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

andromeda24

fisherjim said:

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

Ahh sorry, I wasn't sure how much to redact so I just covered everything! 

Parking charge issue date: 3rd October
Date of breach: 28th September 

andromeda24

Brie said:

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.

Yes. Multiple signs all over the place, very clear and visible.

Gr1pr

Appeal as keeper using the advice by KeithP or some other suitable bespoke appeal based on non compliance with POFA 2012

fisherjim

andromeda24 said:

Brie said:

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.

Yes. Multiple signs all over the place, very clear and visible.

Doesn't mean they conform to the COP though, we have Horizon in our local tesco but the signage is rubbish!

andromeda24

Gr1pr said:

Appeal as keeper using the advice by KeithP or some other suitable bespoke appeal based on non compliance with POFA 2012

Okay will do.

I thought for sure their newer letter is POFA-compliant based on Coupon_mad's comment in this thread last month: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80985226/#Comment_80985226 but if it isn't, I'll give it a go! 

Thanks for the advice everyone!  

LDast

Have a read of PoFA 2012 9(2)(e)(i) and show us where in that NtK there is any "invitation", or synonym of the word,  for the Keeper to pay the charge?

Here is a little lesson on this specific condition that many NtKs fail to comply with. Unfortunately, POPLA and the IAS assessors are feckwits and morons and cannot grasp this concept. It would be very arguable in court though:

Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012

This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:

An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

Non-Compliance Issue

If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.

Significance of Full Compliance

Strict Liability: The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012.

Partial or Substantial Compliance Insufficient: Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.

Consequences for the Operator

Challenge Basis: If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge.

Keeper Liability: The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.

Conclusion

In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.

andromeda24

LDast said:

Have a read of PoFA 2012 9(2)(e)(i) and show us where in that NtK there is any "invitation", or synonym of the word,  for the Keeper to pay the charge?

I'm guessing this is not explicit enough? 

andromeda24

I've submitted an appeal to Horizon using KeithP's template. I'm expecting them to reject it on the basis that they think their wording is now POFA-compliant, but we live in hope! 

LDast

andromeda24 said:

LDast said:

Have a read of PoFA 2012 9(2)(e)(i) and show us where in that NtK there is any "invitation", or synonym of the word,  for the Keeper to pay the charge?

I'm guessing this is not explicit enough? 

Ah, yes... that is explicit enough. My bad for not reading it properly.

andromeda24

LDast said:

andromeda24 said:

LDast said:

Have a read of PoFA 2012 9(2)(e)(i) and show us where in that NtK there is any "invitation", or synonym of the word,  for the Keeper to pay the charge?

I'm guessing this is not explicit enough? 

Ah, yes... that is explicit enough. My bad for not reading it properly.

No worries! I think my best route is going to be on the 28-days wording tbh. My only issue is understanding how it's not POFA-compliant because I've read it about 8,000 times against the regulation and I still can't see where it misses the mark!