DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103040--------------------------------------------------
Horizon Parking - Maximum Stay - Tesco Hackney Morning Lane
DIR By: terika4e
Date: December 18, 2025, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
The driver parked in this car park and used what they thought
was YourParkingSpace to pay for parking.
I (registered keeper) then recieved this PCN today (18/12).
Either it was a technical issue or something else (user error)
on the app that caused this.
What do you suggest? I do not have photos of signage but here
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/wAtkQ3KXJ7ZBG5ZTA
is the GSV link. PCN
is here
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TLQ2RW5majrbXs9lCq6yHauBGje-3tru?usp=sharing
Cheers,
terika4e
#Post#: 103053--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Maximum Stay - Tesco Hackney Morning Lane
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 18, 2025, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: terika4e link ---
>
> PCN is here
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TLQ2RW5majrbXs9lCq6yHauBGje-3tru?usp=sharing
>
--- End Quote ---
Half of it is - we need to see the back.
#Post#: 103245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Maximum Stay - Tesco Hackney Morning Lane
DIR By: terika4e
Date: December 19, 2025, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have updated the link.
#Post#: 103908--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Maximum Stay - Tesco Hackney Morning Lane
DIR By: terika4e
Date: December 28, 2025, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just bumping this as the 28 days has passed to submit a appeal.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
#Post#: 103917--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking - Maximum Stay - Tesco Hackney Morning Lane
DIR By: b789
Date: December 28, 2025, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You have until tomorrow to submit an appeal. The PPSCoP states
that an appeal can be made up tp 28 days after "receipt" of the
NtK. With an issue date of Thursday 27 November, it was deemed
received (if they can prove a first class or equivalent 1-2
delivery, which they can't) on Monday 01 December.
It would be useful to see the terms signs but they are claiming
"Exceeded maximum stay period ANPR" which is NOT a period of
parking, but a period of time on site. Also, according to the
September 2025 GSV view of the entrance, there is no compliant
entrance sign, which therefore invalidates any supposed contract
with the driver.
The main issue with this Notice is that it is a PARKING charge,
but the “evidence” and the allegation are about time on site,
not parking.
On the front page Horizon only give two ANPR timestamps. Those
are camera capture times at the perimeter. They do not show when
the car was parked, where it was parked, or for how long it was
parked. They also include an “Issue Reason: Exceeded Maximum
Stay Period ANPR” which again shows they are relying on ANPR
entry/exit times, not evidence of a defined period of parking.
That distinction matters for keeper liability. Parliament did
not create keeper liability for being on site for a certain
length of time. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 only allows a parking operator to transfer liability from
the driver to the registered keeper if the Notice to Keeper
complies with strict requirements. One of those requirements is
PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a), which says the Notice to
Keeper must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it
was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice
relates.
This Notice does not specify any period of parking at all. It
gives entry and exit camera times and then asserts there was a
breach. That is not the same thing as stating a period of
parking. ANPR cannot prove a period of parking because it only
records a vehicle passing a camera. It cannot account for time
spent queuing, circulating, waiting for a bay, manoeuvring,
loading or unloading, or any other time when the vehicle is on
site but not parked. Because the Notice fails to specify a
period of parking, it fails PoFA 9(2)(a). The consequence is
that Horizon cannot hold the keeper liable. They can only pursue
the driver, and the keeper is under no obligation to identify
the driver.
The second core point is contract formation. A private parking
charge is only recoverable if the driver was clearly alerted to
the existence of parking terms and given a fair opportunity to
read and accept them. At this site there is no entrance sign (or
there wan't one in September this year) that complies with the
mandatory entrance signage requirements. If there is no
compliant entrance sign at all, the driver is not alerted on
entry that terms apply, who the parking operator is, what the
principal terms are, or where the full terms can be read.
Without that, there is no proper offer and acceptance on entry
and no reliable basis for claiming a contract was formed. In a
later POPLA appeal, Horizon would be put to strict proof by
providing clear photographs of the entrance signage in place on
the date and a site plan showing where those signs were
positioned and how they would be seen by a driver entering.
Those are the two main foundations of a later POPLA appeal in
this case: first, no keeper liability because the Notice does
not specify a period of parking as required by PoFA 9(2)(a) and
relies on time on site; second, no contract because there is no
compliant entrance sign to bring terms to a driver’s attention
on entry.
For now, simply submit the following as your initial appeal.
Once it is rejected, you can then try and explain to POPLA why
there can be no Keeper liability and, even if there was, not
contract formed with the driver:
--- 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 predatory conduct 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. Horizon has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both
a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1