Horizon Parking, Tesco

bertie1979

Hi I'm a little confused as there seems to be a change in their letters so unsure what to do, I've read the newbie thread but a little confused.

Unfortunately, RK had been away and only just opened the mail so missed the 14 day "discount".

RK received the letters:

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for these keywords and change to NEWEST:

Horizon POPLA 28 days

bertie1979

ok thanks so using this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81054496

can i use their popla letter as my appeal to horizon?

Coupon-mad

Glad you found it!

No just use the bit in bold at the bottom (ONLY)  for Horizon and obviously DON'T use that final bold section for POPLA because it's clearly not written for a third party assessor.

And of course, at POPLA stage, you must change the NTK and 'deemed delivered' dates to make sense.

It will also be worth adding the usual other points at POPLA stage but we can discuss that later.

bertie1979

Dear Appellant, 

 

Parking Charge:HPxxxxx

Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the above referenced Parking Charge

Review of your Appeal

The Parking Charge was issued lawfully and in full and proper accordance with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice issued by the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’).

 

There are signs located at the entrance to, and within the car park that state the terms and conditions that apply when parking. 

One of the terms and conditions is that vehicles must not exceed the maximum stay period allowed. As this vehicle was found to be parked longer than the maximum period allowed, a Parking Charge was correctly issued.

The signs throughout the car park are clear and comply fully with the BPA’s prescribed rules and regulations.  When parking on private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park concerned.

As we have not been provided with the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. We have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this charge.

Given the above, and whilst we have considered your representations carefully, on this occasion your appeal has been rejected.

bertie1979

so this is my appeal to Popla, using the other thread as the template:

Horizon Parking PCN: HPxxxxxx

As the registered keeper, this is an appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by Horizon Parking for an alleged breach of the company's terms and conditions in Tesco Launceston, 30/09/2024.

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and this statement remains purely from the registered keeper.

Summary of case

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued in this case is non-compliant with the requirements set out in schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. This is because the NtK incorrectly starts the 28-day period for transferring liability one day too early.

PoFA requirements

Under paragraph 9(2)(f), the NtK must include the following wording:

"The notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges or, if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to provide the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver."

It must also state:

"(i) that 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; and

(ii) the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given."

Under paragraph 9(6), the notice is deemed to have been 'given' to the keeper on the second working day after the date it was issued. The 28-day period then starts the day after that. 

For example:

1.      The NtK was issued on Friday 4th October.

2.      NtK is presumed to be 'given' to the keeper on Tuesday 8th October (the second working day).

3.      The 28-day period should then begin on Wednesday 9th October (the day after the second working day).

 

Where the NtK's Wording is Non-Compliant:

The wording on the back of the NtK attempts to transfer liability to the keeper one day early by stating that 28-day period starts “from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge", rather than the day after the second working day.

Why This Matters:

Incorrectly starting the 28-day period is significant because PoFA requires full and strict compliance with its wording to hold the registered keeper liable. By attempting to transfer liability one day too early, the operator has not met the legal requirements of PoFA, meaning that the keeper cannot be held liable for the parking charge.

The mistake in the NtK effectively cuts short the keeper’s response period and breaches PoFA’s clear requirements, which unfairly prejudices the keeper. POPLA must recognise that this premature attempt to start the liability transfer invalidates the notice, making it non-compliant with PoFA, and as a result, the parking charge should be cancelled.

In summary:

·         PoFA states that the NtK is presumed 'given' on the second working day after issuance.

·         The 28-day period to transfer liability then begins the day after the second working day.

·         The NtK incorrectly starts the 28-day period from the second working day itself, which is one day too early.

·         As PoFA requires exact compliance, this error invalidates the attempt to transfer liability to the keeper.

Coupon-mad

Normal rejection. As we and you expected!

Looks OK if you've got the dates right.  Do not use 'example' dates.  Use your NTK dates.

bertie1979

So Popla update, horizon have submitted a 25 page document, showing all pictures, etc etc

suppose their main response is:

Evidence to Support our claim Below is an image of the signage on site which states, “A Parking Charge Notice of £70 may be issued in the following circumstances: Exceeding the maximum stay

The vehicle was in the car park for 3 hours and 46 minutes which exceeds the longest maximum stay period in place and confirms the Parking Charge was correctly issued.

We note the Appellant has not confirmed who the driver was on the date of the contravention. In response to this, this particular car park is enforced with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and therefore, if the driver’s details are not provided, the registered keeper of the vehicle is held liable for the Parking Charge that has been issued to their vehicle.

The Appellant has stated in their POPLA appeal that the Parking Charge has not given them the correct amount of time to transfer the liability. In response to this, the Parking Charge letter was issued and sent to the Registered Keeper on 04/10/2024 and the appeal was submitted on 28/10/2024. Therefore, the Appellant has not been given any less time in which to submit their appeal and if had chosen to do so, they could have included a transfer of liability within their appeal to Horizon and as a result, the Parking Charge would have been updated accordingly and the driver could have been contacted. However, instead of the transferring the liability, the Appellant decided not to inform us of who was driving the vehicle on the day.

All signs state all the specific parking terms and parking charges in event of a breach. In accordance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, all signage on site is conspicuous, legible and written in intelligible language. Please see below in Section E timed and date stamped images of signs and the signage location plan. It is the driver's responsibility when parking on private land to ensure they familiarize themselves with the terms and conditions on site via the signage, this ensures they are aware of the charge should they breach the terms and conditions on site.

By parking the vehicle on the site, the Appellant entered a valid contract and agreed to abide by its terms and conditions. The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use. One of the conditions is that a £70.00 Parking Charge will be issued when the terms and conditions are breached.

Our position remains that this Parking Charge was issued correctly. We maintain the Appellant entered a valid contract and should pay the valid parking charges as per the signage on the site.

Gr1pr

So draft your concise popla comments. Based on their evidence pack

Find anything that works against them, plus anything that bolsters your appeal 

Coupon-mad

Mainly spell out the '28 days' error.

1505grandad

Also check that the pictures of the signs they are submitting are date and time stamped to the parking event.