Vehicle Keeper

Sean Lindemere
152 Hawthorn Crescent
Cosham
PO6 2TR
United Kingdom

Horizon Parking (BPA)

Parking Charge Notice: HP1372795
Vehicle Registration Number: WR04 DOA

To Whom It May Concern,

I am the Vehicle Keeper responding to the parking charge notice: HP1372795 issued to the vehicle
WR04 DOA by Horizon Parking (BPA).

The driver's information will not be provided. Sean Lindemere is the Registered Keeper. I will
therefore rely on POFA 2012 Schedule 4 where applicable. If the appeal is rejected, please provide a
POPLA code so the matter can be referred to them via the POPLA website
www.popla.co.uk/start-an-appeal.

1. The parking charge does not accurately describe the breach

1. The notice sent by Horizon Parking (BPA) does not accurately describe the circumstances
in which the requirement to pay the parking charge arose.
2. Horizon Parking (BPA) is required to accurately describe the circumstances on which they
imposed the parking charge notice. The manner of the breach is vaguely stated but not
clearly defined, so an appellant would not be able to challenge a charge that is vague and
ambiguous.
3. A notice issued under POFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 must:
1. describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the
circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by
which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts
that made them payable;
4. This means a parking charge notice must state:
1. The terms of parking stated (Signage showing terms)
2. How the terms of parking were breached (Driver parked the vehicle)
3. What terms where shown to the driver and if they were accepted (Entrance and
signage showing terms)
4. How the driver breached the terms of parking which resulted in the parking charge
 being issued (proof of parking).
5. The period of parking in which the terms where breached.
5. The parking charge issued fails to clearly state the terms of parking advertised, the terms
which were breached, or the proof that the driver agreed with these terms and therefore
the parking charge does not meet the second requirement of POFA 2012 Schedule 4.
6. The parking charge clearly doesn't state why it was issued. This requirement of POFA
2012 in the second condition has not been met.
7. The Horizon Parking (BPA) as a member of the British Parking Association must
understand that a breach of contract must be clearly defined and not be vaguely worded
as in this case.
8. In the POPLA Annual Report, Case Study 2: What am I being accused of? states that:
1. The original notice had stated they had not paid, or had stayed at site longer than
permitted – but they had since realised that what they were being accused of was
not registering payment against the correct vehicle. POPLA agreed with the motorist
that the operator was required to accurately describe the circumstances on which
the parking charge arose – and had not done so. Therefore, we allowed the
motorist’s appeal.
9. I believe that this parking charge is similar to this scenario above in that it does not
describe the circumstances on which the parking charge arose, the Claimant's ATA has
addressed this issue of clear reason of issue and the claim for money should be
dismissed.
10. The parking charge does not clearly say what and how the terms of parking were
breached in a clear manner to show that the driver breached the terms of parking.

2. There is no evidence that the terms of parking where brought to the attention of
the driver

1. There is no evidence to show that the signs were adequately brought to the motorist’s nor
does any evidence demonstrate the location of where the appellant’s vehicle was parked.
2. The appellant’s vehicle is not seen stopped near the relevant signage, as Horizon Parking
(BPA) has not demonstrated the exact location where their vehicle was stopped, Horizon
Parking (BPA) is required to provide proof and establish whether the motorist was given
sufficient notice of these terms by signage advising of the terms, including that of the
parking charge.
3. Whilst parking without authorisation is not permitted, Horizon Parking (BPA) must make it
certain that the terms and conditions are adequately brought to the motorist’s attention. If
Horizon Parking (BPA) is not able to assure the validity of the parking contract itself, in
accordance with the requirements set by Section 19.3 of the BPA’s Code of Practice,
Horizon Parking (BPA) incorrectly issued the PCN.
4. For the avoidance of doubt, the following is requested:
1. Images of where the vehicle was parked
 2. Photo evidence that the vehicle was parked near the relevant signage
3. Evidence that the terms were brought to the attention of the driver
4. Terms must be offered, considered and accepted
5. If the terms of the contract were not offered, considered and accepted, a contract has not
been accepted and therefore, there was no breach of contract.

3. Horizon Parking will recover payment from the driver

1. Horizon Parking (BPA) has failed to state that they have the right to claim the unpaid
charge from the keeper, the notice simply states that “we have the rights to recover the
parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle and further
costs may be incurred”.
2. When read, this means Horizon Parking (BPA) will pursue payment from the vehicle driver
and not the keeper for payment.
3. The parking charge issued was not issued correctly under POFA 2012 or BPA AOS.
4. Therefore, the appeal must be allowed and vehicle keeper details removed.

4. The keeper can not be held liable for the charge

1. Your parking charge notice doesn't mention the law required to transfer liability to the
vehicle keeper which is the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012) Schedule 4.
Because you don't know who was driving, you are supposed to use POFA 2012 to
transfer liability to the vehicle keeper.
2. Your notice doesn't mention POFA 2012, I therefore deny any responsibility, and I will not
be naming the driver.
3. In a recent court case of Excel Parking Services Limited -V-Mr Lamoureux [2016] Case
No. C3dp56q5, the District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds stated:
1. There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is
the driver.
2. Everybody knows that you cannot assume that the keeper is the driver which is why
most parking companies, such as Parking Eye, always rely on the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 and the notice should comply.
4. I do not need to confirm or provide any details of who was the driver on the day as the
vehicle can lawfully be driven with permission from the keeper by anyone with adequate
insurance.
5. I hope you will honour POFA 2012 and your operator code of practice by allowing the
appeal on the basis that the keeper is not liable.

5. The notice does not state the period of parking

1. The notice has not been issued according to POFA 2012 Schedule 4 namely:
2. The second condition is that the creditor or a person acting for or on behalf of the
 creditor— (b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 7(2)a or 8(2a) or
9(2)a.
3. A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver or notice to keeper for the purposes
of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following
requirements are met.
4. The notice issued under paragraph 7(2)a or 8(2)a or 9(2)a must—
1. (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of
parking to which the notice relates.
5. (3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph
(2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different
parts of a single period of parking).
6. The notice issued does not state the period of parking and therefore it has not been
issued correctly under POFA 2012 Schedule 4.

6. Quality Checks and ANPR Logs

1. Evidence of Quality Checks

1. BPA AOS states that "30.2 Before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry
out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that
it is appropriate to take action."
2. 30.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good
working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate,
securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage
your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
2. ANPR Maintenance Logs Evidence
1. Please please provide the maintenance logs for the ANPR device used to capture
this alleged breach.
2. Please provide evidence that the ANPR in use conforms to the Surveillance Camera
Code of Practice issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
1. This is required to:
2. Validate the reliability/admissibility of the ANPR evidence
3. Ensure that it has not been digitally altered
4. Check if it complies with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice
5. See if the the clock is syncronised with the atomic clock for accuracy
6. Verify that a third party auditor has verified that the equipment meets the
minimum standards
3. BPA AOS Requirement:
1. 22.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good
working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate,
securely held and cannot be tampered with.
4. I therefore believe that this request is reasonable and Horizon Parking (BPA) should be
 able to provide the requested information in the appeal response.

7. If Horizon Parking (BPA) Refuse to provide information

1. Please note that because Horizon Parking (BPA) have issued a parking charge notice
stating that there was a breach of contract, it is therefore reasonable for me to request
information from Horizon Parking (BPA) to make sure that your claim is valid and Horizon
Parking (BPA) have the relevant authorisation to pursue this charge.
2. Nothing requested in this letter is unreasonable because you subscribe to the Approved
Operator Scheme which outlines how you must operate and provide services to the
public.
3. If you refuse to provide information, this will be considered Fraud under Fraud Act 2006
which simply states fraud can be committed by:
1. Making a statement which is untrue or misleading where Horizon Parking (BPA)
believe it may be untrue or misleading (fraud by misrepresentation).
1. Example 1: If you put anything in writing which is not true or misleading, this
will be considered Fraud.
2. Fraud by failing to disclose information which you have a legal duty to do so as we
have a contractual dispute.
1. Example 2: If you refuse to provide a copies of the signage present at the time
or state that you cannot provide copies of the landowner agreement due to
commercial sensitivity, this is also considered fraud because if these
documents don't exist or are not valid, you are failing to disclose information
that can help me defend this case.
3. Fraud by Abuse of Position: If the person making the appeal decisions does not
seriously consider the points raised in this letter, they are abusing their position.
1. Example 3: If Horizon Parking (BPA) do not reply to the specific points raised
in this appeal, this is fraud even if your statements are by omission.
4. For the avoidance of doubt, the full version of Fraud Act 2006 can be found
here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents.

8. Evidence Requested (Landowner Authorisation, Signage)

1. Landowner Owner Authorisation

1. The Claimant must provide proof that they own the land or they have authorisation
from the Landowner to issue parking charge notices on the land.

2. The landowner contract must state as a minimum:

1. The owner of the land being managed (evidenced by land registry document)
 2. The start and end date of the contract (A contract without an end date is not
valid if does not
3. The car park location and boundaries of the car park under management
4. The parties signing the contract on behalf of both companies.
5. The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of
the land can be clearly defined
6. Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations,
including any restrictions on hours of operation
7. Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be
subject to parking control and enforcement
8. Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs e the definition
of the services provided by each party to the agreement

2. Witness Statement

1. Should the operator provide a Witness Statement as a substitute for a landowner

contract, the operator is reminded that the Witness Statement must state the
requirements stated above.

2. A witness statement is the equivalent of the oral evidence which that witness would,
if called, give in evidence; it must include a statement by the intended witness in
their own language that they believe the facts in it are tru
3. A Witness statement must state according to CPR 32 the following:
1. The full name of the witness,
2. The position he holds and the name of his firm or employer, his occupation, or
if he has none, his description
3. The fact that he is a party to the proceedings or is the employee of such a
party if it be the case; and
4. Which of the statements in it are made from the witness’s own knowledge and
which are matters of information or belief
5. 20.2 To verify a witness statement the statement of truth is as follows:
6. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand
that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a
statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
7. 20.3 Attention is drawn to rule 32.14 which sets out the consequences of
verifying a witness statement containing a false statement without an honest
belief in its truth.
4. Implications of providing FALSE documents and statements.
1. The operator is reminded that providing false documents and statements is an
offence under Fraud Act 2006 and can result in the suspension of their
 membership to the ATA.
2. The implications of the Fraud Act 2006 are provided in the letter.

3. Proof of Signage to Form Contracts With Drivers:

1. The operator is requested to provide proof that the car park is properly signed
(Entrance and Signs Showing Terms) on the date of parking and that the vehicle
having parked in accordance with the signage, breached the terms of the contract.

2. A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a
licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be
an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your
terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You
must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions
are.
3. the evidence required is mandatory under the ATA code of practise, and therefore
there should be no problem with providing the following evidence.
4. Entrance Signage
1. The sign should be readable from a moving vehicle
2. The sign should be placed at the entrance of the car park
5. Signage Showing Terms of Parking
1. Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions
are, including your parking charges.
2. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site,
so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or
leaving their vehicle.
3. Keep a record of where all the signs are.
4. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so
that they are easy to see, read and understand.
5. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x
450mm.

Thank you for taking time to read this letter. I look forward to hearing from you and I sincerely hope
we can resolve this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Sean Lindemere