Horizon parking charge

Crevoona

Hello,

Hoping for some help moving forwards as got myself overwhelmed and confused. I have read the newbys thread countless times but feel the next step is out of date regarding my case regarding lack of proper signage and popla appeal.

I received the letter attached below and using the newbies thread contested it through their website with the template found in the newbies thread. They have rejected this and given me a POPLA appeal number to use which i think is my next step?

My arguement being there was not a single sign on the entrance or exit to the carpark and only some small spread out signs dotted around which unless you parked near would totally miss. I have been back and taken photos of these.

In the newbies thread the template regarding lack of correct signage is out of date to use with POPLA which is why I'm now stuck on my next step!?

(Image removed by Forum Team)

Hopefully someone can guide my in the right direction!

Thank you

Gr1pr

Check if the NTK PCN letter complies with Pofa2012 or not for starters

The main 2 other points with popla are no landowner authority and poor and inadequate signage Etc, they are always in a popla appeal, add your own pictures to the popla appeal about the poor signage

Study the recent winning popla cases in the Popla decisions thread too, anything in the last 15 months

Coupon-mad

That's a POFA worded version.

You don't need a template for POPLA. Just write it based on:

1. no landowner authority (citing clause 14 of the Joint CoP and Appendix G which you can write yourself or search the forum for one to copy from), and
2. lack of entrance signs (written yourself) like you said:

My argument being there was not a single sign on the entrance or exit to the carpark and only some small spread out signs dotted around which unless you parked near would totally miss. I have been back and taken photos of these

I hate appeal templates! Can you tell?!

People should write their own stuff for POPLA, ideally. Like this person just did:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81953749#Comment_81953749

Always with date-stamped photo evidence.

🙂

Crevoona

Update

I used chat gtp to submit my popla appeal, below is what it came up with.

POPLA Appeal – Parking Charge Notice
POPLA Reference: [Insert POPLA Ref]
Parking Charge Notice (PCN): [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Operator: Horizon Parking Ltd

1. The Operator Has Failed to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – No Keeper Liability
   I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this charge as keeper only. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so.
   In order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, Horizon Parking Ltd must fully comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
   The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA for the following reasons:
   The notice incorrectly states that the Parking Charge is issued under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4. This is incorrect, as Paragraph 9(2)(f) relates only to the mandatory warning of keeper liability, not the basis for issuing the charge.
   The mandatory wording required by Paragraph 9(2)(f) has not been correctly or fully reproduced. The wording used is non-compliant and fails to meet the strict requirements of PoFA.
   The notice does not clearly and correctly convey the statutory warning required to establish keeper liability.
   PoFA is a strict statutory regime and must be complied with precisely. Any deviation from the prescribed wording or requirements invalidates the operator’s ability to transfer liability to the keeper.
   As Horizon Parking Ltd has failed to meet these requirements, they cannot hold me liable as keeper.
   As the operator has not identified the driver, and I am under no obligation to do so, this charge must be cancelled.
2. No Contract Formed Due to Absence of Entrance Signage
   There was no clear or prominent signage at the entrance to the car park.
   This is a fundamental requirement under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Drivers must be made aware upon entry that the land is managed and that terms and conditions apply.
   At this site:
   There were no visible entrance signs.
   There was no clear indication that parking terms applied before parking.
   As such, no contract could have been formed with the driver.
3. Inadequate, Sparse, and Non-Prominent Signage Within the Site
   The signage within the car park is wholly insufficient:
   Signs are small and not legible from a distance.
   They are sporadically placed and not visible from all parking bays.
   Key terms, including the parking charge, are not prominently displayed.
   A driver parking in many areas of the site would not see any signage at all unless actively searching for it.
   The driver did not see any signage and therefore could not have agreed to any terms.
4. Breach of BPA Code of Practice
   The operator has failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, including but not limited to:
   Requirement for clear entrance signage.
   Requirement for signage to be conspicuous and legible.
   Requirement for important terms (such as charges) to be prominently displayed.
   This is a clear breach and renders the charge unenforceable.
5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
   Horizon Parking Ltd has not demonstrated that it has the required authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this site.
   As a third-party contractor, Horizon Parking Ltd does not own the land and therefore must have a valid, contemporaneous, and legally compliant contract with the landowner.
   I put the operator to strict proof that such a contract exists and that it:
   Authorises Horizon Parking Ltd to issue Parking Charge Notices,
   Allows them to pursue charges in their own name,
   Clearly defines the boundaries of the land,
   Covers the dates relevant to this alleged contravention.
   A mere witness statement or generic letter will not be sufficient. POPLA is respectfully requested to require a full, unredacted copy of the contract.
   If Horizon Parking Ltd is unable to produce such evidence, then they have no standing to issue or pursue this charge, and the appeal must be allowed.
6. The Case Can Be Distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
   The operator may attempt to rely on the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. However, that case involved:
   Large, prominent, and frequent signage,
   Clear communication of terms throughout the site.
   In contrast, this site has:
   No entrance signage,
   Sparse and poorly positioned signs,
   Inadequate visibility of terms.
   Therefore, the reasoning in Beavis does not apply.
   Conclusion
   Horizon Parking Ltd has failed to:
   Establish keeper liability under PoFA,
   Provide adequate signage,
   Demonstrate landowner authority,
   Form any contract with the driver.
   Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and require that the Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.
   Signed:
   Registered Keeper
   [Date]

Crevoona

Horizon responded with a lot of pictures of small signs etc so I used chat gtp to respond AND uploaded pictures of the entrance to the site showing no signage. Below is what I replied

Comments on Operator Evidence – POPLA Appeal
I wish to respond to the operator’s evidence submission as follows:

1. Failure to Rebut PoFA Non-Compliance
   The operator has failed to address my specific points regarding non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
   Instead, they have merely asserted that the Parking Charge is “fully compliant” without addressing the identified defects, including:
   The incorrect reference to Paragraph 9(2)(f) as the basis for issuing the charge,
   Failure to provide the mandatory wording required to establish keeper liability.
   This is a strict statutory requirement and cannot be satisfied by general assertions. As such, the operator has failed to establish keeper liability.
2. No Evidence of Entrance Signage
   The operator claims that signage is present at the entrance; however, no clear evidence has been provided to support this.
   There are no images showing signage from a driver’s perspective upon entry,
   No evidence that any entrance signage is prominent, legible, or positioned in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice.
   In contrast, I have provided photographic evidence showing the entrance to the site, which clearly demonstrates that there is no visible or prominent signage upon entry to the car park.
   The operator has failed to address or rebut this evidence.
   Close-up images of signs taken in isolation do not demonstrate that the signage is visible or readable when entering the site.
   In the absence of clear entrance signage, no contract can be formed.
3. Inadequate Signage Within the Car Park
   The operator relies on close-up photographs of signage; however, these do not reflect the reality experienced by a driver.
   The signs are small and sporadically positioned,
   They are not visible from all parking bays,
   The operator has not demonstrated that the signage is sufficiently prominent across the entire site.
   A driver would not reasonably be expected to locate and read such signage, particularly if not parked nearby.
4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
   The operator has failed to provide any evidence of landowner authority.
   Their statement that authority is implied by the presence of equipment is not evidence and does not meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice.
   No contract or written authorisation has been produced.
   Therefore, the operator has failed to demonstrate that they have the legal standing to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices at this location.
5. Misapplication of ParkingEye v Beavis
   The operator’s reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis is misplaced.
   That case depended on clear, prominent, and widespread signage. The operator has failed to demonstrate that similar conditions exist at this site.
   Conclusion
   The operator has failed to:
   Rebut the identified PoFA non-compliance,
   Provide evidence of compliant entrance signage,
   Address the appellant’s photographic evidence showing no signage at the entrance,
   Demonstrate adequate signage across the site,
   Provide evidence of landowner authority.
   Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal.

Crevoona

Result! I won't my appeal 😊 this was popla response

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for exceeded the maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • 1. The Operator Has Failed to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – No Keeper Liability. • 2. No Contract Formed Due to Absence of Entrance Signage. • 3. Inadequate, Sparse, and Non-Prominent Signage Within the Site. • 4. Breach of BPA Code of Practice. • 5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority. • 6. The Case Can Be Distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. 5 images of site 2. Image of sign This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have not been met. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for exceeded the maximum stay. • 2. No Contract Formed Due to Absence of Entrance Signage. The appellant has stated There was no clear or prominent signage at the entrance to the car park. They say this is a fundamental requirement under the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Drivers must be made aware upon entry that the land is managed and that terms and conditions apply. This has led me to review the evidence provided by the operator. While the operator has submitted a site map and images of the signage on site, they have not demonstrated where any entrance signage is actually located. Although I accept that the operator has produced an image of a sign stating that the site is camera-controlled and that a maximum stay applies, they have not shown where this sign is positioned within the site. Furthermore, the appellant has provided images of the site entrance to POPLA which do not show any entrance signage in place. As a result, I cannot be satisfied that the operator’s evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the presence or location of entrance signs at the site. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. I am not satisfied that the operator has provided an adequate rebuttal to confirm that the PCN was issued correctly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Car1980

Well done. Entrance signage seems to be Horizon's Achilles' Heel.

Coupon-mad

Result! Well done.

sixbacon

Hi,

I received a parking charge from Horizon Parking. I used the advice on the forum and sent the following on their portal

"

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in your Parking Charge Notice nnnnnnn. I dispute
the charge in full.

There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and you must not draw any inference
from this.

As you are aware, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply in Scotland, and therefore
you cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. In addition, the
location in question — a Scottish Port — is port land and not “relevant
land” for the purposes of keeper liability in any event.

Since there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper, please cancel this notice.

Yours sincerely, "

And the charge was withdrawn. Thanks money saving expert.

Coupon-mad

Very good!

However do be aware the POFA will be copied in Scotland some time next year. Be ready and read signage to avoid charges.