Yesterday, 09:40 AM (This post was last modified: Yesterday, 10:09 AM by Tortfeasor.)
Hi everyone.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice issued by Horizon Parking Ltd.
Alleged contravention on Friday, 22 May 2026. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 01 July 2026, and I first became aware of the contravention via a “keeper reminder notification.” No other notice was delivered.
The notice appears to have been issued by post (ANPR/camera).
Driver identified status: NO.
Equality Act considerations: Yes.
The location is stated as Tesco [location redacted].
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Friday, 03 July 2026 (42 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
The alleged contravention is the car overstayed by 11 minutes, 53 seconds (going by the ANPR photos Horizon has sent me) at night. It was a Friday night, and the Tesco would have been open until midnight.
I regularly work 400 miles away. The car I’m the keeper of is kept at my family’s address, where it’s been registered since 2018. As I’m working away a lot, I ask relatives to start/occasionally use the car, so the battery isn’t going flat etc. I was home most of June though, and no notice to keeper was delivered within 14 days of 22 May 2026. I’d have seen it. The first I learned of it was when I opened a keeper reminder notification letter, issue date 1st July 2026 (attached a redacted copy).
Did some reading up about these things, and noted that for the PoFA keeper liability to apply, the statutory conditions had to be met. This is ultimately why I’m contesting it.
To date Horizon has failed to produce the first keeper notification. I don’t think one was sent, or even exists. It seemed to me they’re just chancing it. I sent a first appeal to Horizon on 10th July 2026, pointing out they did not appear to have met the PoFA conditions for keeper liability to apply. I’ll post a summary of my appeal to Horizon in a second post.
Horizon responded to my appeal on 31st July. It seemed I’d just been (mostly) sent a template, or it was a phishing attempt to get me to name the driver. Their email invited to me submit additional evidence, “to support your claim that you were shopping in Tesco,” when I had made no such claim in my appeal at all! I had however clearly stated several times in what I’d submitted that no keeper notification had been delivered within 14 days. I would have thought Horizon would have sent me a copy of it. They haven’t.
I was working away throughout most of July and August, and realised it might help if I could take some photos of the signs at this Tesco at the same time (between 22:45-23:57). However, I’m not due home until next week. So I took Horizon up on their option of submitting additional evidence, to buy myself time and get a new POPLA code. One of my relatives visited the Tesco, and took photos of the car park entrance sign for me, but it was still quite light at 20:00.
.
I checked against the British Parking Association Code of Practice, and picked a few holes about the car park entrance sign with reference to the BPA Code of Practice. I sent additional points of appeal and my first appeal points again, along with photos my relative had taken on 7th August.
I finally received an appeal rejection from Horizon on 28th August, and am now intending to appeal to POPLA. Horizon’s latest email stinks of template response.
I’ll attach it to a second post with the appeal points I’d sent.
Please can I have thoughts/advice on the strongest next steps and defence points, as well as any relevant experiences others have had.
Thanks in advance.
As mentioned above, I’ve attached both parts of the appeal sent to Horizon and their rejection from 28th August.
Separate point about the elusive notice to keeper
As well as my appeal, I sent a subject access request (SAR) to Horizon’s data protection team after they failed to send a copy of a “first” notice to keeper after my first appeal. To date I have only had the “reminder to keeper notification,” as attached in my opening post.
After some back and forth emails, Horizon’s data protection team replied to my SAR, and stated there were no letters or records with my name or address, other than the same emails I’d sent to them with my SAR.
I was very clear in what I was requesting in the SAR: I wanted electronic copies of letters Horizon Parking Ltd and associated companies had sent to me at the address I provided. I received nothing. Frankly, I thought this said it all about Horizon. They didn’t even send a copy of the reminder to keeper notification letter, which I had specifically mentioned in the SAR.
This further reinforces my belief there was never a (first) notice sent to the keeper before that reminder letter I’ve had. Why wouldn’t they have taken the opportunity to have included this in their response to my appeal, if it existed of course?!
9 hours ago(This post was last modified: 9 hours ago by Tortfeasor.)
Hi Brenda_R2.
Thanks for your reply.
It’s a reminder. I have never received an NTK about this. Despite me pointing this out to Horizon in my appeal, they have not produced the goods. I even went down the subject access request route to try and obtain a copy of the “missing” NTK. I emailed Horizon’s data protection team, and was very clear about what I requested from them - “electronic copies of letters sent to me,” at the same address the car is registered at. I left no room for doubt in the 2 emails I sent on 31/07 and 04/08 about what I was asking for.
Horizon’s data protection team emailed me a response on 05/08: “Please note the only data we hold in relation to your name, address and email address are your emails dated 31/07/26 and 04/08/26.”
I have a hard copy of the reminder letter, of course, which I’d explicitly mentioned in my subject access request email ! The fact they have now confirmed in writing they only have emails with my name and address from emails I have sent them, I feel, weakens their position.
Why are they unable to produce a copy of what would be the first/original NTK? I genuinely don’t think it exists and intend on making that point until the cows come home.
Welcome to the forum @Tortfeasor. How typically corrupt this behaviour is from Horizon. So, no surprises there.
Interestingly, they appear to have no leg to stand on if they cannot evidence an NtK and, even more importantly, evidence that they actually posted it. The PPSCoP at section 8.1.2(e) clearly states the following:
Quote:A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, "working day" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
You have 33 days (28 days plus 5 days for presumed service) from the date of the original appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal. Whilst POPLA is many times better than the IAS, it is still populated by some utter morons who have kettle understanding of the law as it applies to contractual parking disputes. So, no mad rush to submit the POPLA appeal.
I also suggest that you make a formal complaint to the ICO of Horizon's DPO to fully comply with the SAR. This is a serious matter and could open them up to sanctions. I would also advise that you also make a formal complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), as the operator’s conduct may breach the unfair commercial practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).
AS for the POPLA appeal, I would suggest you use the following, which you should submit as a separate PDF attachment rather than use the text entry box on the POPLA appeal website. Just say to refer to the attached PDF file for the appeal:
Quote:I appeal as the registered keeper. The driver has not been identified, and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.
My grounds of appeal are:
Horizon has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Horizon's Subject Access Request response materially undermines the reliability of its records.
Horizon has not proved that it had landowner authority.
The ANPR timestamps do not establish the alleged period of parking.
Horizon has not proved that the contractual terms were adequately displayed at night.
1. Horizon has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
This is the primary and dispositive ground of appeal.
The alleged parking event occurred on 22 May 2026. No notice was affixed to the vehicle. Accordingly, if Horizon wishes to recover the charge from me as the registered keeper, it must establish full compliance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Paragraph 9(4) requires the Notice to Keeper to be given within the "relevant period", defined as:
"the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."
The first and only postal notice I received was headed "Keeper Reminder Notification" and was issued on 1 July 2026. Applying the deemed-delivery provision in paragraph 9(6), that document would be treated as delivered on 3 July 2026, 42 days after the alleged event. It was therefore plainly incapable of establishing keeper liability.
Horizon apparently asserts that an earlier Notice to Keeper was sent. However, despite having been expressly challenged on this issue, Horizon has never produced:
a copy of the alleged original Notice to Keeper;
the name and address printed upon it;
the date on which it was allegedly generated and printed;
evidence that it was transferred into the postal system;
a certificate or other record of posting;
a contemporaneous mailing log, dispatch record or postal manifest; or
any audit trail demonstrating its generation, printing and dispatch.
Paragraph 9(6) does not relieve Horizon of the need to establish that a notice was sent. It provides that a notice "sent by post" is presumed to have been delivered on the second working day after posting unless the contrary is proved. Before Horizon can rely upon that presumption, it must first prove that the particular notice was properly addressed, prepaid and posted.
A bare assertion that a notice was "issued" or "sent" does not prove that it entered the postal system. Nor does evidence describing Horizon's usual administrative process prove that this particular notice was generated, printed and posted.
Horizon is therefore put to strict proof by producing:
an exact copy of the Notice to Keeper allegedly sent;
evidence of the name and postal address printed upon it;
its contemporaneous creation and printing record;
contemporaneous evidence that this particular notice entered the postal system;
the relevant mailing log, postal manifest or dispatch audit trail; and
evidence that the notice contained every item of mandatory information required by paragraph 9(2).
Unless Horizon produces the alleged notice, POPLA cannot determine whether it contained the mandatory information required by paragraph 9(2). Compliance cannot be presumed merely because Horizon says that its systems would ordinarily generate a notice.
If Horizon cannot prove that a fully compliant Notice to Keeper was given within the statutory period, the right to recover the charge from the keeper does not arise.
2. Horizon's defective Subject Access Request response undermines the reliability of its records
After Horizon failed to produce the alleged original Notice to Keeper in response to my appeal, I submitted a Subject Access Request specifically seeking the personal data contained in correspondence and notices sent to me.
Horizon's data protection team responded that it held no letters or records containing my name or address, other than the emails associated with the request. It disclosed neither:
the alleged original Notice to Keeper upon which keeper liability would depend; nor
the Keeper Reminder Notification dated 1 July 2026, which indisputably exists and contains my name, address, vehicle registration mark and PCN details.
The failure to identify and disclose even the reminder demonstrates that Horizon's search for my personal data was plainly inadequate. A separate complaint will be made to the Information Commissioner's Office concerning Horizon's failure to disclose the personal data requested.
I am not asking POPLA to determine that data-protection complaint. Its relevance here is evidential.
Horizon's response demonstrates either:
that its records contain no original Notice to Keeper; or
that Horizon failed to conduct a competent search of its own records and cannot reliably establish what notices were generated or sent.
Neither possibility assists Horizon in proving strict statutory compliance.
If Horizon produces an alleged original Notice to Keeper for the first time in its POPLA evidence pack, it must explain:
why it was not produced when its existence was first challenged;
why it was not identified or disclosed in response to the Subject Access Request;
from which system or record it has now been obtained;
when that record was created;
whether it is an original contemporaneous record or a subsequently generated reconstruction; and
what contemporaneous evidence establishes that it was actually posted.
The late production of a document that Horizon's data protection team previously failed to identify would not, by itself, prove that the document was printed, posted or given within the statutory period.
Horizon's failure to locate even the reminder shows either serious administrative incompetence or a lack of care over whether its data processing and enforcement activities comply with the law. Its unsupported internal assertions must therefore be treated with particular caution.
The defective Subject Access Request response corroborates my evidence that no original Notice to Keeper was received and materially undermines any unsupported assertion that one was posted.
3. Horizon has not proved that it had landowner authority
Even if Horizon could establish keeper liability, which is denied, it must independently prove that it had sufficient legal authority to operate at this particular Tesco car park and to issue the charge in question.
The existence of Horizon signs or ANPR cameras at the site does not prove landowner authority.
At most, the physical presence of signs demonstrates that somebody installed them. It does not establish:
who owns the land;
who authorised their installation;
whether the person granting authority possessed the necessary rights;
the geographical extent of any authority;
the restrictions and exemptions imposed upon Horizon;
whether the agreement remained in force on the material date; or
whether Horizon was authorised to pursue charges in its own name.
It would be circular to conclude that Horizon must have authority merely because it is physically operating at the location. The very issue requiring proof is whether that operation was legally authorised and whether Horizon acted within the scope of that authority.
POPLA must determine this issue from evidence, not from an assumption that an operator displaying signs must necessarily have permission to do everything asserted on those signs. Physical occupation or activity is not proof of contractual standing.
Horizon is put to strict proof by producing a contemporaneous and properly executed agreement with the landowner or with a party possessing sufficient authority to confer the relevant rights. That evidence must establish:
the identity of the landowner and contracting parties;
that the party appointing Horizon possessed authority over the land;
the precise land and boundaries covered;
that the agreement was in force on 22 May 2026;
the maximum parking period Horizon was authorised to enforce;
any restrictions, exemptions or cancellation provisions;
Horizon's authority to install and use ANPR equipment;
Horizon's authority to offer parking contracts in its own name;
Horizon's authority to issue and recover parking charges; and
Horizon's authority to pursue those charges through POPLA and the courts.
A generic witness statement, site-management letter or contract extract that omits the parties, dates, boundaries, restrictions or relevant enforcement provisions would not establish the necessary authority. Nor would evidence of a commercial relationship with Tesco prove that the contracting party owned the land or possessed authority to confer the rights claimed.
Commercially sensitive financial information may be redacted. However, Horizon must not redact the provisions necessary to establish the identity and authority of the parties, the site boundaries, the duration of the agreement or the scope of Horizon's enforcement rights.
The burden rests upon Horizon to prove its standing. It cannot discharge that burden merely by pointing to its own signs.
4. The ANPR timestamps do not establish the alleged period of parking
Horizon's cameras record the vehicle passing entry and exit points. They do not record:
when the vehicle was parked;
how long it took to locate a space;
when any parking contract was allegedly accepted;
when the vehicle left its parking space; or
how long it took to navigate from the parking space to the exit camera.
Horizon apparently calculates an alleged overstay of 11 minutes and 53 seconds by treating the entire interval between two ANPR images as a period of parking. That conclusion is not established by the images.
The applicable Code requires a grace period at the end of an otherwise permitted time-limited parking event. The minimum grace period ordinarily applicable to a time-limited car park is 10 minutes. The alleged excess beyond that minimum is therefore only 1 minute and 53 seconds.
Horizon must demonstrate that it distinguished between:
the time taken after entry to navigate the site and locate a space;
the actual period during which the vehicle was parked;
the permitted parking period;
the applicable grace period; and
the time taken to leave the space, navigate the car park and pass the exit camera.
The event occurred late at night. Horizon must account for the actual site layout and conditions, including the route from the parking spaces to the exit, internal junctions, pedestrian movements, other traffic and the position of the ANPR camera.
A difference of 1 minute and 53 seconds beyond the minimum grace period is entirely capable of representing ordinary departure time rather than continued parking. Horizon cannot convert every moment spent somewhere within the site boundary into a period of parking merely by labelling the ANPR interval a "duration of stay".
Unless Horizon establishes the actual period of parking and demonstrates that the applicable consideration and grace periods were properly applied, it has not proved that a contravention occurred.
5. Horizon has not proved that the contractual terms were adequately displayed at night
The alleged event occurred at night, between approximately 22:45 and 23:57. Horizon must therefore establish that the relevant terms were prominent, legible and adequately illuminated under the conditions existing at that time.
Daylight photographs, undated photographs or close-up images taken with artificial lighting, camera flash or enhanced exposure would not establish what a driver could reasonably see at the material time.
Horizon is put to strict proof by producing:
a contemporaneous site plan showing every entrance, ANPR camera and material sign;
photographs showing the driver's approach through the entrance;
photographs showing the signs from a driver's normal viewing position;
evidence of the actual lighting conditions at approximately 22:45;
evidence that the entrance sign was illuminated or otherwise legible after dark;
the location of the sign stating the maximum parking period;
the size and prominence of the principal contractual terms and parking charge;
the route the vehicle would have taken through the site; and
evidence that the relevant terms were visible before any contract was allegedly formed.
Isolated close-up photographs of signs do not establish where the signs were positioned, whether they were illuminated or whether their terms could be seen and read from the route taken by the driver.
Unless Horizon proves that the maximum stay and parking charge were adequately brought to the driver's attention in the prevailing nighttime conditions, it cannot establish that the driver agreed to those terms.
Conclusion
The driver has not been identified. Horizon can therefore recover the charge from me only if it proves that every applicable condition of Schedule 4 was satisfied.
The only notice received was a Keeper Reminder Notification issued 40 days after the event. Horizon has produced no original Notice to Keeper and no contemporaneous evidence that one was posted. Its own defective response to the Subject Access Request identified no such document and failed to identify even the reminder that unquestionably exists.
If Horizon cannot establish that a compliant Notice to Keeper was given within 14 days, the keeper cannot be liable and the appeal must be allowed on that ground alone.
Independently, Horizon must prove its landowner authority by evidence rather than by reference to the mere existence of its own signs. It must also prove the actual period of parking, the proper application of the required grace period and the adequacy of its signage under the nighttime conditions.
Horizon bears the burden of establishing its case. Any evidential omission must be resolved against the party asserting the right to recover the charge, not against a keeper whom PoFA protects unless its mandatory conditions have been satisfied.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
(9 hours ago)b789 Wrote: Welcome to the forum @Tortfeasor. How typically corrupt this behaviour is from Horizon. So, no surprises there.
Interestingly, they appear to have no leg to stand on if they cannot evidence an NtK and, even more importantly, evidence that they actually posted it. The PPSCoP at section 8.1.2(e) clearly states the following:
Quote:A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, "working day" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
You have 33 days (28 days plus 5 days for presumed service) from the date of the original appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal. Whilst POPLA is many times better than the IAS, it is still populated by some utter morons who have kettle understanding of the law as it applies to contractual parking disputes. So, no mad rush to submit the POPLA appeal.
I also suggest that you make a formal complaint to the ICO of Horizon's DPO to fully comply with the SAR. This is a serious matter and could open them up to sanctions. I would also advise that you also make a formal complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), as the operator’s conduct may breach the unfair commercial practices provisions in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).
AS for the POPLA appeal, I would suggest you use the following, which you should submit as a separate PDF attachment rather than use the text entry box on the POPLA appeal website. Just say to refer to the attached PDF file for the appeal:
Quote:I appeal as the registered keeper. The driver has not been identified, and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.
My grounds of appeal are:
Horizon has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Horizon's Subject Access Request response materially undermines the reliability of its records.
Horizon has not proved that it had landowner authority.
The ANPR timestamps do not establish the alleged period of parking.
Horizon has not proved that the contractual terms were adequately displayed at night.
1. Horizon has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
This is the primary and dispositive ground of appeal.
The alleged parking event occurred on 22 May 2026. No notice was affixed to the vehicle. Accordingly, if Horizon wishes to recover the charge from me as the registered keeper, it must establish full compliance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Paragraph 9(4) requires the Notice to Keeper to be given within the "relevant period", defined as:
"the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."
The first and only postal notice I received was headed "Keeper Reminder Notification" and was issued on 1 July 2026. Applying the deemed-delivery provision in paragraph 9(6), that document would be treated as delivered on 3 July 2026, 42 days after the alleged event. It was therefore plainly incapable of establishing keeper liability.
Horizon apparently asserts that an earlier Notice to Keeper was sent. However, despite having been expressly challenged on this issue, Horizon has never produced:
a copy of the alleged original Notice to Keeper;
the name and address printed upon it;
the date on which it was allegedly generated and printed;
evidence that it was transferred into the postal system;
a certificate or other record of posting;
a contemporaneous mailing log, dispatch record or postal manifest; or
any audit trail demonstrating its generation, printing and dispatch.
Paragraph 9(6) does not relieve Horizon of the need to establish that a notice was sent. It provides that a notice "sent by post" is presumed to have been delivered on the second working day after posting unless the contrary is proved. Before Horizon can rely upon that presumption, it must first prove that the particular notice was properly addressed, prepaid and posted.
A bare assertion that a notice was "issued" or "sent" does not prove that it entered the postal system. Nor does evidence describing Horizon's usual administrative process prove that this particular notice was generated, printed and posted.
Horizon is therefore put to strict proof by producing:
an exact copy of the Notice to Keeper allegedly sent;
evidence of the name and postal address printed upon it;
its contemporaneous creation and printing record;
contemporaneous evidence that this particular notice entered the postal system;
the relevant mailing log, postal manifest or dispatch audit trail; and
evidence that the notice contained every item of mandatory information required by paragraph 9(2).
Unless Horizon produces the alleged notice, POPLA cannot determine whether it contained the mandatory information required by paragraph 9(2). Compliance cannot be presumed merely because Horizon says that its systems would ordinarily generate a notice.
If Horizon cannot prove that a fully compliant Notice to Keeper was given within the statutory period, the right to recover the charge from the keeper does not arise.
2. Horizon's defective Subject Access Request response undermines the reliability of its records
After Horizon failed to produce the alleged original Notice to Keeper in response to my appeal, I submitted a Subject Access Request specifically seeking the personal data contained in correspondence and notices sent to me.
Horizon's data protection team responded that it held no letters or records containing my name or address, other than the emails associated with the request. It disclosed neither:
the alleged original Notice to Keeper upon which keeper liability would depend; nor
the Keeper Reminder Notification dated 1 July 2026, which indisputably exists and contains my name, address, vehicle registration mark and PCN details.
The failure to identify and disclose even the reminder demonstrates that Horizon's search for my personal data was plainly inadequate. A separate complaint will be made to the Information Commissioner's Office concerning Horizon's failure to disclose the personal data requested.
I am not asking POPLA to determine that data-protection complaint. Its relevance here is evidential.
Horizon's response demonstrates either:
that its records contain no original Notice to Keeper; or
that Horizon failed to conduct a competent search of its own records and cannot reliably establish what notices were generated or sent.
Neither possibility assists Horizon in proving strict statutory compliance.
If Horizon produces an alleged original Notice to Keeper for the first time in its POPLA evidence pack, it must explain:
why it was not produced when its existence was first challenged;
why it was not identified or disclosed in response to the Subject Access Request;
from which system or record it has now been obtained;
when that record was created;
whether it is an original contemporaneous record or a subsequently generated reconstruction; and
what contemporaneous evidence establishes that it was actually posted.
The late production of a document that Horizon's data protection team previously failed to identify would not, by itself, prove that the document was printed, posted or given within the statutory period.
Horizon's failure to locate even the reminder shows either serious administrative incompetence or a lack of care over whether its data processing and enforcement activities comply with the law. Its unsupported internal assertions must therefore be treated with particular caution.
The defective Subject Access Request response corroborates my evidence that no original Notice to Keeper was received and materially undermines any unsupported assertion that one was posted.
3. Horizon has not proved that it had landowner authority
Even if Horizon could establish keeper liability, which is denied, it must independently prove that it had sufficient legal authority to operate at this particular Tesco car park and to issue the charge in question.
The existence of Horizon signs or ANPR cameras at the site does not prove landowner authority.
At most, the physical presence of signs demonstrates that somebody installed them. It does not establish:
who owns the land;
who authorised their installation;
whether the person granting authority possessed the necessary rights;
the geographical extent of any authority;
the restrictions and exemptions imposed upon Horizon;
whether the agreement remained in force on the material date; or
whether Horizon was authorised to pursue charges in its own name.
It would be circular to conclude that Horizon must have authority merely because it is physically operating at the location. The very issue requiring proof is whether that operation was legally authorised and whether Horizon acted within the scope of that authority.
POPLA must determine this issue from evidence, not from an assumption that an operator displaying signs must necessarily have permission to do everything asserted on those signs. Physical occupation or activity is not proof of contractual standing.
Horizon is put to strict proof by producing a contemporaneous and properly executed agreement with the landowner or with a party possessing sufficient authority to confer the relevant rights. That evidence must establish:
the identity of the landowner and contracting parties;
that the party appointing Horizon possessed authority over the land;
the precise land and boundaries covered;
that the agreement was in force on 22 May 2026;
the maximum parking period Horizon was authorised to enforce;
any restrictions, exemptions or cancellation provisions;
Horizon's authority to install and use ANPR equipment;
Horizon's authority to offer parking contracts in its own name;
Horizon's authority to issue and recover parking charges; and
Horizon's authority to pursue those charges through POPLA and the courts.
A generic witness statement, site-management letter or contract extract that omits the parties, dates, boundaries, restrictions or relevant enforcement provisions would not establish the necessary authority. Nor would evidence of a commercial relationship with Tesco prove that the contracting party owned the land or possessed authority to confer the rights claimed.
Commercially sensitive financial information may be redacted. However, Horizon must not redact the provisions necessary to establish the identity and authority of the parties, the site boundaries, the duration of the agreement or the scope of Horizon's enforcement rights.
The burden rests upon Horizon to prove its standing. It cannot discharge that burden merely by pointing to its own signs.
4. The ANPR timestamps do not establish the alleged period of parking
Horizon's cameras record the vehicle passing entry and exit points. They do not record:
when the vehicle was parked;
how long it took to locate a space;
when any parking contract was allegedly accepted;
when the vehicle left its parking space; or
how long it took to navigate from the parking space to the exit camera.
Horizon apparently calculates an alleged overstay of 11 minutes and 53 seconds by treating the entire interval between two ANPR images as a period of parking. That conclusion is not established by the images.
The applicable Code requires a grace period at the end of an otherwise permitted time-limited parking event. The minimum grace period ordinarily applicable to a time-limited car park is 10 minutes. The alleged excess beyond that minimum is therefore only 1 minute and 53 seconds.
Horizon must demonstrate that it distinguished between:
the time taken after entry to navigate the site and locate a space;
the actual period during which the vehicle was parked;
the permitted parking period;
the applicable grace period; and
the time taken to leave the space, navigate the car park and pass the exit camera.
The event occurred late at night. Horizon must account for the actual site layout and conditions, including the route from the parking spaces to the exit, internal junctions, pedestrian movements, other traffic and the position of the ANPR camera.
A difference of 1 minute and 53 seconds beyond the minimum grace period is entirely capable of representing ordinary departure time rather than continued parking. Horizon cannot convert every moment spent somewhere within the site boundary into a period of parking merely by labelling the ANPR interval a "duration of stay".
Unless Horizon establishes the actual period of parking and demonstrates that the applicable consideration and grace periods were properly applied, it has not proved that a contravention occurred.
5. Horizon has not proved that the contractual terms were adequately displayed at night
The alleged event occurred at night, between approximately 22:45 and 23:57. Horizon must therefore establish that the relevant terms were prominent, legible and adequately illuminated under the conditions existing at that time.
Daylight photographs, undated photographs or close-up images taken with artificial lighting, camera flash or enhanced exposure would not establish what a driver could reasonably see at the material time.
Horizon is put to strict proof by producing:
a contemporaneous site plan showing every entrance, ANPR camera and material sign;
photographs showing the driver's approach through the entrance;
photographs showing the signs from a driver's normal viewing position;
evidence of the actual lighting conditions at approximately 22:45;
evidence that the entrance sign was illuminated or otherwise legible after dark;
the location of the sign stating the maximum parking period;
the size and prominence of the principal contractual terms and parking charge;
the route the vehicle would have taken through the site; and
evidence that the relevant terms were visible before any contract was allegedly formed.
Isolated close-up photographs of signs do not establish where the signs were positioned, whether they were illuminated or whether their terms could be seen and read from the route taken by the driver.
Unless Horizon proves that the maximum stay and parking charge were adequately brought to the driver's attention in the prevailing nighttime conditions, it cannot establish that the driver agreed to those terms.
Conclusion
The driver has not been identified. Horizon can therefore recover the charge from me only if it proves that every applicable condition of Schedule 4 was satisfied.
The only notice received was a Keeper Reminder Notification issued 40 days after the event. Horizon has produced no original Notice to Keeper and no contemporaneous evidence that one was posted. Its own defective response to the Subject Access Request identified no such document and failed to identify even the reminder that unquestionably exists.
If Horizon cannot establish that a compliant Notice to Keeper was given within 14 days, the keeper cannot be liable and the appeal must be allowed on that ground alone.
Independently, Horizon must prove its landowner authority by evidence rather than by reference to the mere existence of its own signs. It must also prove the actual period of parking, the proper application of the required grace period and the adequacy of its signage under the nighttime conditions.
Horizon bears the burden of establishing its case. Any evidential omission must be resolved against the party asserting the right to recover the charge, not against a keeper whom PoFA protects unless its mandatory conditions have been satisfied.
@b789 thank you for the welcome, and thank you so much for your comprehensive reply. I am glad to read I have been thinking along the lines you have discussed (and not going mad!)
I was honestly expecting a copy of an earlier NTK with the SAR response at least; to have received what I did left me with a similar overriding impression to your comments about their record-keeping and processes. An organisation I used to work for came up short a few years ago when solicitors acting for a claimant requested the document properties of files. I was thinking along similar lines myself.
I am reassured you think there are points to be made with POPLA about the fact they’ve been unable to produce the original NTK when I’ve challenged them about it on multiple occasions.
I have read some accounts of POPLA decisions that haven’t filled me with confidence, but thank you for managing my expectations.
You are absolutely right about the signage. I found it, quite honestly, silly that in their first reply to me they sent a photo of one sign in the car park that was clearly taken during daylight hours!
For reasons unknown they have also departed from the BPA Code’s recommended light background with dark font on the signage.They’ve adopted the reverse! The old signs, which you can see photos of on Google Maps street view from 2021/2022, were in line with the BPA Code. Horizon’s at this car park are a a dark blue background with white font. At night, and especially if it’s raining, without artificial lighting that is going to be a tall order to read.
Not only that, I was chuckling away when my mother’s photo of the entrance sign came through. It clearly shows the entrance sign to the car park is underneath a tree! It’s a large enough tree to cast a decent shadow, and I can’t see how it could be kept free from foliage, as the BPA Code states, all the time.
My plan is to go and photograph the entrance and other signs around the same time of night - without flash - and some dashcam footage of the entrance sign as you drive around the roundabout.
The entrance sign is something a driver will only see as they’re driving around the roundabout, to enter the carpark, or driving past coming from another entrance to the roundabout when leaving the retail park. It’s one of those road layouts where you have a pedestrian crossing immediately ahead of the roundabout as you drive into Tesco’s car park. You can just about see the crossing in the ANPR timestamps they have sent in the letter, which I did point out in my appeal.
Not the sort of place you would be diverting your gaze away from the road ahead, to read an entrance sign.
! The fact they have now confirmed in writing they only have emails with my name and address from emails 
