Horizon 28 days error POPLA Appeal 2025

Coupon-mad

They are the ones in the third post of the NEWBIES thread.

LukasBB

This?

Signage (I deliberately go to town in this section, don't cut it down!):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341

- The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342

Landowner Authority

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

1505grandad

Opening post  -  "I read plan B on this website but I've already admitted to being the driver....."  -  therefore the middle option not relevant  -  hence the advice:-

"Plus the usual two extra points that everyone includes to POPLA ...."

LukasBB

Are the usual two extra points the ones about signage and land owner authority? Sorry this is very confusing to me.

Coupon-mad

Yes.       

LukasBB

Thanks here is the draft:

POPLA reference number: XXXXXXX
Horizon Parking PCN: XXXXXXX

Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the registered keeper, I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice issued by Horizon Parking for an alleged breach of the terms and conditions at Hewetts Quay, Essex car park, on 7th December 2024. For clarity, I am not identifying the driver in this appeal, and this statement is solely on behalf of the registered keeper.

Summary of Case:

I wish to challenge this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:

1. Non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
2. Inadequate signage and insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge
3. Lack of evidence of Landowner Authority

1. Non-compliance with PoFA 2012

(The one I posted earlier together with photos of the parking charge letter)

2. Inadequate Signage and Insufficient Notice of the sum of the Parking Charge

(everything from here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341)

3. Lack of Evidence of Landowner Authority

(everything from here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287628&postcount=2343)

I respectfully request that POPLA reject this charge and uphold my appeal based on these grounds.

Thank you for considering my appeal.

Kind regards,
[My Name]

If all looks good I'll make a single pdf file with all the above and send it off today.

Coupon-mad

This has no legs, if you've already admitted to driving:

Non-compliance with PoFA 2012

LukasBB

I admitted to driving in an email to the car park management company but not to horizon. The management company then copied horizon on the email. Also, not sure if it's worth anything but in that email I never wrote that 'I parked' but instead I wrote 'we parked'.

Coupon-mad

Ah OK then leave that point in, and make sure you quote from the winning POPLA Assessment that went against Horizon and add that a second case where the Assessor got this POFA 28 point wrong in January, has just been confirmed as A POPLA ERROR by the Complaints Team. Warn your Assessor not to get it wrong and to read the winning (correct) interpretation quoted above.

LukasBB

I'll add the following to my template:

Reference to Previous POPLA Decisions

Successful POPLA Decision (December 2024)

I would like to draw POPLA’s attention to a recent decision regarding a similar case involving Horizon Parking (POPLA code 3762434330, decision date 17/12/2024), which was allowed on the basis of the same non-compliance with PoFA. The assessor in that case ruled as follows:

“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.”

This case is almost identical to mine in terms of the non-compliant wording used in the NtK, and I respectfully ask that POPLA consider this previous decision when reviewing my appeal.

Acknowledgment of Error in Unsuccessful POPLA Decision (January 2025)

In another case where an appeal on this same point was initially rejected, the POPLA Complaints Team has since confirmed that the assessor’s judgment was incorrect. While the decision could not be reversed, the complaints handler explicitly acknowledged the error, stating:

“I acknowledge that the assessor has incorrectly stated that the given date… I would like to apologise for this error… As PoFA 2012 states that motorists must be given 28 days from the day after the notice is given, you are correct in stating that the 28 days should have begun from [the correct date].”

This acknowledgment highlights the importance of adhering to PoFA requirements and avoiding repeated errors in the interpretation of the legislation. I respectfully request that the assessor for this appeal carefully reviews both the successful December 2024 decision and the Complaints Team acknowledgment to ensure a correct and fair decision is made in this case.