Horizon parking PCN - help required

jrs101

fisherjim said:

You do not use "matters of opinion" you use factual evidence you can't just say; There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible, you need dated photographic evidence.

Horizon will provide photos or even office master copies of signage that POPLA will believe unless you counter their evidence with actual up to date photos.

You have to lead POPLA by the hand or they will just side with their paymasters.

The reason I have asked if its needed is because, I recall, I believe it was coupon-mad and perhaps others (I forget) who helped a cancellation prior on wording on a Horizon pcn. I only wish to add what is necessary to get this considered and cancelled.

Coupon-mad

But you haven't copied (from what you've shown us) any if the appeal wording yet. All your've listed are headings.

It looks like you haven't followed the links in the third post of the NEWBIES thread yet.

jrs101

Coupon-mad said:

But you haven't copied (from what you've shown us) any if the appeal wording yet. All your've listed are headings.

It looks like you haven't followed the links in the third post of the NEWBIES thread yet.

Here it is below. Does this suffice? I've gone through the 3rd post and cannot figure, if indeed if there is anything else, that needs to be "copied"

Can everyone offer their opinion here please?

Does this cover it? (Horizon PCN). If there is just base wording that is required to cancel this then please advise.

Thanks

 

POPLA Ref ...................

I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

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.

3 There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.  DO I NEED TO PUT THIS ? I GUESS THIS IS A MATTER OF OPINION

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

 I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

Coupon-mad

No. That's only headings.

Our POPLA appeals are pages long (as seen if you click on the links in the third post of the NEWBIES thread) and yes you certainly need a point about unclear signs.

I suggest you search for Horizon POPLA and change the results to NEWEST.

Read at least FOUR recent search results and you will see someone's recent Horizon POPLA appeal.

jrs101

Coupon-mad said:

No. That's only headings.

Our POPLA appeals are pages long (as seen if you click on the links in the third post of the NEWBIES thread) and yes you certainly need a point about unclear signs.

I suggest you search for Horizon POPLA and change the results to NEWEST.

Read at least FOUR recent search results and you will see someone's recent Horizon POPLA appeal.

Is it this? I dont think it is, given the basic points I have mentioned.

A guiding hand is welcome.

I am writing to formally appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued to me on Sunday at 8:00pm, on the grounds that the signage at the Tesco Customer Car Park is misleading, unclear, and fails to meet the requirements of consumer protection law and contract law under UK legislation.

Grounds for Appeal: Misleading and Ambiguous Signage

The sign displayed at the car park (photographic evidence attached) lacks clarity and is inherently misleading in the following ways:
        1.      Lack of Prominence of Sunday Restrictions:
The first two lines of the sign prominently state:
        •       “Maximum stay between 6am - 10pm: 2 hours”
        •       “Maximum stay between 10pm - 12am: 1 hour”
There is no indication in these first two lines that Sunday rules differ or that these time limits do not apply on Sundays. The information relevant to Sundays is buried further down and reads:
        •       “Maximum stay between 12am – 6am daily & 6pm – 12am Sunday: 15 minutes”
This distinction is not clearly signposted or highlighted in any way. There is no indication at the top that different restrictions apply on Sundays. This creates a false sense of security for customers who believe the general 2-hour/1-hour limits apply regardless of the day.
        2.      Breach of Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008:
Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, particularly Regulation 6 and 7, businesses are prohibited from engaging in commercial practices that are misleading through omission or unclear presentation of material information. Failing to clearly state that Sunday evenings are restricted to a 15-minute stay is a material omission.
        3.      Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:
For a contract (such as a parking agreement) to be enforceable, the terms must be transparent and brought clearly to the attention of the customer before the agreement is made. The signage fails to do this adequately. The Sunday restriction is not prominently displayed, not differentiated by color, and not given any emphasis despite significantly affecting the terms of stay.
        4.      Precedent Set by the Supreme Court – ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67:
In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court upheld a parking charge only because the signage was clear, prominent, and not misleading. In this case, the signage at Tesco fails that test. The layout, font size, and order of information do not make Sunday’s 15-minute restriction obvious, which undermines any claim of informed consent to contract.

Conclusion

I firmly believe that no fair-minded observer would conclude that a person reading this sign would clearly understand they were only permitted 15 minutes of parking at 8:00pm on a Sunday. This is a deliberate or negligent omission which has resulted in an unfair penalty being issued.

I therefore request that this charge be immediately cancelled. Should POPLA fail to uphold this appeal, I will consider taking further legal action in Small Claims Court against Horizon Parking Ltd on the basis of:
        •       Misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967
        •       Unfair Terms under Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
        •       Breach of Duty of Fair Dealing under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

Additionally, I will seek to claim costs for the time spent dealing with this matter and any inconvenience suffered.

jrs101

Coupon-mad said:

No. That's only headings.

Our POPLA appeals are pages long (as seen if you click on the links in the third post of the NEWBIES thread) and yes you certainly need a point about unclear signs.

I suggest you search for Horizon POPLA and change the results to NEWEST.

Read at least FOUR recent search results and you will see someone's recent Horizon POPLA appeal.

Or just this?  :

"This is an appeal by the registered keeper – no driver details will be provided. Please do not attempt to request driver details as a way to bypass the fact that your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA. Since there is no keeper liability, responsibility cannot transfer from the driver to the keeper, making this an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or provide a POPLA code, at which point you will automatically withdraw."

Coupon-mad

No. I've no idea where you got those from because they are nothing to do with POPLA stage.

Please just read the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread. I can't say it any more clearly.

jrs101

Coupon-mad said:

No. I've no idea where you got those from because they are nothing to do with POPLA stage.

Please just read the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread. I can't say it any more clearly.

Yes, I have read it numerous times.

I have searched "popla horizon", sorted newest, gone through various and am trying to get the base minimum of what do out in a horizon pcn (tesco)

I have posted what I believe to be the points.

If someone can clarify the standard points to make in the popla please. I wouldnt be coming back if I knew the answer

thanks

jrs101

Hello

Please confirm this is ok please. thanks.

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

Coupon-mad

2 and 3 are both incorrect. Your PCN is unlikely to have that wording.

You've removed 'unclear signs' and 'no landowner authority' that I encouraged you to copy in full from the third post of the NEWBIES thread and pressed for you to include by copying the wording about those 2 points from another thread that I linked for you.

And this is the first time we've heard that this was a double dip! Was it? What were the circumstances?

I think, rather than struggle to do a POPLA appeal, you'd be better complaining to Tesco.