Ulverston Premier Inn Car Park

[b789]

@L Bow, use the following as your rebuttal to their evidence:

1. No landowner authority has been produced

Horizon's response on landowner authority is wholly inadequate and should be rejected.

The operator was put to strict proof of its authority to operate at this specific site, issue parking charges in its own name, and pursue those charges. Horizon has not provided the landowner contract, has not provided a chain of authority, and has not even provided the minimum form of evidence that would be expected under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, namely a witness statement or written confirmation from the landowner/occupier confirming Horizon's authority.

Instead, Horizon asserts that its authority is "evidenced simply by the existence of Horizon's equipment being on the legal occupier's land". That is not evidence. It is circular reasoning. It amounts to Horizon saying: "we must be authorised because we are there". That proposition would be laughed out of court. The presence of cameras, signs or machines proves only that equipment exists. It does not prove the contractual authority relied upon, the identity of the contracting party, the relevant land boundaries, the operative dates of the agreement, the scope of Horizon's powers, or whether Horizon has authority to issue and pursue charges in its own name.

Horizon's further suggestion that only a party with a "higher proprietary interest" may challenge its authority is also misconceived. In a POPLA appeal, where landowner authority is expressly challenged, the operator must prove that authority. The appellant does not need to own the land in order to require proof that Horizon had standing to issue the charge. If Horizon chooses to demand £100 from a motorist, it must prove its legal entitlement to do so.

This is particularly important here because the case concerns EV charging bays at a Premier Inn site. Horizon has not shown that its authority extends to those bays, to non-guest EV charging users, or to imposing a separate parking charge on a motorist who was using and paying for the EV charging facility.

Horizon has therefore failed to prove landowner authority. POPLA should not accept unsupported assertion, circular reasoning, or bare reliance on the presence of equipment as proof of legal standing. This ground alone is sufficient for the appeal to be allowed.

2. No PoFA reliance and no proof of driver identity

Horizon's own appeal record shows "Appellant Type: DVLA Keeper", with the selected challenge reason "I was charging my electric vehicle" and the free-text wording about the charging receipt correlating with "my entry and exit times".

Horizon's attempt to convert the initial appeal into a driver admission is opportunistic and should be rejected.

Horizon admits that it is not relying on PoFA to establish keeper liability. That means Horizon must prove that the appellant was the driver. It cannot simply assume it. It cannot infer it from keeper status. It cannot manufacture it from ambiguous wording on its own appeal portal.

Horizon's own evidence records the appellant type as "DVLA Keeper". The appeal was therefore submitted in the capacity of keeper. Horizon now seeks to rely on the selected challenge reason "I was charging my electric vehicle" as though that is a voluntary and unambiguous admission of being the driver. It is not.

That wording is generated by Horizon's own appeal system. The dropdown option is framed in the first person. There is no neutral option such as "the driver was charging an electric vehicle" or "the vehicle was using the EV charging facilities". Horizon should not be permitted to design an appeal portal which forces a keeper appellant into first-person language and then later exploit that forced wording as an alleged driver admission.

The same applies to the phrase "my entry and exit times". That is not a direct admission of driving. A registered keeper may naturally refer to "my car", "my PCN", "my appeal", or "my entry and exit times" when discussing ANPR records relating to their vehicle. Those words do not prove that the keeper was the person driving. Many registered keepers are passengers in their own vehicles when another insured person, spouse, partner or family member is driving. There is nothing unusual about a keeper referring to a vehicle's recorded movements as "my" times without thereby admitting they were the driver.

If Horizon wished to rely on a driver admission, it needed to produce clear evidence that the appellant expressly stated that they were driving. It has not done so. The appeal wording does not say "I was the driver", "I drove", "I parked", or any equivalent direct admission. Horizon is relying on inference, ambiguity and its own poorly framed dropdown wording.

This is especially important because Horizon has expressly chosen not to rely on PoFA. Having abandoned keeper liability, Horizon cannot then backfill that evidential gap by treating ordinary keeper appeal language as proof of driver identity. POPLA should not permit an operator to avoid PoFA compliance by relying on semantic opportunism.

Horizon has therefore failed to prove that the appellant was the driver. In the absence of PoFA keeper liability, the appeal should be allowed on this basis alone.

3. ANPR timestamps are not a period of parking

Horizon relies only on ANPR entry and exit images. Those images show the vehicle passing cameras. They do not show the period of parking, the time spent reading signs, the time spent manoeuvring, the time spent connecting to the EV charger, or the actual period during which the vehicle was stationary in a bay.

This distinction matters because Horizon's case is based on an alleged failure to pay or register for the "full duration of stay". The evidence shows a genuine EV charging session from 10:24 to 11:13, almost exactly matching the ANPR timestamps. Horizon has not shown any actual period of unauthorised parking, only the vehicle's presence on site while using the EV charging facility.

4. No clear EV charging term was communicated

Horizon's signage evidence is fundamentally deficient and should not be accepted.

This appeal is not about ordinary parking. The vehicle was present because it was using the GeniePoint EV charging facility provided at the site. The charging receipt confirms a genuine charging session from 10:24 to 11:13, almost exactly matching the ANPR period alleged by Horizon. This was not misuse of the car park. It was use of a specific on-site facility.

Horizon's own evidence does not show any sign that clearly tells EV charging users that they must also make a separate Horizon parking payment or register inside Premier Inn. No sign shown by Horizon says "EV charging users must pay separately for parking". No sign says "payment for EV charging does not include parking". No sign says "users of these EV bays must also register at reception or pay Horizon". That omission is fatal.

Horizon's answer is that the signage does not say EV users are exempt. That is the wrong test and should be rejected. A motorist does not need to search for an exemption. Horizon must prove that the alleged obligation was clearly and prominently communicated before the contract was supposedly formed. The absence of an express exemption is not the same as clear notice of an additional payment or registration requirement.

The wording "Just looking to park?" is also materially ambiguous in this context. A motorist using a designated EV charging bay is not merely "looking to park". They are using a paid charging facility located at the site. If Horizon intended EV charging users to be treated as non-guest public parking users, subject to a separate Horizon parking payment in addition to the EV charging payment, that had to be stated clearly and expressly at the EV charging area. It was not.

Horizon's position requires the assessor to accept that a motorist should infer an additional parking obligation from general parking signage, despite the presence of a separate EV charging facility and a paid charging transaction. That is not adequate notice. It is precisely the sort of hidden or unclear term that cannot fairly bind a motorist.

It is not enough for Horizon to say that "parking and charging are two separate services" after the event. If that is Horizon's case, then the signage had to say so before the event. It did not. A contractual term cannot be invented retrospectively in an evidence pack.

Horizon has therefore failed to prove that the alleged term was clearly and prominently brought to the attention of EV charging users. The evidence shows a genuine EV charging session, not unauthorised parking. Horizon has failed to prove clear signage, failed to prove any EV-specific payment or registration obligation, and failed to prove liability. The appeal should be allowed.