Ulverston Premier Inn Car Park

[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.