Today, 02:35 AM
You can rebut their obvious attempt to obfuscate your appeal and the clear evidence you provided that shows the only accessible route to the Charles & Wensum parking lot is through their ANPR gate. They are clearly lying when they claim that the sign that says you can turn left before the sign into the Charles & Wensum parking lot.
Use the following as the rebuttal to their mendacious evidence and the fact that the have not even provided any proof of standing to issue PCNs for any alleged contravention in the Charles & Wensum parking lot:
Just copy and paste that into the POPLA response webform.
Use the following as the rebuttal to their mendacious evidence and the fact that the have not even provided any proof of standing to issue PCNs for any alleged contravention in the Charles & Wensum parking lot:
Quote:I am the registered keeper. This is my formal rebuttal to the operator’s evidence pack.
The operator’s case collapses on a single false premise: that the Charles & Wensum House parking area is located before the ANPR capture point and therefore would not have been captured by their cameras.
That assertion is demonstrably untrue.
1. The operator has misrepresented the site layout
The operator states that the Charles & Wensum House car park is “on the left before entering Premier Inn’s car park” and that if the vehicle had used that area, it would not have been captured by the ANPR system.
This is incorrect.
The Google Street View image submitted by the appellant clearly shows that the only accessible vehicular route to the Charles & Wensum House parking area is through the ANPR capture point and then turning left.
There is no accessible vehicular left turn prior to the ANPR cameras. The route the operator implies exists is physically blocked by fencing and by parked vehicles. It is not a usable access road.
The operator’s own aerial signage plan does not show any separate pre-camera access route. It simply asserts one exists without evidencing it.
The ANPR capture is therefore entirely consistent with the vehicle entering the Wensum parking area. The operator’s assertion that camera capture proves use of the Premier Inn area is false.
2. The operator has not proven the vehicle’s parking location
ANPR images show only entry and exit timestamps. They do not show the vehicle parked anywhere.
The operator has not produced:
- A photograph of the vehicle parked in the Premier Inn customer bays.
- Any CCTV image showing the vehicle within a specific parking bay.
- Any marked bay reference tied to a site boundary plan.
They simply state that because the vehicle was captured by ANPR, it must have used the Premier Inn area.
That is not evidence. It is assumption.
3. The operator has ignored the appellant’s photographic route evidence
The appellant submitted:
- A marked Google Street View aerial image showing the precise route taken.
- A highlighted parking location within the Wensum area.
- Photographs demonstrating the physical layout.
The operator has not addressed this evidence. Instead, they have relied on a cropped Google aerial image and a narrative description which does not reflect the physical reality of the site.
The difference between the operator’s image and the appellant’s image is material. The appellant’s image shows the actual access route. The operator’s image is selective and does not show any drivable pre-camera route to the Wensum area.
This omission is significant.
4. No evidence that Horizon contractual terms apply in the Wensum area
The operator has provided:
- A generic signage location plan.
- Photographs of tariff boards within the Premier Inn customer parking area.
They have not provided:
- A photograph of any Horizon contractual signage within the Charles & Wensum House parking area.
- A boundary plan showing that the Wensum area falls within their enforcement zone.
- Any document demonstrating that Horizon’s ANPR contract includes the Wensum parking area.
The absence of such evidence is fatal to their case.
5. The operator has failed to prove standing
The appellant expressly required strict proof of landowner authority/standing covering the Wensum parking area.
The operator has not provided a contract.
Instead, they assert that the mere presence of signage and equipment proves authority and that they are under no obligation to disclose documents.
That is not proof of standing.
The existence of equipment does not establish:
- The identity of the landowner.
- The boundaries of the land covered.
- That Horizon is authorised to pursue charges in that specific area.
- That Horizon has authority to litigate in its own name.
A bare assertion of authority is not evidence.
The burden of proof rests with the operator. They have failed to discharge it.
6. A permit-holder-only area cannot create a contractual charge
The Charles & Wensum House parking area is signed as permit holders only.
That is not an offer of parking to the public. It is a restriction.
Where no contractual offer is made to non-permit holders, no contract can be formed. At most, an alleged unauthorised parking event would amount to trespass.
Trespass is actionable only by a party with sufficient proprietary interest. The operator has produced no evidence of such interest.
Conclusion
The operator’s evidence relies on a demonstrably incorrect description of the site layout.
They have:
- Mischaracterised the access route.
- Failed to prove the parking location.
- Failed to rebut the appellant’s route evidence.
- Failed to produce any boundary plan including the Wensum area.
- Failed to produce any landowner contract.
- Failed to show Horizon signage in the Wensum parking area.
Their case rests on assertion, not proof.
The operator has not discharged the burden required to establish contractual liability or keeper liability.
The appeal must be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
Just copy and paste that into the POPLA response webform.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
