Driver doesn't want to pay Horizon fine, but registered keeper does...

andromeda24

Hello. I've read the newbies post, scoured this board and done a keyword search, but I'm not having much luck so hopefully someone can help!

The situation

• Got an NTK in the post from Horizon for overstaying at a Tesco Express
  
• I am the registered keeper, but my partner was using our car at the time
• The wording of the NTK is POFA-compliant 
• The signage around the car park is very clear 
• My partner didn't go in the shop to buy anything

It was a pretty clear breach of the rules, and imo, my partner doesn't really have a leg to stand on. However, they are more on the... relaxed side of the spectrum shall we say, and would rather just ignore all comms until an LBC arrives.

My question(s)

• Is this approach more risky now PPCs are cracking down on their wording (and therefore presumably improving their chances if claims do go to court)? 
• Are Horizon pretty hot on progressing things or are they one of the sloppier PPCs? 
• How much more would this cost my partner compared to just paying the £40? 
• And perhaps most importantly, is there a 'point of no return' with who is liable for this? (e.g. my partner is no longer able to take responsibility and I'm put at risk?)

I'm obviously not going to grass on my partner, but I can't really be arsed with the aggro for the sake of £40. Can anyone see another way around this beyond quietly paying it off and acting like Horizon simply never chased us? 

KeithP

You say the NTK is POFA compliant, but are you sure about that?

I found this appeal worked very well against a Horizon PCN earlier this year...

This is an appeal by the Registered Keeper - No driver details will be given. 

Please do NOT try the usual trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact that your Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

As there is no keeper liability, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and so this will be an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel this Parking Charge Notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw.

Within two weeks the following response was received from Horizon...

Dear Appellant,

Parking Charge Notice: 00073****7

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge Notice, which we have reviewed.

I can confirm the Parking Charge Notice has now been cancelled and no further action will be taken in this matter.

Please note that once the Parking Charge Notice is cancelled the contact details are removed from the Parking Charge Notice and will not be retained for any purpose or shared with third parties.  We are, however, required to retain images and appeal correspondence for a period of 2 years by DVLA and the BPA and are not therefore able to delete these from our system. You can review our privacy policy at https://horizonparking.co.uk/privacy-policy/ or you can request that a copy is sent to you in the post by contacting us at the address below, if you have any queries regarding your data.
 

Kind regards,

Appeals Department

Horizon Parking Limited

So firstly, check your PCN really is POFA compliant.
If in doubt, show us both sides.

Gr1pr

The keeper can name the driver at any time up to any court claim being issued within the next 6 years following the incident date , the keeper would then have no liability in law, because they have complied with POFA 

The issue of the possible court claim against the keeper is the point of no return for the keeper 

A typical loss in court for a single PCN is about £212 in total, no matter which person is the defendant 

The private parking companies have definitely ramped up the court claims, typically through a small number of solicitor firms 

Half_way

Good news is that if the registered keeper wants to pay the fine, then they can not as no fine or penalty has been issued.

The whole private parking industry is based on smoke and mirrors, ie people think these are fines or penalty and they are not.

 The industry heaps misery on motorists and preys on the vulnerable and un informed, as well as the elderly and disabled, paying this just helps them pour more misery on the vulnerable.

 The parking industry is un regulated they make up their own rules to suit themselves, such as imposing arbitrary time limits grace periods and so on.

A few questions, please do not attempt to identify who could have been driving:

 How long was this "overstay" approximately, more than 10 mins, less? 30 min/1 hour or more?

andromeda24

KeithP said:

You say the NTK is POFA compliant, but are you sure about that?

I compared it against another post on here (which I can't find now) that said the update surrounding the 28-day wording on the reverse side makes it POFA-compliant now. Here it is for the avoidance of doubt!

andromeda24

Half_way said:

Good news is that if the registered keeper wants to pay the fine, then they can not as no fine or penalty has been issued.

The whole private parking industry is based on smoke and mirrors, ie people think these are fines or penalty and they are not.

 The industry heaps misery on motorists and preys on the vulnerable and un informed, as well as the elderly and disabled, paying this just helps them pour more misery on the vulnerable.

 The parking industry is un regulated they make up their own rules to suit themselves, such as imposing arbitrary time limits grace periods and so on.

A few questions, please do not attempt to identify who could have been driving:

 How long was this "overstay" approximately, more than 10 mins, less? 30 min/1 hour or more?

 The max stay in that car park is 20 minutes, and the car was there for 73 minutes.

Brie

Do the signs make it obvious about the length of stay?  Are they visible prior to entering the car park and visible while in it?  So many aren't.

Castle

andromeda24 said:

KeithP said:

You say the NTK is POFA compliant, but are you sure about that?

I compared it against another post on here (which I can't find now) that said the update surrounding the 28-day wording on the reverse side makes it POFA-compliant now. Here it is for the avoidance of doubt!

The 28 day warning is still wrong in the "Important information" section.

andromeda24

Castle said:

andromeda24 said:

KeithP said:

You say the NTK is POFA compliant, but are you sure about that?

I compared it against another post on here (which I can't find now) that said the update surrounding the 28-day wording on the reverse side makes it POFA-compliant now. Here it is for the avoidance of doubt!

The 28 day warning is still wrong in the "Important information" section.

Oh! How so? 

Great news if we can use the non-POFA appeal route… 

LDast

It also fails PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)

fisherjim

What about the incident date and the issue date, you have covered all that up too?