PCN from Horizon Parking

Lowey101

Hi Everyone

I have read through the FAQ page and I think I understand most of what I read but I just have one more question if I may.

I received a notification from my Leasing Company (Leaseplan/Network) that they have received a PCN from Horizon Parking for an unpaid ANPR charge on 4 September. The PCN was issued on 12 September. My Leasing Company have confirmed to Horizon my details and have cc'd me on the response on 19 September

These are the current facts:
1 >> I have yet to receive anything directly addressed to me from Horizon Parking
2 >> I wish is appeal the charge (£80 for £0.30 charge)
3 >> The signage in the Car Park is incredibly unclear and not visible to the driver on entry to the car park (I have photo's).

My main question is, should I wait for the PCN to be sent directly too me from Horizon before lodging my appeal or can I go ahead now with the version I have been sent by the Leasing Company?

I am going away for 2 1/2 weeks so is it 100% that I will have 28 days to lodge my appeal so I can do it when I return?

Thank you in advance

onlyfoolsandparking

There is a section on leased cars in the newbies section, go have a read of it, other more experienced posters will answer your question if you've not already found the answer yourself.


The newbies section is also good for explaining more about the game you are now firmly in.

Lowey101

I did read that section but it didn't have the answer to the my Q on whether to wait or appeal now! Thank you anyway.

waamo

If you read the section on lease and hire vehicles it says to appeal early.

Lowey101

I'm not sure it does? This wasn't a windscreen ticket. Am I missing a bit of the page that isn't this bit??

I want to make sure as it seems the fail to send the required documents appears to be quite successful?

* COMPANY, LEASE OR HIRE CARS ANYWHERE IN THE UK

In the case of a company car or hire car, if you get a windscreen ticket you MUST appeal before day 28 (well before day 21 when it's an IPC firm which only 'offers' 21 days to appeal - check the PCN). This is in order to hook the PPC in your direction, before they get a chance to get the keeper's details from the DVLA.

You should also warn the owner/keeper (Fleet Manager) not to pay if they do get a letter about it because they have no business to get involved in a fake PCN you have already appealed as driver, and you won't reimburse them if they are daft enough to pay it.

If the hire/lease co gets a postal PCN and names you as the driver/hirer, that is a good thing as it removes them from the loop entirely and then you can follow the above advice as appropriate to your case - but check and see if they have charged an admin fee. Challenge that admin fee with the Fleet Manager, Hire firm or your HR Manager, if your car use t&cs do not support this deduction for a mere invoice (as opposed to a fine/penalty).

Here are some examples of a successful first appeal. These examples relate to a situation where the PPC has (pretty much ALWAYS!) failed to send the required documents to the hirer (you) with the postal Notice, by day 21 after the date they were informed of the hirer's details:

Coupon-mad

My main question is, should I wait for the PCN to be sent directly too me from Horizon before lodging my appeal or can I go ahead now with the version I have been sent by the Leasing Company?

Either, but if you choose the latter, you'd have to upload proof from the lease firm that you are authorised to appeal (i.e. the letter that passed the PCN to you).

Personally, I would wait for the NTH to arrive, then you can use that to win the case.

Lowey101

Thank you Coupon-mad. I will wait for the NTH as then I have both that potential option and the poor signage to try and get it thrown out.

Thank you again for the help

beamerguy

Lowey101 wrote: »

Thank you Coupon-mad. I will wait for the NTH as then I have both that potential option and the poor signage to try and get it thrown out.

Thank you again for the help

Just be aware that leasing companies have been charging
up to £80 as an admin charge for advising the PPC

Where cars are concerned, everyone wants a share
of the scam

Lowey101

Hi. They actually got the letter / document thing right in the end so I went with the lack of clear signage argument and after 6 days they came back yesterday and cancelled the PCN. I have written to my lease provider and they have also cancelled the charge! A big win and a massive thank you for your help. For reference I have dropped in the letter I used which was taking from a collection of the suggestions on the Newbie page:


Dear Sir

Parking Charge Notice [######]; Vehicle Registration: [######]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Horizon Parking Limited (“Horizon”) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

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

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 - 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 example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

Link removed as new member

In the Beavis case, 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:

Link removed as new member

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.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. For reference, the entrance sign is this case is located on the non-drivers side of the vehicle and therefore totally illegible from the driver’s position. It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

Link removed as new member

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

You must either offer me a POPLA code or cancel the charge.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

Yours faithfully,