08-16-2026, 09:42 AM
Not a surprising outcome. Here we clearly see the imbecility of some POPLA assessors and why the system is not fit for purpose.
First, the clearly ignorant assessor has simply accepted Horizon's assertion that you, the appellant, admitted to being the driver. That was always the risk, but it remains a weak evidential conclusion. Horizon's own evidence recorded you as "DVLA Keeper", and the alleged "admission" was largely based on Horizon's first-person appeal dropdown-menu options and loose wording such as "my entry and exit times". That may satisfy a POPLA assessor. It is not the same thing as proper proof in court.
Second, the assessor has made a major factual assumption by saying that "hotel guests can register and all other users including those using the EV chargers must pay for their time on site". If, as you say, this site does not in fact require EV charging users to make a separate parking payment, then the decision rests on a false premise. Horizon's own evidence needed to prove not merely that a payment system existed somewhere, but that a clearly advertised tariff applied to EV charging users at the material time.
The landowner authority reasoning is particularly bad and clear evidence of the assessors stupidity and ignorance. The Private Parking Sector Code of Practice (PPSCoP), version 1.1, section 14.1, says that where controlled land is managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued, including the landowner identity, boundary map, permission granted, duration, terms and conditions, tariffs, exemptions, and means by which charges will be issued. It does not say "equipment on site is sufficient".
The moronic assessor's statement that "the fact that it has equipment on site is sufficient evidence" is therefore indefensible. It confuses physical presence with legal authority. Cameras and signs prove only that cameras and signs exist. They do not prove who authorised them, what land is covered, whether EV bays are included, what tariff regime applies, whether exemptions exist, or whether Horizon may issue and pursue charges in its own name.
The signage reasoning is also flawed. The PPSCoP requires signs and surface markings to be visible, legible and unambiguous, and entrance signs should tell drivers whether public parking is invited and whether a parking tariff is payable. Where terms and tariffs are separate, the terms must make clear that a tariff applies and where payment information can be found. The issue here was whether a motorist using the EV charging facility was clearly told that charging did not include parking and that a separate Horizon payment or Premier Inn registration was required. The assessor avoided that point by saying EV users were not expressly exempt. That is wrong and a stupid analysis.
The practical position is still the same: POPLA being unsuccessful does not create a debt enforceable without court judgment. POPLA decisions are binding on the operator only. They are not binding on the appellant. You are under no legal obligation to pay and my advice would be to fight this, as there is no way this pathetic decision process by a clearly uneducated, idiot POPLA assessor would hold any weight if Horizon are greedy enough to try and make a county court claim for the alleged debt.
So your next steps should be evidence preservation, not panic. You should keep the EV charging receipt, the POPLA appeal, Horizon's evidence pack, the POPLA decision, the Premier Inn email trail, screenshots of any app/payment/tariff pages showing no separate parking payment was required for EV charging users, and obtain current photos/video of the signage and EV bay route if possible.
If Horizon later try a claim, the defence would focus on the defective factual premise: the vehicle was using an advertised EV charging facility, the operator failed to prove a separate parking tariff applied to EV charging users, failed to prove clear EV-specific contractual notice, and failed to produce the written landowner authority required by the PPSCoP. POPLA's decision does not, thankfully, bind a district judge.
What happens next... you will start to receive demands from Horizon for the charge. They will resort to using a powerless debt collector to send debt recovery letters. You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. These debt collectors are powerless to do anything except try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out go ignorance and fear.
Debt recovery letters and threats of a CCJ are simply hot air. They have zero effect on your credit rating or anything else. You can safely use those letters as kindling or to line the bottom of a cat litter tray. They have no power to do anything. They are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver.
If Horizon decide to take it further, they must make a claim in the county court for an alleged debt owed to them. They must first issue a Letter of Claim (LoC) and then the actual claim itself. These claims are very easily defended and I would be assisting you all the way through the process. Even if a claim is issued and defended, they rarely go all the way to a hearing because as long as you stand firm, in the majority of cases, they eventually discontinue when they realise that you are not low-hanging fruit and are prepared to challenge them.
You can search through other threads on here to see how this all pans out. If I were you, I'd challenge this all the way. However, the decision is ultimately yours. All I can guarantee is that it is a very useful life learning process and will give you a much greater insight into your rights and how to use the law to your own advantage.
First, the clearly ignorant assessor has simply accepted Horizon's assertion that you, the appellant, admitted to being the driver. That was always the risk, but it remains a weak evidential conclusion. Horizon's own evidence recorded you as "DVLA Keeper", and the alleged "admission" was largely based on Horizon's first-person appeal dropdown-menu options and loose wording such as "my entry and exit times". That may satisfy a POPLA assessor. It is not the same thing as proper proof in court.
Second, the assessor has made a major factual assumption by saying that "hotel guests can register and all other users including those using the EV chargers must pay for their time on site". If, as you say, this site does not in fact require EV charging users to make a separate parking payment, then the decision rests on a false premise. Horizon's own evidence needed to prove not merely that a payment system existed somewhere, but that a clearly advertised tariff applied to EV charging users at the material time.
The landowner authority reasoning is particularly bad and clear evidence of the assessors stupidity and ignorance. The Private Parking Sector Code of Practice (PPSCoP), version 1.1, section 14.1, says that where controlled land is managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued, including the landowner identity, boundary map, permission granted, duration, terms and conditions, tariffs, exemptions, and means by which charges will be issued. It does not say "equipment on site is sufficient".
The moronic assessor's statement that "the fact that it has equipment on site is sufficient evidence" is therefore indefensible. It confuses physical presence with legal authority. Cameras and signs prove only that cameras and signs exist. They do not prove who authorised them, what land is covered, whether EV bays are included, what tariff regime applies, whether exemptions exist, or whether Horizon may issue and pursue charges in its own name.
The signage reasoning is also flawed. The PPSCoP requires signs and surface markings to be visible, legible and unambiguous, and entrance signs should tell drivers whether public parking is invited and whether a parking tariff is payable. Where terms and tariffs are separate, the terms must make clear that a tariff applies and where payment information can be found. The issue here was whether a motorist using the EV charging facility was clearly told that charging did not include parking and that a separate Horizon payment or Premier Inn registration was required. The assessor avoided that point by saying EV users were not expressly exempt. That is wrong and a stupid analysis.
The practical position is still the same: POPLA being unsuccessful does not create a debt enforceable without court judgment. POPLA decisions are binding on the operator only. They are not binding on the appellant. You are under no legal obligation to pay and my advice would be to fight this, as there is no way this pathetic decision process by a clearly uneducated, idiot POPLA assessor would hold any weight if Horizon are greedy enough to try and make a county court claim for the alleged debt.
So your next steps should be evidence preservation, not panic. You should keep the EV charging receipt, the POPLA appeal, Horizon's evidence pack, the POPLA decision, the Premier Inn email trail, screenshots of any app/payment/tariff pages showing no separate parking payment was required for EV charging users, and obtain current photos/video of the signage and EV bay route if possible.
If Horizon later try a claim, the defence would focus on the defective factual premise: the vehicle was using an advertised EV charging facility, the operator failed to prove a separate parking tariff applied to EV charging users, failed to prove clear EV-specific contractual notice, and failed to produce the written landowner authority required by the PPSCoP. POPLA's decision does not, thankfully, bind a district judge.
What happens next... you will start to receive demands from Horizon for the charge. They will resort to using a powerless debt collector to send debt recovery letters. You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. These debt collectors are powerless to do anything except try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out go ignorance and fear.
Debt recovery letters and threats of a CCJ are simply hot air. They have zero effect on your credit rating or anything else. You can safely use those letters as kindling or to line the bottom of a cat litter tray. They have no power to do anything. They are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver.
If Horizon decide to take it further, they must make a claim in the county court for an alleged debt owed to them. They must first issue a Letter of Claim (LoC) and then the actual claim itself. These claims are very easily defended and I would be assisting you all the way through the process. Even if a claim is issued and defended, they rarely go all the way to a hearing because as long as you stand firm, in the majority of cases, they eventually discontinue when they realise that you are not low-hanging fruit and are prepared to challenge them.
You can search through other threads on here to see how this all pans out. If I were you, I'd challenge this all the way. However, the decision is ultimately yours. All I can guarantee is that it is a very useful life learning process and will give you a much greater insight into your rights and how to use the law to your own advantage.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
