points are very important and your reply has to
acknowledge these points and if its possible refute them. A cut
and paste reply without addressing these points would imply that
you have ignored the points made and have not given this dispute
due diligence.
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 parking company has not met the keeper liability
requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The
parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the
keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the
name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have
neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who
the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.”
Thanks again for any input
#Post#: 58132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: February 14, 2025, 11:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Horizon will never accept any appeal, no matter how cleverly
composed or "bleedin' obvious" it is that they have failed to
issue it correctly. Don't waste your time and effort or
overthink the initial appeal.
Use the following:
--- Quote ---
> as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There
is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the
Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
>
> The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA
which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they
cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver
to the known keeper.
>
> Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or
remove anything from it:
>
> [quote]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 misleading and
unfair practices 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.
>
> Your NtK contains contradictory information regarding the
timeframe for payment and liability, as it incorrectly states on
the front that debt recovery action will commence after 28 days
but fails to specify when the 28-day period starts, creating
ambiguity. This differs from the 28 days from the date the NtK
is given, as required by PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraphs 9(2)(f) and
9(6). This misleading and prominent error invalidates PoFA
compliance.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under any misinterpretation of the
law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. You
have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Save your energy for POPLA
#Post#: 58213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: February 15, 2025, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok
Thanks b789 will contest it as the registered keeper
Will let you know the rhetorical answer.
#Post#: 61868--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: March 11, 2025, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all
I received the rejection letter from horizon as expected, they
have very nicely dropped the fine to £15!! if I pay up.
What is the next step I have a popla number
Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 61869--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 11, 2025, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Either £15 means it’s not worth the hassle, or you appeal to
POPLA by leading them through precisely why PoFA was not
complied with, then if they reject anyway you may have court
papers served on you which you will need to defend. Your choice,
but if it’s “only” £15 I’d pay up unless you feel there’s a
principle to be defended here.
Contrariwise, you could think that Horizon don’t think they have
much of a leg to stand on if they’re reducing their invoice by
so much.
#Post#: 61906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: March 11, 2025, 9:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your choice. Personally, I'd fight them all the way. They have
no chance of winning which is why they have dropped to £15. More
the fool you if you decide to fund their scam when they have
zero chance of getting a penny from you if you follow the advice
we provide.
I have no idea why you have redacted the date of the appeal
rejection but you have 33 days from that date to submit a POPLA
appeal. I'm not going to bother putting anything together unless
I know you intend to fight this.
#Post#: 61912--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: March 11, 2025, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have no intention of funding their scam as you say.
Not sure why I redacted date got a bit carried away.
Anyhow please advise on next phase of precedure
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji106.png
#Post#: 61960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: March 11, 2025, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You now have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to
submit a POPLA appeal. I suggest you do a search of the forum
for other POPLA appeals to get a feel for how to structure it
and then show us your first attempt before you send anything so
that we can advise further.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page