04-22-2026, 07:40 AM
Its been a while but finally heard back from POPLA this morning.
Decision
Successful
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to pay or register for parking.
Assessor summary of your case
I can see the appellant raised multiple grounds of appeals. However, for this decision, I will focus my decision on this point: • The operator has not proven the vehicle was parked on land subject to Horizon Parking contractual terms.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I have allowed this appeal for the following reason: By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the operator asserts that the vehicle was not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site. In appeals of this nature, the evidential burden rests with the operator to provide clear and sufficient evidence that the PCN was issued correctly. Having carefully considered the appellant’s grounds of appeal and the several images they provided in support of their appeal, alongside the operator’s evidence pack, I note that the PCN was issued on the basis that the driver did not make payment for parking or register their vehicle within the Premier Inn car park. However, the photographic evidence provided by the operator does not clearly demonstrate that the appellant’s vehicle was parked within the Premier Inn car park itself. While the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images show the vehicle passing a monitored point, I note that the positioning of the cameras could also capture vehicles driving past the site or accessing adjacent parking areas that are not controlled by the operator. The appellant has provided a route image indicating where the vehicle was driven and ultimately parked. This supports the possibility that vehicles may be recorded by the operator’s ANPR system without actually parking within the Premier Inn car park. I would expect the operator to provide additional evidence—such as further camera coverage or site-specific images—to clearly distinguish between vehicles parking within the controlled area and those accessing nearby, uncontrolled bays. In this case, such evidence has not been provided. The operator’s evidence appears to rely on a single ANPR capture point, which records all vehicles passing that location. This does not conclusively establish that the appellant’s vehicle was parked within the relevant car park, particularly where there are alternative parking areas in close proximity. In the absence of clear and compelling evidence demonstrating that the appellant’s vehicle was parked within the Premier Inn car park, I am not satisfied that a breach of the terms and conditions has been established. It is the operator’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to support the issuance of a PCN, and in this instance, the evidence does not adequately demonstrate that the vehicle was liable for the charge. Furthermore, the operator has not sufficiently rebutted the appellant’s assertion that the vehicle was parked in the Charles & Wensum House permit holders’ area, as claimed. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly.
@b789 From your initial assistance 'elsewhere' to your continued help on this fantastic forum, you are a true hero of the internet. Helping others in the way you do is humbling to say the least. Thank you so so much!
@
Decision
Successful
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to pay or register for parking.
Assessor summary of your case
I can see the appellant raised multiple grounds of appeals. However, for this decision, I will focus my decision on this point: • The operator has not proven the vehicle was parked on land subject to Horizon Parking contractual terms.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I have allowed this appeal for the following reason: By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the operator asserts that the vehicle was not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of the site. In appeals of this nature, the evidential burden rests with the operator to provide clear and sufficient evidence that the PCN was issued correctly. Having carefully considered the appellant’s grounds of appeal and the several images they provided in support of their appeal, alongside the operator’s evidence pack, I note that the PCN was issued on the basis that the driver did not make payment for parking or register their vehicle within the Premier Inn car park. However, the photographic evidence provided by the operator does not clearly demonstrate that the appellant’s vehicle was parked within the Premier Inn car park itself. While the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images show the vehicle passing a monitored point, I note that the positioning of the cameras could also capture vehicles driving past the site or accessing adjacent parking areas that are not controlled by the operator. The appellant has provided a route image indicating where the vehicle was driven and ultimately parked. This supports the possibility that vehicles may be recorded by the operator’s ANPR system without actually parking within the Premier Inn car park. I would expect the operator to provide additional evidence—such as further camera coverage or site-specific images—to clearly distinguish between vehicles parking within the controlled area and those accessing nearby, uncontrolled bays. In this case, such evidence has not been provided. The operator’s evidence appears to rely on a single ANPR capture point, which records all vehicles passing that location. This does not conclusively establish that the appellant’s vehicle was parked within the relevant car park, particularly where there are alternative parking areas in close proximity. In the absence of clear and compelling evidence demonstrating that the appellant’s vehicle was parked within the Premier Inn car park, I am not satisfied that a breach of the terms and conditions has been established. It is the operator’s responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to support the issuance of a PCN, and in this instance, the evidence does not adequately demonstrate that the vehicle was liable for the charge. Furthermore, the operator has not sufficiently rebutted the appellant’s assertion that the vehicle was parked in the Charles & Wensum House permit holders’ area, as claimed. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the PCN has been issued correctly.
@b789 From your initial assistance 'elsewhere' to your continued help on this fantastic forum, you are a true hero of the internet. Helping others in the way you do is humbling to say the least. Thank you so so much!
@
