06-16-2026, 07:21 PM
I've been sent Horizon's 26 page submission to POPLA and have until Monday to respond. They have included a number of photos dated 4 Mar 2026 which do show signage, though there isn't a clear picture of the EV charge point. The signs indicate Premier Inn Guests should validate at reception, if you are 'Just looking to park' then there is "Dynamic pricing in place". Nothing obvious about if you are there to charge your EV.
They say this, which to me is an acceptance that in the interests of fairness (when no charge is made for Premier Inn guests) specific information should be provided for those using the EV chargers.
We acknowledge the provided evidence of charging their vehicle however, it cannot
be considered as valid grounds for appeal. The signage on site does not state that
electric vehicles are permitted to park without completing a payment/registration,
which means using EV charging facilities does not exempt a vehicle and allow it to
park here without requirement of completing a valid payment if not hotel guest.
Having an electric vehicle and using the charging facilities on site only allows a
motorist to park in an EV charging bay to use the EV charging facilities and does not
exempt a vehicle from terms and conditions. Parking and charging are two separate
services, and paying EV charging fees only covers the electricity usage and not the
right to park in a parking space without adhering to the terms and conditions, and
the Appellant should have not made this assumption.
They have responded to the points made in the appeal including:
the site in question is not operated under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and the requirement to issue a letter within 14 days of
the alleged contravention in this instance do not apply, as we do not seek to rely on
POFA to establish the Register Keeper’s liability. However, the Appellant has
accepted liability in their initial appeal to Horizon by stating “…correlate directly with
my entry and exit times” and by stating this, the Appellant has freely admitted being
parked in the private land and using the available EV facilities on site for the related
duration of stay for this Parking Charge.
They also reference ParkingEye v Beavis [2025] as justification for the £100 charge.
@b789 I may be able to create a redacted version if you want to read it all. (It would be easier if I was able to send you a copy directly though)
They say this, which to me is an acceptance that in the interests of fairness (when no charge is made for Premier Inn guests) specific information should be provided for those using the EV chargers.
We acknowledge the provided evidence of charging their vehicle however, it cannot
be considered as valid grounds for appeal. The signage on site does not state that
electric vehicles are permitted to park without completing a payment/registration,
which means using EV charging facilities does not exempt a vehicle and allow it to
park here without requirement of completing a valid payment if not hotel guest.
Having an electric vehicle and using the charging facilities on site only allows a
motorist to park in an EV charging bay to use the EV charging facilities and does not
exempt a vehicle from terms and conditions. Parking and charging are two separate
services, and paying EV charging fees only covers the electricity usage and not the
right to park in a parking space without adhering to the terms and conditions, and
the Appellant should have not made this assumption.
They have responded to the points made in the appeal including:
the site in question is not operated under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and the requirement to issue a letter within 14 days of
the alleged contravention in this instance do not apply, as we do not seek to rely on
POFA to establish the Register Keeper’s liability. However, the Appellant has
accepted liability in their initial appeal to Horizon by stating “…correlate directly with
my entry and exit times” and by stating this, the Appellant has freely admitted being
parked in the private land and using the available EV facilities on site for the related
duration of stay for this Parking Charge.
They also reference ParkingEye v Beavis [2025] as justification for the £100 charge.
@b789 I may be able to create a redacted version if you want to read it all. (It would be easier if I was able to send you a copy directly though)
