ANPR - Horizon Parking - Hotel Nelson Norwich

[candlestick]

---

@b789 I know you very kindly helped elsewhere so really keen to get your advice

---

Before I found you here I drafted this POPLA response

Does this look ok for the popla appeal?

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this charge as keeper only. I am not identifying the driver and no inference may be drawn as to the identity of the driver.

This appeal is based on the following grounds.


1. The ANPR evidence does not demonstrate that the vehicle was parked on land subject to Horizon Parking contractual terms

The operator relies solely upon ANPR images showing entry and exit to a large mixed-use site. ANPR cameras record vehicles crossing a boundary but do not demonstrate the location where a vehicle was parked.

The site contains multiple distinct parking areas with separate directional signage and physical separation between areas. The vehicle was parked in a smaller side parking area separate from the main Premier Inn and restaurant customer parking area.

The operator has produced no evidence that Horizon Parking contractual terms applied to this smaller parking section. The operator is therefore put to strict proof of the exact parking location and confirmation that the area falls within the land covered by any Horizon Parking contract.


2. Inadequate and non-compliant signage at the parking location

The vehicle was parked within a smaller side section of the site where no Horizon tariff signage, payment instructions, or contractual terms are visible.

The only tariff signage relied upon by the operator is positioned within the main customer parking area serving the Premier Inn and restaurant. Drivers using the smaller side section are directed away from this signage by directional signs.

Upon exiting the smaller parking section, drivers do not pass any tariff signage or payment instruction boards before leaving the site. This confirms that the terms relied upon by the operator were not brought to the attention of the driver.

The BPA Code of Practice requires that parking terms must be clearly displayed and capable of being read before parking occurs. The operator has failed to meet this requirement.

3. The site contains separate parking zones which create ambiguity and fail the test of clear contractual offer

Directional signage within the site clearly separates:

• Hotel guest parking
• Charles & Wensum House permit holder parking

The presence of clearly marked permit holder only parking demonstrates that the site is not a single uniform parking area but instead contains separate zones with different restrictions.

The vehicle was parked in a smaller section physically separated from the main customer parking area. The operator has not demonstrated that the tariff signage relating to hotel and restaurant customers applies to this separate parking section.

Where signage creates ambiguity or multiple possible interpretations, contract law requires that such ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the consumer.


4. A permit holder designated area cannot form a contractual parking charge

The smaller parking section is associated with signage identifying parking for permit holders only. Parking is therefore not offered to non-permit holders as a contractual offer but instead indicates restricted land use.

Where parking is not offered on contractual terms, no contract can be formed. Any alleged unauthorised parking would amount only to trespass, which can only be pursued by the landowner and not by a parking management company unless landowner authority is proven.

The operator has not produced any evidence of landowner authority covering this specific section of land.


5. The operator has failed to demonstrate landowner authority for the specific parking area

The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to hold written authorisation from the landowner for the land they enforce.

The operator is put to strict proof by producing:

• A contemporaneous landowner agreement
• A site boundary map clearly identifying the enforcement area
• Evidence that the smaller side parking section forms part of the area covered by the Horizon Parking agreement


6. ANPR evidence fails to demonstrate actual parking time or compliance with mandatory grace periods

The operator alleges the vehicle remained on site between 14:10 and 18:08. ANPR captures boundary entry and exit times only and does not demonstrate actual parking duration.

The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to allow:

• Reasonable time to enter, locate parking and read signage
• A minimum ten minute grace period at the end of parking

The operator has not demonstrated that these mandatory grace periods were applied.

Conclusion

The operator has failed to demonstrate:

• That the vehicle was parked within land governed by Horizon Parking contractual terms
• That adequate signage existed at the parking location
• That a clear parking contract was formed
• That Horizon Parking holds authority for the specific parking area
• That ANPR evidence accounts for grace periods

For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct Horizon Parking Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.