PCN - Horizon Parking

Gr1pr

The latter,  if required,  the main reason is to always avoid anything else like motorist or driver 

You are appealing as the Registered Keeper,  nothing else  !

Use other to upload your popla appeal as a pdf document,  see the 3rd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

jrs101

Gr1pr said:

The latter,  if required,  the main reason is to always avoid anything else like motorist or driver 

You are appealing as the Registered Keeper,  nothing else  !

Use other to upload your popla appeal as a pdf document,  see the 3rd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

The form wont let me proceed unless "motorist details" are entered, so in the context of registered keeper its not clear how to get around this?

Coupon-mad

You put in the keeper's details. I thought the same when doing POPLA appeals. It's stupid!

I don't think you've shown us your finished POPLA appeal though, for help?

Don't just tick boxes in the POPLA website and don't just type a short appeal, freehand.

You are meant to be preparing a full PDF appeal that cites the winning POPLA DECISION from the other month. Quote from the Assessor re Horizon's wording.

jrs101

Coupon-mad said:

You put in the keeper's details. I thought the same when doing POPLA appeals. It's stupid!

I don't think you've shown us your finished POPLA appeal though, for help?

Don't just tick boxes in the POPLA website and don't just type a short appeal, freehand.

You are meant to be preparing a full PDF appeal that cites the winning POPLA DECISION from the other month. Quote from the Assessor re Horizon's wording.

The keepers details in both boxes??

Is this OK?

"I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Horizon. I dispute the PCN on the following grounds:

1. The PCN does not meet the wording requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). 

2. This is comparable to an earlier POPLA decision whereby the case was allowed, date of decision on 17/12/2024, POPLA code 3762434330. The rationale for this decision is copied below: I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: In this case the appellant has presented a technical challenge to the parking operator’s application of PoFA. The parking operator is reliant on the correct application of PoFA in this case as driver liability cannot be established. As such, in respect of the 28 day period given for the PCN to be paid or for the driver’s details to be provided, I must note that Notice to Keeper in this case does state: “the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge”. However, PoFA stipulates (at paragraph 9 subparagraph (2) (f)) that this period must be given from: “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”. In respect of the presumed date of issue, paragraph 9 subparagraph (6) of PoFA advises: “A notice sent by post is to be presumed…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”. As such, I must uphold the appellant’s grounds in respect of the wording used by the parking operator in this case, as this sets the 28 day timescale from the presumed date of issue, whereas PoFA stipulates this must begin from the day after. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. 

3.The wording in respect of when a period of 28 days (before the keeper can be pursued) begins a day too early. 

4. The driver made 2 short visits that day, complying with all the terms and conditions on the signs, no breach of the parking occurred , this scenario is known as "double dipping " due to known ANPR failures and the claimant not checking for orphan images as required by the BPA Co

jrs101

Coupon-mad said:

You put in the keeper's details. I thought the same when doing POPLA appeals. It's stupid!

I don't think you've shown us your finished POPLA appeal though, for help?

Don't just tick boxes in the POPLA website and don't just type a short appeal, freehand.

You are meant to be preparing a full PDF appeal that cites the winning POPLA DECISION from the other month. Quote from the Assessor re Horizon's wording.

When you say "You put in the keeper's details. I thought the same when doing POPLA appeals. It's stupid!"

This needs clarity. thanks

Gr1pr

I agree,  I thought there would be a choice,  such as

1 Registered Keeper 

2, Driver 

3 Motorist

4. Other 

Or something similar,  or anything you like,  no pigeon holes

jrs101

Gr1pr said:

I agree,  I thought there would be a choiso wyatt si I do?ce,  such as

1 Registered Keeper 

2, Driver 

3 Motorist

4. Other 

Or something similar,  or anything you like,  no pigeon holes

So what do I do?

Is my appeal wording also ok?

Coupon-mad

jrs101 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You put in the keeper's details. I thought the same when doing POPLA appeals. It's stupid!

I don't think you've shown us your finished POPLA appeal though, for help?

Don't just tick boxes in the POPLA website and don't just type a short appeal, freehand.

You are meant to be preparing a full PDF appeal that cites the winning POPLA DECISION from the other month. Quote from the Assessor re Horizon's wording.

When you say "You put in the keeper's details. I thought the same when doing POPLA appeals. It's stupid!"

This needs clarity. thanks

Does it?  I'll rephrase:

You put in the keeper's details.

I agree the page is stupid.

jrs101

Coupon-mad said:

jrs101 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You put in the keeper's details. I thought the same when doing POPLA appeals. It's stupid!

I don't think you've shown us your finished POPLA appeal though, for help?

Don't just tick boxes in the POPLA website and don't just type a short appeal, freehand.

You are meant to be preparing a full PDF appeal that cites the winning POPLA DECISION from the other month. Quote from the Assessor re Horizon's wording.

When you say "You put in the keeper's details. I thought the same when doing POPLA appeals. It's stupid!"

This needs clarity. thanks

Does it?  I'll rephrase:

You put in the keeper's details.

I agree the page is stupid.

The registered keeper details get entered twice in both motorist and driver details?

Can anyone peruse my appeal details I have pasted above and offer their opnion?

jrs101

jrs101 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You put in the keeper's details. I thought the same when doing POPLA appeals. It's stupid!

I don't think you've shown us your finished POPLA appeal though, for help?

Don't just tick boxes in the POPLA website and don't just type a short appeal, freehand.

You are meant to be preparing a full PDF appeal that cites the winning POPLA DECISION from the other month. Quote from the Assessor re Horizon's wording.

The keepers details in both boxes??

Is this OK?

"I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Horizon. I dispute the PCN on the following grounds:

1. The PCN does not meet the wording requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). 

2. This is comparable to an earlier POPLA decision whereby the case was allowed, date of decision on 17/12/2024, POPLA code 3762434330. The rationale for this decision is copied below: I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: In this case the appellant has presented a technical challenge to the parking operator’s application of PoFA. The parking operator is reliant on the correct application of PoFA in this case as driver liability cannot be established. As such, in respect of the 28 day period given for the PCN to be paid or for the driver’s details to be provided, I must note that Notice to Keeper in this case does state: “the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge”. However, PoFA stipulates (at paragraph 9 subparagraph (2) (f)) that this period must be given from: “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”. In respect of the presumed date of issue, paragraph 9 subparagraph (6) of PoFA advises: “A notice sent by post is to be presumed…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”. As such, I must uphold the appellant’s grounds in respect of the wording used by the parking operator in this case, as this sets the 28 day timescale from the presumed date of issue, whereas PoFA stipulates this must begin from the day after. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. 

3.The wording in respect of when a period of 28 days (before the keeper can be pursued) begins a day too early. 

4. The driver made 2 short visits that day, complying with all the terms and conditions on the signs, no breach of the parking occurred , this scenario is known as "double dipping " due to known ANPR failures and the claimant not checking for orphan images as required by the BPA Co

I'm looking for peoples opinions on this. Thanks