DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63948--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: March 24, 2025, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok thanks will do popla appeal in the next day or so and see how
it goes[react][/react]
#Post#: 65971--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: April 7, 2025, 9:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all
Received a reply from popla with the operator case summary
Doesn't really address the within 28 days issue.
The photos are from 2018-2019 and none of the entrance to car
park from Bugsbys way. Not mentioned the ones I provided at the
entrance which show no signs.
They state that the appellant arrived before dusk so could read
them, but fail to address the font size.
Not sure of their reply to the car park management plan "In
response to Point 4, Horizon Parking is a private parking
company and has nothing to do with the Royal Borough of
Greenwich".
The planning permission had to have been done by the borough in
order for it to be passed?
I enclose the pdf
I have 7 days to reply
Cheers
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 65991--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: April 7, 2025, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Rather than us downloading a large PDF, please host the document
on DropBox or Google Drive. Just make sure you redact your
personal details.
#Post#: 66046--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: April 8, 2025, 3:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully this works!
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S_PDD0xKNGYdVx4bPd-471lhXGYYuIIV/view?usp=sharing
#Post#: 66082--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: April 8, 2025, 7:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a draft response you can copy and paste into the
response webform:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Rebuttal – Parking Charge HP3584189
>
> I would like to respond to Horizon Parking’s evidence pack and
highlight where it fails to properly address my appeal.
>
> 1. Notice to Keeper (NtK) – PoFA Non-Compliance
>
> Horizon claims the NtK is compliant but fails to address the
specific issue I raised: it does not include the statutory
wording required under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 to the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The notice must state that the
creditor may recover the charge from the keeper if it is not
paid within “28 days beginning with the day after that on which
the notice is given.” Horizon does not include a copy of the
full NtK in their evidence pack for verification and simply
repeats the conclusion that it is compliant, which is not
sufficient.
>
> 2. Signage – No Entrance Sign / Outdated Evidence
>
> Horizon fails to provide any photo showing a clear, legible
entrance sign visible to drivers as they enter the site. The
plan provided simply uses red dots to indicate where such signs
are supposed to be, but they have not produced photographic
proof that an entrance sign is actually in place.
>
> Furthermore, the signage photographs in Section E are at least
5 to 7 years old. This is evident from the resolution, condition
of the signs, and absence of recent site context. The operator
has also included facsimile, computer-generated versions of
signs. These are not proof that the actual signs currently in
place contain the same terms, are still there, or are in the
same locations. Signage can deteriorate, be relocated, or be
changed over time. Horizon’s reliance on old, illustrative
images rather than current photographic evidence means they have
failed to prove that adequate signage was in place and visible
at the time of the alleged contravention.
>
> They also do not respond to my point about poor lighting
conditions—particularly important since the vehicle exited at
22:21, long after sunset. No night-time images have been
provided.
>
> 3. No Valid Evidence of Landowner Authority
>
> Section F does not contain a full, signed, and dated contract
with the landowner. It merely references Horizon’s authority in
vague terms without showing that they are authorised to issue or
enforce charges, or take legal action. As per the Code of
Practice, operators must provide a full, unredacted contract or
witness statement. POPLA has previously ruled that unsigned or
summary pages do not satisfy this requirement.
>
> 4. Breach of Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management
Plan
>
> Horizon has dismissed this point by claiming they “have
nothing to do with the Royal Borough of Greenwich,” despite the
car park clearly being subject to a Section 106 planning
agreement with the Council (ref: 13/3285/O). This agreement
specifically states that PCNs can only be issued after a warning
letter has been sent to a first-time overstaying vehicle.
Horizon has provided no evidence of such a warning letter or any
exemption from this obligation.
>
> 5. Horizon’s Appeal Response Was Generic and Non-Specific
>
> My initial appeal raised clear points of law and evidence,
including PoFA defects, signage inadequacy, breach of planning
conditions, and a demand for strict proof. Horizon’s response
was generic and did not engage with these points in any detail.
Repeating the phrase "the charge is PoFA compliant" without
addressing the actual breach or showing the full notice is not a
rebuttal.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The operator has failed to provide evidence that signage was
visible and compliant at the material time, that the NtK met
PoFA requirements, that they have landowner authority, or that
they complied with the site’s local authority-imposed planning
conditions. Their evidence is outdated, incomplete, and fails to
address material issues raised.
>
> I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the
parking charge cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 66089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: April 8, 2025, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Excellent thanks will use as reply
#Post#: 66292--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: April 9, 2025, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi b789
Going through the reply before sending can I use this
"Horizon does not include a copy of the full NtK in their
evidence pack for verification and simply repeats the conclusion
that it is compliant, which is not sufficient."
Forgive me if Ive missed something but they do show a copy of
the pcn in their evidence pack.
cheers
#Post#: 66307--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: b789
Date: April 9, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely not. Why do you want to do their job for them?
#Post#: 66646--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: April 11, 2025, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sent to popla
6-8 weeks for reply!
will update as and when
#Post#: 75547--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park Greenwich
DIR By: Bobos
Date: June 9, 2025, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A reply
unsuccessful
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
for exceeding the maximum stay period.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been
summarised: • The notice to keeper is not compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the operator issues a
vague and ambiguous invitation without stating the 28 day period
or the conditions under which keeper liability arises • The
statement that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of
the parking charge is misleading as they only have the right if
they comply with all of Schedule 4, which they have failed to do
so • The notice to keeper wrongly implies that it is necessary
to identify the driver, as there is no legal requirement • The
signage is inadequate and non-compliant with the Code of
Practice and there is 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 • The operator has not shown that they have
landowner authority to issue PCN’s and requires a full,
unredacted copy of the contract • they have breached the Royal
Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan as no warning
letter has been issued • the operator sent a generic response
and failed to engage with the issue or address the core points
raised After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the
appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail
regarding PoFA 2012, signage, landowner authority, the
management plan and the operators response to their appeal. The
appellant has provided images of the entrance and the sign as
evidence towards their appeal. The above evidence will be
considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking
operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if
the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the
use of the car park. The appellant says that the notice to
keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012 as the operator issues a vague and ambiguous
invitation without stating the 28 day period or the conditions
under which keeper liability arises. The statement that they
have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge
is misleading as they only have the right if they comply with
all of Schedule 4, which they have failed to do so. The
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows
parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered
keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.
Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning
the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking
operator is not provided with the name and address of the
driver. As the driver has not been identified on the date of the
contravention, I am considering keeper liability and will ensure
that the Parking Charge Notice issued complies with Section 4 of
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. After reviewing the Notice to
Keeper document supplied within the operator’s evidence, I can
see that the keeper was invited to supply the driver details to
the operator within the 28-day period, beginning with the day
after that on which the notice was issued. As this information
has not been supplied, then the operator reserves the right to
pursue the keeper of the vehicle. In accordance, I will be
considering keeper liability for this charge. The notice to
keeper wrongly implies that it is necessary to identify the
driver, as there is no legal requirement. Section (2) (e) of
PoFA 2012 states, ‘’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—(i)to pay the unpaid parking
charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle,
to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to
the driver;’’. Upon review of the PCN, I can see that this
states, ‘’As we (the creditor) do not know the driver’s name or
current postal address, you are now invitied 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’’. As the required information
has been provided, I am satisfied that this complies with PoFA
2012. The appellant says that the signage is inadequate and
non-compliant with the Code of Practice and there is no
prominent display of the parking charge amount. The British
Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the
standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section
19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance
signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private
land. In this case, the parking operator’s evidence shows that
an entrance sign is present within an appropriate place and
makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3 states that
parking operators need to have signage that clearly set out the
terms. After reviewing the signage provided by both parties, I
can see that these clearly state that terms are applicable. Bold
text makes it clear that the maximum stay is 5 hours and any
breaches would result in a £70 PCN being issued. The parking
operator has also provided a site map and multiple images which
show that signs are placed throughout site ensuring that
motorists can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the
signage complies with the Code of Practice. I note that the
appellant says that the signs are difficult to read, especially
at dusk, and the font used for the charge is significantly
smaller than other information. Appendix B talks about signs
being always readable and understandable, including during the
hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity
takes place at those times. Within the operator’s evidence, I
can see signs that are located either on or within close
proximity of a lighting pole, ensuring that they are visible in
hours of dusk. As the ANPR pictures on the PCN show that the
driver had their headlights on at the time of the contravention,
which would have provided additional visibility. I am therefore
satisfied that the signage would have been visible during the
hours of darkness and the appellant had the opportunity to read
and understand the terms and conditions before entering the
contract, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, Appendix
B. I note that the appellant states the amount of the charge was
not appropriately brought to their attention. The appeal reasons
raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of
ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private
parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The
Court recognised that parking charges have all the
characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were
enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the
charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in
the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance
to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large
lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the
case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had
overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the
decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account,
I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine
pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to
the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount
in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the
signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I
am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount
is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The appellant
says that the operator has not shown that they have landowner
authority to issue PCN’s and requires a full, unredacted copy of
the contract. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
(The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to
comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where
controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner,
written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge
can be issued. In this case, the document supplied by the
operator shows that they have sufficient authority to issue
PCN’s on the site in question. The appellant states that the
operator has breached the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park
Management Plan as no warning letter has been issued. However,
POPLA assess all appeals with the relevant code of practice.
Therefore, the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management
Plan would not make a material difference to the outcome of the
decision. The appellant says that the operator sent a generic
response and failed to engage with the issue or address the core
points raised. POPLA’s role is to determine whether the PCN was
issued correctly. It is not within POPLA’s remit to comment on
nor investigate the operator’s appeal process or any customer
service issues. Any further dissatisfaction regarding this will
need to be raised with the parking operator directly. Within
their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has
reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I
appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed
these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no
bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments
to make about these grounds at this stage. Based on the evidence
provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that
a breach occurred as the driver exceeded the maximum stay. I
conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the
appeal is refused.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page