5 hours ago
@candlestick, based on your PM to me confirming that Chou have contacted POPLA and that they have your full appeal, if you have not yet submitted the response to Horizons evidence pack, here is a revised response that you can submit:
Quote:I am the registered keeper. This is my rebuttal to the operator’s evidence pack.
Preliminary matter – Omission of Appellant’s Evidence
POPLA has confirmed that it holds the full appeal submission and all supporting evidence provided by the appellant.
The operator’s evidence pack asserts “No evidence provided” and reproduces only a truncated version of the appeal. That is incorrect. The appellant submitted a marked Google Street View aerial image showing the precise route taken, photographs of the location, and evidence identifying the exact parking position within the Charles & Wensum House area.
The operator has chosen not to engage with that evidence and has instead presented a reduced summary of the appeal as though no supporting material existed. The assessor is invited to note that the full evidential record is before POPLA, notwithstanding the operator’s omission.
1. The operator’s description of the site layout is incorrect
The operator states that the Charles & Wensum House car park is situated before the ANPR capture point and that if the vehicle had used that area, it would not have been captured by camera.
This is factually wrong.
The appellant’s submitted aerial image clearly demonstrates that the only vehicular access to the Charles & Wensum House parking area is via the ANPR capture point and then turning left. There is no drivable left turn before the camera. The supposed route implied by the operator is physically blocked and not accessible to vehicles.
The operator’s assertion that ANPR capture proves use of the Premier Inn customer parking area is therefore demonstrably incorrect.
2. ANPR capture does not prove parking location
The operator has produced entry and exit timestamps only. These show boundary crossing, not the place where the vehicle was parked.
No image has been produced of the vehicle parked in any Premier Inn bay. No CCTV image, no bay reference, and no location-specific evidence has been provided.
The operator’s case rests on assumption rather than proof.
3. Failure to address the Appellant’s route and location evidence
The appellant provided:
- A marked Google Street View aerial showing the route taken.
- A highlighted parking location within the Charles & Wensum House area.
- Photographs demonstrating the physical layout and separation of zones.
The operator has not engaged with that evidence at all. Instead, they rely on a selective aerial image and narrative description which does not reflect the physical reality of the site.
The contrast between the operator’s simplified aerial plan and the appellant’s marked route image is material. The appellant’s evidence shows the actual drivable route. The operator’s version omits that context.
3. No proof that Horizon contractual terms apply in the Charles & Wensum House area
The operator has produced signage photographs from the Premier Inn customer parking area and a generic signage location plan.
They have not produced:
- Any photograph of Horizon contractual signage within the Charles & Wensum House parking area.
- Any boundary plan clearly including that area within Horizon’s enforcement zone.
- Any evidence that Horizon’s ANPR scheme applies to that permit-holder-only section.
The burden rests on the operator. They have not shown that Horizon contractual terms were displayed or applicable at the location where the vehicle was parked.
4. Failure to prove standing
The appellant expressly required strict proof of landowner authority covering the Charles & Wensum House area.
The operator has provided no contract and no redacted landowner agreement. Instead, they assert that the presence of equipment proves authority and that they are under no obligation to disclose commercial documents.
That is not evidence of standing.
The existence of signage or cameras does not establish the identity of the landowner, the boundaries covered, or the operator’s right to pursue charges in that specific section of land.
The operator has therefore failed to demonstrate that it has authority in relation to the Charles & Wensum House parking area.
5. Permit-holder-only area cannot create contractual liability
The Charles & Wensum House area is signed as permit holders only. That is a restriction, not an offer of parking to non-permit holders.
Where no contractual offer is made to the public, no contract can be formed. At most, any alleged unauthorised parking would be a matter of trespass.
Trespass is actionable only by a party with sufficient proprietary interest. The operator has not demonstrated such interest.
Conclusion
The operator’s case depends on a demonstrably incorrect description of the site layout and an unsupported assumption that ANPR capture proves use of the Premier Inn customer parking area.
They have:
- Omitted the appellant’s route and photographic evidence from their pack.
- Failed to rebut the appellant’s marked aerial route evidence.
- Failed to prove the parking location.
- Failed to show Horizon signage within the Charles & Wensum House area.
- Failed to produce any evidence of landowner authority covering that area.
The operator has not discharged the burden of proof required to establish contractual liability or keeper liability.
The appeal should be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
