Horizon Parking PCN

KeithP

RobinHill wrote: »

Again apologies Fruitcake if you're going to need to bang your head against the proverbial, but I still can't see where it says "must" name the driver?

Please re-read my most recent post, post #20 above.

RobinHill

It is strange as when I read it now ... it is obvious!!

Fruitcake

RobinHill wrote: »

Ok cheers, think I may be making progress on the compliance topic (I hope). Para 9(f) states ...

"(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid"

Well it does discuss 28 days, but rather than recovery from the keeper as per 9(f) above, the NTK discusses "recovering the unpaid amount from the driver".

Am I picking up on that bit correctly? ie. non compliant as the 28 days part refers to recovery from the driver rather than keeper?

Again apologies Fruitcake if you're going to need to bang your head against the proverbial, but I still can't see where it says "must" name the driver?

Thank you.

How much of the parts in bold did you find in the NTK, or any other parts of the PoFA for that matter?

Does the NTK say when the 28 days begins?
Does it warn The Keeper?

Does the NTK meet EVERY requirement of dates, wording, and giving a warning?

The PoFA is mandatory to hold a keeper liable. The scammers must meet each and every single point to comply. Miss a single requirement and the NTK is non-PoFA compoliant.

Keith's comments in bold should explain where the word "must" is used.

Redx

It's deliberately worded in a confusing way and as a long paragraph

POFA is not mandatory , naming a driver is not mandatory , there is no must , there should be a may , an important difference in details

It's worded to confuse

RobinHill

Hello Guys,

I have read through Coupon-Mad's sticky, however I also found the post below (see #27 MattWilson) ...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5545932/horizon-parking-ticket&page=2

Rather than a generic first appeal, which I understand is really just to get a POPLA code, MattWilson made clear of their intent from the start by refering to "Shedule 4 of the POFA" in what I understand was their first response to the NTK ...

"I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.! ..." etc

On being chased, Horizon Parking replied cancelling the charge.

Any comment please, ie. is it better to get a POPLA code since (I think) this costs the parking company to do so, whereas MattWilson's "firmer" approach may have saved the parking company money in not providing a POPLA code?

Thank you.

Redx

the whole idea is thus

cancel or issue a popla code

therefore any similar approach can be used to the PPC, but many people hint at or give away driver details due to words like (ME , MY , MYSELF & I" and seem hell bent on self incrimination , so no blabbing about who was driving , that is the important issue

you must do what you wish, but as long as it either results in a cancellation or a popla code, the result is the same

what you cannot do is go to popla with no code, you cannot even login to popla without that code , which in your case on Horizon can provide

Umkomaas

Try that if you wish, provided you don't 'drift on' and inadvertently identify the driver.

RobinHill

BTW how come you guys haven't been mentioned in the Queen's Honours list yet? ie. long standing and valued service to the public 'n all that :-)

Umkomaas

RobinHill wrote: »

BTW how come you guys haven't been mentioned in the Queen's Honours list yet? ie. long standing and valued service to the public 'n all that :-)

I expect the BPA and IPC will be putting in the nominations as soon as the new Government is formed. :rotfl:

RobinHill

Appeal submitted to Horizon Parking (appeals.horizonpcn.co.uk) ...

"Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper XXXXXXX for vehicle VRM XXXXXX.

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours faithfully

XXXXXXXXXX"