DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 62133--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: March 12, 2025, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there any recourse in mentioning that Millennium Retail Park
is not the place of alleged pcn it is in Millennium Leisure Park
in Greenwich?
First draft
Dear POPLA
I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued on the
5th February 2025 as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
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.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant for the
following reason:
PoFA Wording Requirement (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f))
“Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning
with the day after that on which the notice is given”.
In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period
does not have a start date. This contradictory wording on the
front causes confusion and fails to properly warn the keeper as
required under paragraph 9(2) (f). Due to this discrepancy,
Horizon Parking has failed to establish keeper liability.
POPLA assessors are reminded that:
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.
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.
#Post#: 62150--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: March 12, 2025, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Consider that their wording on the front of the NtK states:
[indent]"As we (the creditor do not know the drivers name or
current postal address, you are now invited to either pay the
charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please
provide us with the driver's full name and current postal
address using the contact details overleaf, within 28 days and
pass this Parking Charge to them. 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 under Schedule 4 of that Act."[/indent]
Point out that fact clearly, that their wording is not compliant
with the requirements of PoFA because they are required to give
the Keeper 28 days starting from the day after the date the
notice is given.
Just like someone cannot just be a bit pregnant, they either are
or they aren't, an operator cannot be a bit PoFA compliant. They
either are fully compliant or they aren't. Their wording is not
compliant therefore, irrespective of whether they have used
correct PoFA wording elsewhere, the NtK does NOT fully comply
with ALL the requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper
cannot be liable.
You should also point out after making that point, that as they
have not fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA, they
cannot hold you, the Keeper, liable. As you are under no legal
obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private
parking company and you decline to do so, they cannot pursue you
for the charge.
#Post#: 62283--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: March 13, 2025, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Second draft
Dear POPLA
I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued on the
5th February 2025 as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of
the “notice” and the highlighted section.
"As we (the creditor do not know the drivers name or current
postal address, you are now invited to either pay the charge, or
if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with
the driver's full name and current postal address using the
contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this Parking
Charge to them. 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 under Schedule 4 of that Act."
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant for the
following reason:
Their wording is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA
because they are required to give the Keeper 28 days starting
from the day after the date the notice was given.
PoFA Wording Requirement (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f))
“Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning
with the day after that on which the notice is given”.
In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period
does not have a start date. Their wording is not compliant
therefore, irrespective of whether they have used correct PoFA
wording elsewhere, the NtK does not fully comply with ALL the
requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable.
POPLA assessors are reminded that:
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.
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.
#Post#: 62733--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: March 16, 2025, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any comments before I submit it to POPLA?
Cheers
#Post#: 62739--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: March 16, 2025, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Again, what is the rush? You have 33 days from the appeal
rejection to submit a POPLA appeal. What you have is good but I
suggest you throw the kitchen sink at them. They have to win on
every point raised. You only have to win on a single point.
Have a look at other POPLA appeals that also raise the issue of
signs, landowner contract etc. After your appeal is submitted,
the operator is required to submit their evidence pack. They
must rebut every point you have raised. If they haven’t, you can
then point this out to the assessor in your response to the
operators evidence.
Remember, even if your POPLA appeal is not successful, it is not
binding on you and has no adverse effect on anything going
forward. POPLA is not a truly independent service. They are
funded by the very companies who you are appealing against.
#Post#: 62884--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: March 17, 2025, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Third draft
Dear POPLA
I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued on the
5th February 2025 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The
appeal is on the following points.
1, Notice to Keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements
of PoFA 2012.
2, Notice to keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements
of PoFA 2012.
3, No evidence of Landowner Authority.
4, Breaches of BPA CoP General Principles for ANPR.
5, Initial appeal not been addressed.
6, Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park management Plan not being
adhered to.
7, Inadequate Signage and Insufficient Notice of the sum of the
Parking Charge
1. I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of
the “notice” and the highlighted section.
"As we (the creditor do not know the drivers name or current
postal address, you are now invited to either pay the charge, or
if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with
the driver's full name and current postal address using the
contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this Parking
Charge to them. 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 under Schedule 4 of that Act."
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant for the
following reason:
Their wording is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA
because they are required to give the Keeper 28 days starting
from the day after the date the notice was given.
PoFA Wording Requirement (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f))
“Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning
with the day after that on which the notice is given”.
In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period
does not have a start date. Their wording is not compliant
therefore, irrespective of whether they have used correct PoFA
wording elsewhere, the NtK does not fully comply with ALL the
requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable.
2. Also 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. This deviation introduces confusion and does not
match the strict requirements of PoFA. Horizon Parking’s NtK
does not correctly convey that liability will only transfer to
the keeper if specific PoFA conditions are met. The NtK's
failure to use precise language, as PoFA mandates, further
invalidates any keeper liability.
3. The pcn states that the alleged parking offence occurred at
Millenium Retail Park. I cannot find such a place! In a simple
search of google however the Millenium Leisure Park does come
up. I am not sure of location of where it was actually parked
therefore:
No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to
strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land
then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the
contract with the landowner.
The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting
out details - such as any 'genuine
customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site
occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of
course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the
site - is key evidence to define what this operator is
authorised to do, and when/where.
It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to
merely put some signs up
and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised
on the material date, to
make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers
and/or to enforce the charge in
court in their own name (legal action regarding land use
disputes generally being a
matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often
being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the
case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might
in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it
is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the
services provided by each party to the agreement.
Nor would it define vital information such as charging
days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I
believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the
BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site
boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the
landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as
the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to,
or whether it runs in perpetuity and of course, who the
signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether
they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal
agreement.
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements
and I put this operator
to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any
outstanding parking charges, they
must ensure that they have the written authority of the
landowner (or their appointed
agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a, the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that
the boundaries of the land
can be clearly defined
b, any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including
any restrictions on hours of operation
c, any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that
may, or may not, be subject
to parking control and enforcement
d, who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining
signs
e, the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement.
4. The poor quality of the photographs give doubt to the
veracity of the said photographs and the location, the driver
may have entered, left and returned. There is ample evidence in
the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary
circumstances, such as two visits ('double dip', a well known
phenomenon).
I ask Horizon to prove to POPLA that the CCTV and ANPR equipment
that was specifically used for the alleged contravention are in
alignment with the BPA CoP General Principles for ANPR and no
cases of “double dip” visits have been reported for this
vehicle or any other reports by other vehicles at this site in
this potential flaw in ANPR technology and a proper evidenced
based search of the database has been carried out to rule out
any such multiple entry. The following points are also required.
• Fit for purpose: approved technical design to comply with the
relevant requirements and Acts of Parliament;
• Calibrated: calibration certificates for all components to be
made available to POPLA to confirm they are current and
relevant;
• Operator competency: Operator is competent and trained to use
the equipment and also that the operator on the day was
competent and converse with the Data Protection Act.
5. Horizon did not address my specific points in the first
appeal Horizon Parking has entirely ignored the central
arguments relating to their non-compliance with the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), particularly the statutory
wording required under Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA and the 28-day
appeal deadline.
Instead of addressing these legal failures, they have simply
trotted out a generic copy-and-paste response about signage and
driver responsibility, completely sidestepping the substantive
issues at hand. This demonstrates that Horizon has not engaged
with the appeal in any meaningful way and instead relies on
boilerplate responses to brush off valid challenges.
I expected Horizon to at least attempt a proper rebuttal of the
points raised in my appeal. Instead, they have copy and pasted
without even reading what was submitted. This demonstrates that
Horizon has not acted in good faith in this appeal and is
attempting to mislead both POPLA and the appellant by
sidestepping the legal non-compliance issues.
6. With regard to the Submission of details pursuant to Clause
6.1 (Car Park Management Plan) of the Third Schedule of the S106
dated 9.12.2014 (Ref:13/3285/O) of the Royal Borough of
Greenwich
I draw your attention to the enforcement of the car park.
HTML https://planning.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_GRNW_DCAPR_97196
Numbers 14 and 15 of the plan.
14. Vehicles that overstay will subsequently receive a warning
letter through the post informing them that they have exceeded
the five hour parking restriction.
15. Vehicles that ignore the initial warning letter and
subsequently reoffend will be issued with a parking charge
notice (PCN) through the post.
There has been no warning letter sent as stated in the Car Park
management plan.
7. Inadequate Signage and Insufficient Notice of the sum of the
Parking Charge
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible
from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the
sum of the parking charge itself. There are no signs on entering
the car park.
I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it
discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a
motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires
that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA
2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice'
means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in
accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in
regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including,
the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such
requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which:
(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers
who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe
this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own
assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the
location. Having considered the signage in place at this
particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the
BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the
signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum,
which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at
all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking
charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at
all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair
opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge,
which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar
'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only
to the signs at that site and the unique interests and
intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and
not a typical the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size
with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible,
fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering'
signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to
the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs
under dispute in this case:
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the
'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the
Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the
specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and
'agreement on the charge' existed.
POPLA assessors are respectfully reminded that:
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.
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.
#Post#: 62909--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: March 17, 2025, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at these Horizon/POPLA appeal threads:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/horizon-tescos-split-thread/
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/horizon-parking-overstay-tesco-pcn/
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/horizon-parking-charge-tesco-overstay/
Why are you referencing the BPA CoP when it was superseded by
the PPSCoP in October last year?
#Post#: 63402--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: March 20, 2025, 7:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
4th draft New evidence included
Dear POPLA
I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued on the
5th February 2025 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The
appeal is on the following points.
1, Notice to Keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements
of PoFA 2012.
2, Notice to keeper is non compliant with ALL the requirements
of PoFA 2012.
3, Breaches of the private parking sector single Code of
Practice.
4, ANPR
5, Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park management Plan not being
adhered to.
1. I draw your attention to the second paragraph on the front of
the “notice” and the highlighted section.
"As we (the creditor do not know the drivers name or current
postal address, you are now invited to either pay the charge, or
if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with
the driver's full name and current postal address using the
contact details overleaf, within 28 days and pass this Parking
Charge to them. 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 under Schedule 4 of that Act."
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant for the
following reason:
Their wording is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA
because they are required to give the Keeper 28 days starting
from the day after the date the notice was given.
PoFA Wording Requirement (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f))
“Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning
with the day after that on which the notice is given”.
In this case, the NtK wording suggests that the 28-day period
does not have a start date. Their wording is not compliant
therefore, irrespective of whether they have used correct PoFA
wording elsewhere, the NtK does not fully comply with ALL the
requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable.
2. Also 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. This deviation introduces confusion and does not
match the strict requirements of PoFA. Horizon Parking’s NtK
does not correctly convey that liability will only transfer to
the keeper if specific PoFA conditions are met. The NtK's
failure to use precise language, as PoFA mandates, further
invalidates any keeper liability.
No Obligation to Identify the Driver
The NtK wording implies that Horizon Parking may pursue the
keeper because the driver has not been identified. However, PoFA
imposes no obligation on the keeper to identify the driver. As
the registered keeper, I have chosen not to provide driver
details, and there is no legal requirement for me to do so.
Without strict compliance with PoFA, Horizon Parking has no
legal grounds to hold the keeper liable, regardless of whether
the driver’s identity is disclosed.
Request for Strict Proof of Full Compliance with PoFA
Horizon Parking claims the right to hold the keeper liable under
PoFA. I request that POPLA requires Horizon Parking to provide
strict proof of compliance with all aspects of PoFA, not just
selected parts. Horizon Parking must demonstrate that the NtK:
• States the mandatory 28-day period correctly, beginning the
day after the notice is deemed served.
• Contains the precise wording mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph
9(2)(f), regarding the conditions for holding the keeper liable.
• Complies with every other requirement in Schedule 4 of PoFA,
as partial compliance is legally insufficient.
If Horizon Parking cannot demonstrate full compliance with PoFA,
POPLA must conclude that there is no keeper liability in this
case and the PCN must be cancelled.
3 Breaches of the private parking sector single Code of
Practice.
There are no signs on the entrance to the parking area. The
PPSCoP states:
3.1. Signs
3.1.1. An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the
entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate
whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions,
including payment, or is prohibited.
Also Annex A
A.1.1 Signs at the entrance to a parking area must
clearly show the type of parking available and if, when and how
any payment is required to be made. If public parking is not
welcomed, that must be made clear. If public parking is
welcomed, but subject to a tariff, then the existence of the
tariff must be made clear.
I enclose a picture of the entrance devoid of any signage.
3.1.4. Signs informing drivers that a parking charge may be
applicable and of the level of that charge must do so in a font
of comparable size and boldness to the main body text on the
sign, and where included on signs also displaying the parking
tariff a font no smaller than the tariff text/numbers.
As you can see from the picture of the sign the charge is not of
comparable size to the main text of Maximum stay No return
within 1 hour.
3.1.6. Signs must be designed and installed so as to be
conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which
the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height
that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be
viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of
darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a
wheelchair.
Annex A
A.3.2 Signs must always be readable and understandable,
including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when
parking enforcement activity takes place at those times
The photo was taken at dusk any longer and the sign would be in
complete darkness rendering it impossible to read and at such a
height that it would not be even visible by headlight. The terms
and conditions are written in such a small font size its
impossible to read even in daylight.
3.1.3. Note 1 In larger areas of controlled land or premises,
interim repeater signs may be used to display key information
and direct drivers to where more comprehensive information can
be found.
j) display the parking charge that the parking operator may
apply for breaches of such terms and conditions as may apply in
a large font;
I repeat that the font is not large. The signs in this car park
are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and
there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge
itself. There are no signs on entering the car park.
I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it
discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a
motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires
that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA
2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:
''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice'
means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in
accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in
regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including,
the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such
requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which:
(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers
who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at
all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair
opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge,
which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar
'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only
to the signs at that site and the unique interests and
intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and
not a typical the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size
with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible,
fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering'
signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to
the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs
under dispute in this case:
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the
'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the
Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the
specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and
'agreement on the charge' existed.
4. The poor quality of the photographs give doubt to the
veracity of the said photographs and the location, the driver
may have entered, left and returned. There is ample evidence in
the public domain that ANPR timings can mask other ordinary
circumstances, such as two visits ('double dip', a well known
phenomenon).
I ask Horizon to prove to POPLA that the CCTV and ANPR equipment
that was specifically used for the alleged contravention are in
alignment with the PPSCoP General Principles for ANPR and no
cases of “double dip” visits have been reported for this
vehicle or any other reports by other vehicles at this site in
this potential flaw in ANPR technology and a proper evidenced
based search of the database has been carried out to rule out
any such multiple entry. The following points are also required.
• Fit for purpose: approved technical design to comply with the
relevant requirements and Acts of Parliament;
• Calibrated: calibration certificates for all components to be
made available to POPLA to confirm they are current and
relevant;
• Operator competency: Operator is competent and trained to use
the equipment and also that the operator on the day was
competent and converse with the Data Protection Act.
5. With regard to the Submission of details pursuant to Clause
6.1 (Car Park Management Plan) of the Third Schedule of the S106
dated 9.12.2014 (Ref:13/3285/O) of the Royal Borough of
Greenwich
I draw your attention to the enforcement of the car park.
HTML https://planning.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_GRNW_DCAPR_97196
Numbers 14 and 15 of the plan.
14. Vehicles that overstay will subsequently receive a warning
letter through the post informing them that they have exceeded
the five hour parking restriction.
15. Vehicles that ignore the initial warning letter and
subsequently reoffend will be issued with a parking charge
notice (PCN) through the post.
There has been no warning letter sent as stated in the Car Park
management plan.
Horizon did not address my initial point in the first appeal
Horizon Parking has entirely ignored the central arguments
relating to their non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP), particularly the statutory wording required
under Paragraph 9(2)(f) PoFA and the 28-day appeal deadline.
Instead of addressing these legal failures, they have simply
trotted out a generic copy-and-paste response about signage
which I have demonstrated is non compliant with PPSCoP and
driver responsibility, completely sidestepping the substantive
issues at hand. This demonstrates that Horizon has not engaged
with the appeal in any meaningful way and instead relies on
boilerplate responses to brush off valid challenges.
I expected Horizon to at least attempt a proper rebuttal of the
points raised in my appeal. Instead, they have copy and pasted
without even reading what was submitted. This demonstrates that
Horizon has not acted in good faith in this appeal and is
attempting to mislead both POPLA and the appellant by
sidestepping the legal non-compliance issues.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 63792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: March 23, 2025, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Remarks please before I start popla appeal
Thanks
#Post#: 63798--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: March 23, 2025, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's only a POPLA appeal. Even if unsuccessful, it is not
binding and you do not need to pay. It has no bearing on
anything going forwards.
I have taken the liberty of cleaning up your appeal and removed
superfluous waffle about ANPR/CCTV which is irrelevant and will
not be considered.
--- Quote ---
> I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. This
appeal is based on the following grounds:
>
> 1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is non-compliant with Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
> 2. The signage at the site is inadequate and breaches the
requirements of the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
> 3. Horizon Parking has not shown that it has the authority
from the landowner to issue charges and enforce terms.
> 4. Horizon has failed to comply with the site-specific Car
Park Management Plan imposed by the Royal Borough of Greenwich.
> 5. Horizon failed to address the points raised in my original
appeal, relying on a generic rejection that ignored core legal
issues.
>
> 1. The Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant.
>
> The wording on the NtK does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(f)
of Schedule 4. The law requires the notice to warn the keeper
that if, after 28 days beginning with the day after the notice
is given, the amount remains unpaid, the creditor may recover it
from the keeper. Horizon’s NtK omits this clear statutory
wording and instead issues a vague and ambiguous invitation
without correctly setting out the 28-day period or the
conditions under which keeper liability arises.
>
> Furthermore, the statement: “We have the right to recover any
unpaid part of the parking charge from you” is misleading.
Horizon only has that right if they comply with all of PoFA
Schedule 4, which they have failed to do.
>
> There is also no legal requirement for a keeper to identify
the driver. The NtK wrongly implies this is necessary.
>
> As the NtK fails to meet the requirements of PoFA, Horizon
cannot transfer liability to the keeper, and the charge must be
cancelled.
>
> 2. The signage at the site is inadequate and non-compliant
with the Code of Practice.
>
> There is no signage at the entrance to the car park, in breach
of section 3.1.1 of the Private Parking Code of Practice. This
means no contract could have been formed upon entry. There is
also no prominent display of the parking charge amount. The
signs are difficult to read, especially at dusk, and the font
used for the charge is significantly smaller than other
information, contrary to section 3.1.4.
>
> Photos provided show the sign is not legible in low lighting
and does not meet the requirements for visibility, prominence,
or adequate notice as defined in PoFA Schedule 4 and PPSCoP.
>
> In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court noted that the signs
in that case were large, prominent, and clearly displayed the
charge in large bold font. Horizon’s signs fall well short of
this standard.
>
> 3. Horizon has not shown landowner authority.
>
> I request that Horizon provide POPLA with a full and
unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner. This
contract must show that Horizon has the authority to issue
charges, pursue unpaid charges in court, and enforce the terms
and conditions. This is required under the Code of Practice, and
in the absence of such evidence, the appeal must be upheld.
>
> 4. Breach of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park
Management Plan.
>
> The site is subject to a Section 106 agreement with the Royal
Borough of Greenwich (Ref: 13/3285/O), which states:
>
> “14. Vehicles that overstay will subsequently receive a
warning letter.” “15. Vehicles that ignore the initial warning
and subsequently reoffend will be issued with a PCN.”
>
> No warning letter was issued in this case. Horizon’s
enforcement is in direct breach of the approved Car Park
Management Plan and thus lacks lawful basis.
>
> 5. Horizon failed to address the core points raised in my
appeal.
>
> My initial appeal raised the PoFA non-compliance, absence of
entrance signage, and breaches of planning conditions. Horizon
failed to engage with any of these issues and instead sent a
generic response that focused solely on signage and driver
responsibility. This shows Horizon has not acted in good faith
and has attempted to sidestep the central legal issues.
>
> For all the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that
POPLA allow this appeal and instruct Horizon Parking to cancel
the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
If anyone else has the time of inclination to improve the POPLA
appeal, please feel free to do so.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page