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

Fruitcake

PoPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist. PoPLA may tell Horizon that their assessor made a mistake and therefore the NTK was not PoFA compliant, and therefore the keeper could not be held liable. Because the private parking industry is unregulated, and neither the BPA nor PoPLA are regulatory bodies, Horizon may ignore any further correspondence from PoPLA.
The complaint to PoPLA still needs to be made so if Horizon were to try a court claim, you would have proof from PoPLA that the keeper can't be held liable.

You should complain to the landowner and your MP (as keeper) that PoPLA is not independent, and has issued incorrect decisions in variance to the law (the PoFA 2012), either due to malice and avarice, or incompetence. 
Ask your MP when the new mandatory parking code of practice is going to be introduced so that legally trained assessors will carry out truly independent appeals. Point out that the new recently introduced joint IPC/BPA CoP was produced (in my opinion) to confuse motorists and trick MPs into thinking it is the CoP intended to support the 2019 private parking bill. It is not.
It was written by the unregulated private parking industry for and on behalf of unregulated parking companies and has already been proven to be detrimental to motorists who have fallen fould of the much reduced grace period to five minutes.

Please also sign the petition linked from the post below, and ask all your friends and family to do the same.

Parked in a disabled Bay, no ticket - Page 3 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

andromeda24

Okay, complaint drafted. Any advice appreciated.

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the handling of my appeal, case XXXXXXXX. The assessor’s reasoning contains significant errors, suggesting that my appeal was neither accurately reviewed nor verified by a senior assessor, as specifically requested.

Key issue: Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 misinterpreted

My appeal clearly demonstrated that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by Horizon Parking is non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012:

• Paragraph 9(6): The notice is deemed ‘given’ on the second working day after the issue date.
• Paragraph 9(2)(f): The NtK must state that the 28-day period begins “the day after that on which the notice is given.”

The assessor’s comments around these points are inconsistent and contradictory:

1. The assessor initially stated the correct timeframe: the NtK was issued on 3rd October 2024, deemed given on 7th October 2024, and the 28-day period beginning on 8th October 2024. This was the same timeframe cited in my appeal.

2. However, in their rationale, the assessor contradicted this by stating:

   • The 28-day period begins on 4th October 2024, one day after issuance, which does not comply with PoFA.
   • The operator is compliant in starting the period on 7th October 2024, despite this also contradicting the assessor’s earlier comments.

3. The assessor then concluded that the NtK allows “more time than PoFA requires,” despite clear evidence that it shortens the keeper’s response period by one day.

Request for review

I specifically requested that a senior team member review my appeal due to the complexity and significance of the regulatory wording. Instead, the assessor failed to fact-check even the dates in their own assessment, leading to a flawed decision.

This is a clear failure to apply PoFA correctly or to provide a thorough, impartial review. I request a detailed explanation of how these contradictory conclusions were reached and a reconsideration of my appeal by a senior assessor.

Fruitcake

Also ask to be told what corrective action and training will be put in place to ensure this sort of thing does not happen yet again. (Not long ago, it was found that PoPLA assessors couldn't count to 14).

LDast

Whilst POPLA management will admit their mistake, they will not rescind the decision because they are morons. Luckily for you, their decision is not binding and you continue to fight this.

Suggesting you give up just because some eject at POPLA can't do their job properly is not the way to go. Let Horizon/DCB Legal waste their money on a court claim. That is perfect for you because they will never let this go all the way to a hearing and they will discontinue once they have to pay the trial fee and they realise that you are not low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree.

If this ever got in front of a judge, they'd receive a spanking in court.

Umkomaas

andromeda24 said:

Okay, complaint drafted. Any advice appreciated.

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the handling of my appeal, case XXXXXXXX. The assessor’s reasoning contains significant errors, suggesting that my appeal was neither accurately reviewed nor verified by a senior assessor, as specifically requested.

Key issue: Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 misinterpreted

My appeal clearly demonstrated that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by Horizon Parking is non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012:

• Paragraph 9(6): The notice is deemed ‘given’ on the second working day after the issue date.
• Paragraph 9(2)(f): The NtK must state that the 28-day period begins “the day after that on which the notice is given.”

The assessor’s comments around these points are inconsistent and contradictory:

1. The assessor initially stated the correct timeframe: the NtK was issued on 3rd October 2024, deemed given on 7th October 2024, and the 28-day period beginning on 8th October 2024. This was the same timeframe cited in my appeal.

2. However, in their rationale, the assessor contradicted this by stating:

   • The 28-day period begins on 4th October 2024, one day after issuance, which does not comply with PoFA.
   • The operator is compliant in starting the period on 7th October 2024, despite this also contradicting the assessor’s earlier comments.

3. The assessor then concluded that the NtK allows “more time than PoFA requires,” despite clear evidence that it shortens the keeper’s response period by one day.

Request for review

I specifically requested that a senior team member review my appeal due to the complexity and significance of the regulatory wording. Instead, the assessor failed to fact-check even the dates in their own assessment, leading to a flawed decision.

This is a clear failure to apply PoFA correctly or to provide a thorough, impartial review. I request a detailed explanation of how these contradictory conclusions were reached and a reconsideration of my appeal by a senior assessor.

Address it to Mr John Gallagher, POPLA Lead Adjudicator.

Coupon-mad

POPLA MIGHT just re-list the case for a new assessment because it is an error in law.  But provably not, and if they don't, just ignore Horizon.

No paying!

Change this opening paragraph 

"I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the handling of my appeal, case XXXXXXXX. The assessor’s reasoning contains significant errors,"

(there are not two errors)...

to this:

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding a clear and obvious POFA 2012 error in the assessment of my appeal, case XXXXXXXX. The assessor’s reasoning contains an alarming and significant error,

And change this:

"The assessor’s comments around these points are inconsistent and contradictory"

To this:

The assessor’s comments (about when the 28 day period before keeper liability starts) are plainly wrong: a clear misassessment and an error in law.

andromeda24

Thanks all. Have updated to include revised verbiage. 

Does anyone know if there's an inbox more specific than the 'info@popla.co.uk' address for this?

FAO Mr John Gallagher, POPLA Lead Adjudicator

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding a significant and obvious PoFA 2012 error in the assessment of my appeal, case XXXXXXXX. 

The assessor’s reasoning contains an alarming error, which suggests my appeal was not accurately reviewed or verified by a more senior assessor, as requested.

Key issue: Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 misinterpreted

My appeal clearly demonstrated that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by Horizon Parking is non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012:

• Paragraph 9(6): The notice is deemed ‘given’ on the second working day after the issue date.

• Paragraph 9(2)(f): The NtK must state that the 28-day period begins “the day after that on which the notice is given.”

The assessor’s comments about when the 28-day period before keeper liability starts are plainly wrong: a clear misassessment and an error in law.

The assessor initially stated that the NtK was issued on 3rd October 2024, deemed given on 7th October 2024, and the 28-day period began on 8th October 2024. This was the correct timeframe, which I cited in my appeal.

However, in their supporting rationale, the assessor then contradicted this timeframe, stating:

1. The 28-day period begins on 4th October, one day after issuance, which does not comply with PoFA.

2. The operator is compliant in starting the period on 7th October, despite this also contradicting the assessor’s earlier comments of it starting on the 8th October.

The assessor then concluded that the NtK allows “more time than PoFA requires,” despite clear evidence that it actually shortens the keeper’s response period by 1 day.

Request for review

I specifically requested that a senior team member review my appeal due to the complexity and significance of the regulatory wording. Instead, the assessor failed to fact-check even the dates in their own assessment, leading to a flawed decision.

This is a clear failure to apply PoFA correctly in a thorough, impartial review. I request a detailed explanation of how these contradictory conclusions were reached, what training will be completed to ensure this does not happen again, and a reconsideration of my appeal by a senior assessor.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine.

It's likely to be complaints@ which is what the POPLA Website tells you, I seem to recall?

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine.

It's likely to be complaints@ which is what the POPLA Website tells you, I seem to recall?

You might want to add to the subject line 'FAO Mr John Gallagher, Lead Adjudicator'. 

1505grandad

"Paragraph 9(6): The notice is deemed ‘given’ on the second working day after the issue date."

A pedantic observation  -  the word "issue" does not appear anywhere in PoFA para 9  -  the word "posted" is used:-

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/paragraph/9
(Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Paragraph 9 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 22 January 2025.)

"(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted;...."