Horizon parking (Double dip)

[b789]

Thinking more about this, I would suggest that a formal complaint be issued to Horizon as follows:

Subject: Formal complaint—false double-dip PCN and unsupported assertion that ANPR errors are "mercifully rare"

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer to PCN [reference], which Horizon cancelled after accepting evidence that its ANPR system had combined two separate visits into one purported continuous stay.

In its cancellation response, Horizon stated:

"As with any technology, errors can unfortunately occur. Whilst errors are mercifully rare…"

That statement does not adequately address what occurred.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires ANPR images to be subjected to a manual quality-control check. The accompanying guidance specifically states that such checks are particularly important for detecting "double dipping", where the camera system has failed to record every occasion on which a vehicle entered and left the land.

The false PCN demonstrates that Horizon's pre-issue control failed in this case. Cancellation after the recipient produced contrary evidence does not establish that Horizon's original process was adequate.

Please therefore answer the following:

   1. Was the ANPR evidence manually reviewed before this PCN was issued?
   2. What precisely did that review involve, and on what date was it undertaken?
   3. Did the reviewer examine all captures, partial reads, rejected reads and unmatched vehicle images from the relevant period, rather than merely viewing the first entry and final exit images?
   4. Why did the review fail to identify that the images represented two separate visits?
   5. What objective data supports Horizon's assertion that such errors are "mercifully rare"?
   6. During the last twelve months:
      a. how many proposed PCNs were prevented from being issued because manual review identified a possible double dip or missed vehicle movement;
      b. how many issued PCNs were subsequently cancelled because two visits had been combined;
      c. how many were cancelled because of an incorrect or partial registration read; and
      d. what proportion of Horizon's ANPR-generated PCNs do those figures represent?
   7. What corrective action has been taken in relation to the cameras and review procedures at this location?
   8. Has the landowner or principal been notified that the system generated an erroneous charge?
   9. Has Horizon examined other PCNs issued from the same location to determine whether comparable errors occurred?

Please preserve all ANPR records, rejected reads, audit logs, review notes and internal correspondence relating to this PCN pending the conclusion of this complaint.

If Horizon is unable or unwilling to provide the figures relied upon, it should withdraw the unsupported assertion that errors are "mercifully rare".

Please provide a final complaint response so that the matter may be referred to the British Parking Association, the DVLA, the landowner and my Member of Parliament.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

I also suggest you write to your MP with the following:

Subject: "Mercifully rare"—request for action over false private parking ANPR charges

Dear [MP's name],

I am asking you to raise an important consumer-protection issue concerning the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition by private parking companies.

Horizon Parking recently issued a parking charge based on ANPR images purporting to show that my vehicle had remained at a location continuously between [time] and [time]. The vehicle had in fact made two separate visits. Horizon's cameras had failed to record, or its system had failed to use, the intervening exit and re-entry.

I was able to provide evidence proving the error, and Horizon cancelled the charge. Its explanation was:

   "As with any technology, errors can unfortunately occur. Whilst errors are mercifully rare…"

That response raises rather than resolves the concern.

The private parking sector's own Code requires a manual quality-control check before ANPR evidence is used to issue a parking charge. The Code specifically identifies "double dipping"—the failure to record every entry and exit—as an error which manual checking should address.

Either Horizon did not perform the required check, or the check was ineffective. In either case, the motorist received a false financial demand and was required to produce evidence to disprove an allegation generated by Horizon's defective records.

Horizon's description of such errors as "mercifully rare" is unsupported unless it publishes:

• the number of vehicle movements processed;
  
• the number of potential PCNs rejected during manual review;
  
• the number of PCNs cancelled because of double dipping or incorrect reads;
  
• the number of motorists who paid before the error was identified; and
  
• independently audited error and capture rates.
  

There is presently no publicly available sector-wide information answering those questions.

The significance is amplified by the scale of private parking enforcement. Approximately 14.4 million private parking charge notices were issued in 2024/25. Official DVLA figures also show that manual review identified 45,427 number-plate misreads among 511,801 unique potential enforcement detections examined by staff. Those figures demonstrate the importance of robust human verification before financial or enforcement action is taken.

I ask that you:

1. Write to Horizon Parking requesting the factual basis for its "mercifully rare" assertion and details of the failed manual review in this case.
   
2. Ask the DVLA whether it records how many keeper-data requests result in PCNs subsequently cancelled because of ANPR errors, missed captures or double dipping.
   
3. Ask the Secretary of State responsible for the statutory Private Parking Code of Practice whether the Code will require:
   
4. independent testing and certification of private parking ANPR systems;
   
5. an auditable manual-review record for every ANPR-generated PCN;
   
6. mandatory reporting of false positives and post-issue cancellations;
   
7. publication of operator and site-specific error statistics; and
   
8. effective sanctions, including suspension of DVLA data access, where systemic failures are identified.
   
9. Consider tabling written parliamentary questions on these matters.
   

A private parking operator should not be permitted to dismiss ANPR errors as "mercifully rare" when it neither publishes nor independently verifies the figures necessary to support that assertion. Where automated evidence is used to issue financial demands to the public, accuracy must be measurable, auditable and transparent.

Yours sincerely,

[Name and address]