Parking ticket from Horizon parking

Maz_001

Hi, I have received a parking notice from horizon parking and appealed it by using the wording provided in one of the threads but it has been rejected.  I have  been given a POPLA reference and would appreciate any help on what to do next. Thanks

 

Gr1pr

Same as the one below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6572515/pcn-horizon-parking#latest

Maz_001

Thanks for this. Can I use the following template for my situation? I have also attached the parking charge notice and email I received rejecting my appeal for reference 

 

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

2. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowiing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

Equally, as the claim is being made for estimated losses at the time of the alleged contravention, then any costs included by the Operator that relate to accumulated amounts post that date are obviously invalid. Should such cost heads be included in the claim, as well as any profit element, then POPLA must reject the charge.
It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

 

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. 

 

As clearly stipulated on signage within the car park, payment for parking must be made for the full duration of the vehicles stay.  Our systems do not show any evidence of payment made against this vehicle on the incident date.

 

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.

 

If parking cannot be made without breaching the terms and conditions of the car park, alternative parking arrangements must be sought or motorists will be issued with a Parking Charge as per the car park terms stated on the signage on site.

 

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

  

The Charge Amount and Methods of Payment

 

In good faith, Horizon will hold the charge at the current amount of £60.00  for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence to allow you further time to pay.

 

Payment of the outstanding charge can be made using our 24-hour payment line: 020 8106 0789 or online at 

 

Alternatively, payment can be made via cheque made payable to Horizon Parking Ltd and posted to Horizon Parking Ltd, Finitor House, 2 Hanbury Road Chelmsford, Essex CM1 3AE

 

Additional Types of Appeal

 

You have now reached the end of our appeals procedure.  Although we have rejected your appeal, the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) provides an independent appeals service. To use this service, you must appeal to POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.

 

For full instructions of how to appeal to POPLA, please visit their website at . If you would rather progress this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.

 

Your POPLA reference number is 3760165019

 

Please be advised that if you elect  for independent arbitration of your case, you will be required  to pay the charge at the full amount and as such will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. Please also be advised that POPLA will not accept an appeal where payment is made against the Parking Charge in question.

 

We are required by law  to inform you that Ombudsman Services () provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal;  however ,  Horizon has not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.

 

Yours sincerely,

 (Image removed by Forum Team)

Coupon-mad

Maz_001 said:

Thanks for this. Can I use the following template for my situation? I have also attached the parking charge notice and email I received rejecting my appeal for reference 

 

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

2. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowiing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

Equally, as the claim is being made for estimated losses at the time of the alleged contravention, then any costs included by the Operator that relate to accumulated amounts post that date are obviously invalid. Should such cost heads be included in the claim, as well as any profit element, then POPLA must reject the charge.
It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

 

 (Image removed by Forum Team)

No you can't use any if that.

Certainly NOT the bit about not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'! Where did you find that? No GPEOL hasn't been a thing for ten years!

You seem to have missed what's being discussed on recent Horizon threads about the 28 day period in the back of the NTK (the back that you haven't shown us).

Didn't the link provided by @Gr1pr above alert you to that winning point?

Maz_001

I think I found it in one of the forums. I've been going through lots and seen to be getting a bit overwhelmed and confused. So the only point I'm going to be appealling on is the 28 Day? I have attached the back of the notice letter (Image removed by Forum Team)

Coupon-mad

No that's not the only point.

The NEWBIES thread tells you about POPLA, including the usual points already written for you. But your first point you can copy from another Horizon POPLA thread. There was one this week being drafted.

Maz_001

Is this it?

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. "

Coupon-mad

Yep but add the other two usual points. Belt and braces.

Maz_001

Thanks but what are the other 2 points I need to reference? I'm not sure if I'm using the search facility effectively and don't want to be using something that is out of date as posted earlier 

Coupon-mad

The ones in the NEWBIES thread. No searching needed.

Maz_001

In here? Where do I find the POPLA template