Ulverston Premier Inn Car Park

[L Bow]

Hello,

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Horizon Parking Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 06 April 2026. The notice itself is dated Friday, 17 April 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: UNSURE. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Premier Inn, Ulverston.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Tuesday, 21 April 2026 (15 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

I do not have the actual text used for the appeal, I do not seem to be able to access them from the Horizon appeal website. However, I selected from the drop down menu on the appeal form that I was there to use the EV charging facilities. I attached an invoice for the charging showing correlation with the entry and exit times from the ANPR.
The car park is free to use, but according to Horizon users need to register their presence in the Premier Inn. The chargers are operated by GeniePoint and have designated spaces in the furthest corner of the car park from the Premier Inn entrance. GeniePoint chargers automatically add an overstay charge if vehicles are connected for over 90 minutes.

Additional notes provided:
I did not register my car at Premier Inn, I thought that by using the charging facilities (which generates a information chain by which it can be ascertained that my car was at the charger at the time concerned) would be sufficient proof of being a valid user of the car park. My appeal to Horizon was made on 01 May 26 and has been rejected on 14 May 26. They have given me a reference number should I wish to appeal to POPLA within 28 days. I also have the option to pay the lower £60 charge within 14 days of the date of the letter.
I have written to both Premier Inn and GeniePoint, but both have replied to say they cannot help.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

[b789]

Welcome to the forum @L Bow. The first thing we need to see is the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). Please upload clear images of both sides of the original NtK, not any reminder, with only your name, address, vehicle registration, PCN reference redacted. Leave all dates, times, location wording, contravention wording, payment wording and PoFA wording visible.

On the dates you have given, the NtK was issued too late for keeper liability under PoFA. The alleged event was 6 April 2026. The NtK is dated 17 April 2026 and would be deemed given on 21 April 2026, which appears to be day 15. If no windscreen notice was served, Horizon had to deliver the NtK within the relevant 14-day period. If they failed to do so, they cannot hold the registered keeper liable, unless the driver has been identified.

That is why we need to be careful about what was said in the initial appeal. If the appeal said, in substance, “I was there using the EV charger”, Horizon may argue that the appellant identified themselves as the driver. That does not necessarily mean the position is hopeless, but it may weaken or remove the strongest PoFA point if POPLA treats it as a driver admission.

The attached charging invoice does not necessarily identify the driver. It may only show that the vehicle was connected to the charger, or that an account holder paid for charging. However, the wording used in the appeal matters. A dropdown selection stating that “I was there to use the EV charging facilities” is risky because it is written in the first person, but is not evidence in itself that the person charging the vehicle was the driver.

Please also upload Horizon’s rejection letter. Sometimes the rejection quotes or summarises what was said in the appeal, which may help us assess whether the driver has actually been identified or whether Horizon are merely assuming it.

For now, do not assume the late NtK point has definitely been lost. But equally, do not rely on it alone until we have seen the NtK, the rejection, and any wording Horizon have recorded from the appeal. If the driver has been identified, the POPLA appeal will need to focus more heavily on the EV charging issue, unclear or inadequate signage, the separate GeniePoint charging arrangement, lack of clear notice that EV charging users must also register inside Premier Inn, and Horizon’s authority to impose a charge on a genuine user of the site.

If you can show us the wording used in your letters to Genie and Premier Inn and their subsequent responses, that would be useful too.

There are often several issues with EV charging cases where the charger is located within a private car park that has its own parking terms. The key question is whether the signage made it clear that someone using the EV charger also had to register inside the Premier Inn or obtain separate authorisation.

Simply using the charger, paying GeniePoint, and occupying a marked EV charging bay may well make you a legitimate site user. If Horizon wanted to impose an additional registration requirement on EV charging users, that requirement needed to be clearly and prominently brought to the driver’s attention before any alleged contract could be formed.

That is why we need to see the original NtK, the rejection, and any signage photos if you have them.

[L Bow]

Thanks for the quick response. I shall generate redacted documents and post them later.

For information I received the NtK on 28 April 2026.

[b789]

Thanks. The actual date you received the NtK is not really relevant as long as the date of the contravention and the date of the issue of the NtK are evidenced.

With an alleged contravention date of Monday 6 April and an issue date of Friday 17 April, it cannot have been deemed 'given' before Tuesday 21 April, which is 15 days. PoFA requires the NtK to have been 'given' within 14 days if they intend to rely on it to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.

There may be other PoFA failures, but the glaring obvious one is paragraph 9(4) and 9(5). 
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

[L Bow]

Attached are redacted copies of:

1. Email chain with Premier Inn
   
2. Email Chain with GeniePoint
   
3. Receipt for EV charging (note I used the Electroverse app to pay)
   
4. Parking Appeal Decision
   

Unfortunately I'm 100 miles away from Ulverston so cannot provide any photographs.

Thanks for your assistance.

NtK file is too big to upload at the moment, will try and reduce filesize!

[b789]

I'm assuming that this is the charger:

no signs at the time about any parking restrictions. If Horizon have been contracted since those images were taken, then it may be a different matter.

[L Bow]

Yes, that is the charger in question.

NtK attached.

[b789]

You can ask Premier Inn/Whitbread for the photos, especially as they have specifically claimed there is a sign next to the EV chargers. Ask them for dated photographs of the signage in place on 6 April 2026, including the EV bay signs and entrance signs. They probably cannot be forced to provide them at this stage, but if they refuse or ignore the request, that helps your position because Horizon will then need to prove the signage to POPLA with proper contemporaneous evidence.

Based on Premier Inn’s reply that there is allegedly “a sign” next to the EV charging ports, and their later claim that they are “unable to cancel” what they wrongly called a “fine”, this should push the issue back onto Whitbread/Premier Inn as the principal, not merely the hotel desk.

Email them with the following:

Dear Premier Inn Ulverston,

Thank you for your previous replies.

I must correct one important point. This is not a “fine”. It is a private parking charge issued by Horizon Parking Ltd in relation to the Premier Inn Ulverston car park. If Horizon Parking are operating at this site on behalf of Premier Inn and/or Whitbread, then this is not simply “nothing to do with Whitbread”. Horizon are acting under authority granted by the site occupier, landholder or principal, and the matter can therefore be escalated internally for cancellation.

I was a genuine user of the EV charging facilities provided at your site. I paid for a charging session at the GeniePoint charger, and the charging session corresponds with the ANPR entry and exit times relied upon by Horizon. The vehicle was not parked for some unrelated purpose. It was present for the purpose of using the EV charging facility located in your car park.

Your earlier email stated that there is “a sign” next to the EV charging ports. Please now provide a clear photograph of that sign, together with any entrance signage and any other signage relied upon to inform EV charging users that they must also register inside Premier Inn or pay Horizon separately. The photographs should show the signage that was in place on 6 April 2026.

Please also confirm:

1. whether non-resident EV charging users are permitted to use the GeniePoint chargers at this location;
   
2. if so, whether they are required to register their vehicle inside the hotel;
   
3. where that requirement is stated on the signage;
   
4. whether any separate parking tariff is payable by EV charging users;
   
5. how and where that tariff is communicated to a motorist before or at the point of parking in an EV charging bay;
   
6. who within Whitbread or Premier Inn has authority to instruct Horizon Parking to cancel a charge issued to a genuine site user.
   

If the position is that EV charging customers must enter the hotel and register their vehicle, that requirement must be made clear and prominent to users of the EV charging bays. It is not sufficient for Horizon or Premier Inn to assert this after the event.

I am therefore asking Premier Inn/Whitbread to instruct Horizon Parking to cancel this charge. If the local hotel team cannot do so directly, please escalate this to the Whitbread department responsible for the Horizon Parking contract.

If Horizon Parking attempts to pursue this matter further, your replies and any refusal to assist will be included in my response and relied upon as evidence that Premier Inn/Whitbread were put on notice that a genuine EV charging customer had been penalised, despite using a facility provided at your site and despite there being an obvious issue as to whether the alleged registration requirement was clearly communicated.

Please treat this as a formal request for escalation, not as a further request to be referred back to Horizon.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

I'll come back with more once I've analysed the NtK.

[b789]

@L Bow , the NtK appears to be a non-PoFA notice. I do not see any express reliance on PoFA Schedule 4, nor does it contain the mandatory PoFA keeper-liability warning. Instead, it repeatedly frames liability as being against “the driver”. It says the driver is bound by the terms and is liable if the terms are breached. It then asks the recipient to identify the keeper/driver if they were not the keeper/driver. That is not PoFA keeper-liability wording.

It also does not specify a “period of parking”. It gives an ANPR entry time of 10:22:29 and exit time of 11:15:12, and separately states a “Date and Time of Breach” of 11:15. That is not the same as specifying the "period of parking" required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR entry/exit images show movement past cameras, not the actual period parked.

The timing point also remains important. Event: 6 April 2026. Issue date: 17 April 2026. Deemed delivery would be 21 April 2026, which is day 15. For a postal ANPR NtK with no windscreen notice, that is outside the relevant PoFA period.

So the position is:

• Horizon have not issued a PoFA-compliant NtK.
  
• They do not appear to be attempting PoFA keeper liability.
  
• The notice does not specify a period of parking.
  

If the driver has not been identified in the Horizon appeal, then the keeper has a strong POPLA point: Horizon cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.

The only caveat remains the appeal wording. If Horizon can show that you identified yourself as the driver in the appeal, the PoFA point becomes largely academic. If they cannot, this should be the lead POPLA ground.

The initial appeal rejection by Horizon was entirely expected. These initial appeals are almost always rejected regardless of merit, so do not treat that as meaning Horizon have a strong case. There is no money in it for them to accept appeals.

Also, this PCN is not really “for £60”. It is a speculative invoice for £100, with a 40% “mugs discount” dangled to pressure people into paying before they have properly challenged it. The £60 is just the discounted bribe to make the problem go away.

You now have the opportunity to submit a proper POPLA appeal. That appeal will put Horizon to strict proof of the signage, the terms in force on 6 April 2026, the location and wording of any signs near the EV chargers, the alleged requirement for EV charging users to register inside Premier Inn, and Horizon’s authority to operate and issue charges at that site.

If the driver has not been identified to Horizon, that is likely to be the lead POPLA point. For now, we will work on the assumption that the driver is not definitively identified.

Be aware that POPLA is a lottery. Some assessors are sensible; others can be utter idiots and will simply accept whatever the operator says. But an adverse POPLA decision is not binding on you. It only binds Horizon if you win.

If POPLA gets it wrong, the next realistic stage would be defending any eventual small claim. Horizon are very beatable in court, especially on non-PoFA keeper liability and poor signage/EV charging ambiguity. In the Horizon cases I have dealt with, they usually use DCB Legal, and where a proper defence is filed, DCB Legal are overwhelmingly likely to discontinue before any final hearing.

I will get back to you with a POPLA appeal you can use. You have 33 days for the date of the initial appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal. (28 days plus 5 days for service).

[b789]

Here is a draft POPLA appeal you can use:

POPLA verification code: [insert]
Parking Charge reference: [insert]
Vehicle registration: [insert]
Operator: Horizon Parking Ltd

Site: Premier Inn Ulverston

I appeal as the registered keeper. I deny liability for this Parking Charge. The operator has failed to establish keeper liability, has failed to evidence that the appellant is liable, and has failed to show that any clear contractual term was breached.

The appeal is made on the following grounds:

1. Horizon has not established keeper liability under PoFA

Horizon has not served a Notice to Keeper that complies with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The alleged event was on 6 April 2026. The Notice to Keeper is dated 17 April 2026. Under PoFA, where no Notice to Driver was served, a postal Notice to Keeper must be delivered within the relevant 14-day period. A notice posted on Friday 17 April 2026 would be deemed delivered on Tuesday 21 April 2026, which is day 15.

That is outside the relevant period for keeper liability.

In any event, the notice does not contain the mandatory PoFA keeper-liability warning. It does not state that Horizon will have the right to recover the unpaid charge from the registered keeper if the driver is not named. Instead, the notice refers to the driver being liable.

The notice says:

   “By choosing to park within this car park, the driver is bound to these terms and conditions and is liable to pay a charge if terms and conditions are breached.”

That is driver-liability wording. It is not PoFA keeper-liability wording.

The operator is therefore put to strict proof that it has complied with every requirement of PoFA Schedule 4. If it cannot do so, it cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.

For the avoidance of doubt, the appellant appeals as registered keeper. The operator must not presume that the registered keeper was the driver. If Horizon alleges that the driver has been identified, it is put to strict proof by producing the exact wording relied upon and explaining why that wording amounts to an unambiguous admission of driver identity.

2. The Notice to Keeper does not specify any “period of parking”

The Notice to Keeper does not specify the actual "period of parking" as specified in PoFA 9(2)(a). It merely gives ANPR entry and exit timestamps.

The notice shows:

• Incident Entry Time/Date: 10:22:29 on 06/04/2026
  
• Incident Exit Time/Date: 11:15:12 on 06/04/2026
  

Those are camera capture times. They are not a "period of parking".

ANPR captures only vehicle movement past cameras. It does not show when the vehicle was parked, when the driver read any signs, when the vehicle was connected to the EV charger, when the charging session began, when the vehicle was unplugged, or when the vehicle left the bay.

This is especially important here because the vehicle was using an EV charging bay. The Electroverse receipt shows a charging session at Ulverston Premier Inn from 10:24:58 to 11:13:56. That closely corresponds with the ANPR period and shows that the vehicle was at the site for the genuine purpose of using the EV charging facility.

The operator has not identified any actual period of parking and has not shown any period during which the vehicle was parked in breach of any clearly communicated term.

3. The alleged breach is vague and inadequately particularised

The issue reason is stated as:

   “Failure to Pay or Register For Full Duration of Stay ANPR”

This is vague. It does not clearly state whether Horizon alleges failure to pay, failure to register, or both. It does not state what payment was required, where it was payable, what registration was required, where it had to be completed, or how that requirement was communicated to users of the EV charging bays.

The operator must prove the actual contractual term allegedly breached. A vague allegation of “pay or register” is insufficient, particularly where the vehicle was using a paid EV charging service at the site.

The appellant’s evidence shows that a genuine charging session took place. The vehicle was not using the car park for an unrelated purpose. It was using the EV charging facility provided at the Premier Inn site.

4. Horizon must prove the signage in place on 6 April 2026

Horizon is put to strict proof of the signage in place at Premier Inn Ulverston on 6 April 2026.

The operator must provide:

1. dated photographs of all signage in place on 6 April 2026;
   
2. a contemporaneous site plan showing the exact location of every sign;
   
3. photographs of the entrance signage as seen by a driver entering the site;
   
4. photographs of the signage in and around the EV charging bays;
   
5. photographs showing the route from the entrance to the EV chargers;
   
6. evidence that the EV charging bay signage clearly stated that EV charging users must also register inside Premier Inn or pay Horizon separately;
   
7. evidence that any such term was prominent, legible and brought to the driver’s attention before parking or charging began.
   

Generic stock photographs, undated photographs, close-up images of isolated signs, or signage library artwork are not sufficient. The issue is what signage was actually present and visible to a motorist using the EV chargers on 6 April 2026.

The only available Google Street View image known to the appellant is from September 2024 and does not appear to show any Horizon parking regime in operation at that time. Horizon must therefore prove when the parking scheme was introduced, what signs were installed, and whether adequate notice was given to motorists using the EV charging bays.

5. No clear term was communicated to EV charging users

The vehicle was using a GeniePoint charger at the site. The charging session was paid for through Electroverse. The receipt identifies the location as Ulverston Premier Inn and confirms the session ran from 10:24:58 to 11:13:56.

The alleged ANPR period was 10:22:29 to 11:15:12.

The vehicle was therefore on site for less than one hour and the charging session accounts for almost the whole ANPR period.

If Horizon’s case is that EV charging users must also register inside the Premier Inn, that is a specific and unusual requirement which must be clearly communicated to EV charging users at the EV charging bays. It is not enough for Horizon to rely on general car park terms elsewhere on site.

The EV charger is a separate facility operated by GeniePoint. A motorist using that charger would reasonably understand that payment through the EV charging provider was the required transaction for using that facility. If there was an additional parking registration requirement, it needed to be made obvious at the point of charging.

Premier Inn has stated in correspondence that there is allegedly a sign next to the EV charging ports. Horizon must produce dated evidence of that sign and its wording. Horizon must also show that the sign was visible, legible, and sufficiently prominent to incorporate the alleged registration/payment requirement into any contract.

6. The operator has not shown that the appellant breached any contractual term

The operator’s rejection states that “payment or registration for parking must be made for the full duration of the vehicle’s stay” and that motorists using the EV charging facilities still need to adhere to the terms on the signage.

That does not prove a breach.

Horizon must prove:

   a. what term applied to EV charging users;
   b. where that term was displayed;
   c. when that term became binding;
   d. what payment or registration method was available;
   e. whether non-resident EV charging users were permitted to use the chargers;
   f. whether such users were required to enter the hotel to register;
   g. whether any separate parking tariff was payable;
   h. whether the payment/registration systems were working on 6 April 2026;
   i. that the vehicle was not registered or paid for by any permitted method.

The evidence shows that the vehicle was using a paid EV charging service. Horizon has produced no evidence that a clear, additional contractual requirement was communicated to EV charging users.

7. Horizon has not proved landowner authority

Horizon is put to strict proof that it had authority from the landholder to operate at Premier Inn Ulverston on 6 April 2026.

The operator must produce the contemporaneous, unredacted contract or chain of authority showing that it was authorised to:

   a. operate at this specific site;
   b. manage the EV charging bay area;
   c. impose terms on non-resident EV charging users;
   d. issue parking charges in its own name;
   e. pursue appeals in its own name;
   f. pursue unpaid charges through legal proceedings in its own name.

A witness statement or generic site agreement is insufficient. The contract must identify the relevant land, the parties, the date, the term, the boundaries of the site, any exemptions, any EV charging arrangements, and the specific authority granted to Horizon.

If the EV chargers are operated by GeniePoint, Horizon must also prove that its parking regime applies to the EV charging bays and that any such regime was properly authorised by the landholder.

8. The charge is not commercially justified on these facts

This is not a case of someone abandoning a vehicle, overstaying to use nearby premises, or abusing a customer car park. The vehicle was present for the genuine purpose of using a paid EV charging facility at the site.

The charging receipt confirms that the vehicle was connected to and using the charger during almost the whole ANPR period. There was no misuse of the land. There was no failure to pay for the service being used. The alleged failure is, at most, an alleged failure to complete an additional registration step which Horizon has not proved was clearly communicated to EV charging users.

A £100 charge in these circumstances is punitive and unsupported unless Horizon can prove that the relevant term was clearly brought to the driver’s attention and that a contract was actually formed on those terms.

Conclusion

Horizon has failed to establish keeper liability, failed to specify any period of parking, failed to prove that the appellant was the driver, failed to evidence clear signage for EV charging users, failed to prove the alleged contractual term, and failed to produce evidence of landowner authority.

The appeal should therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge cancelled.