ANPR - Horizon Parking - Hotel Nelson Norwich

[candlestick]

Hi, I Got this from Horizon Parking.




[img]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/v5exx9r2osi7wiyzixx7m/Horizon5.jpeg?rlkey=w57nb0p4ghfxqoru3hriahjj5&st=bivzx1lm&raw=1[/img]









TTThis was my appeal to them

I am the registered keeper. I dispute your parking charge and I am not identifying the driver.

This PCN has been issued for the wrong area and your ANPR images do not prove where the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was parked in the Charles & Wensum House car park, which is clearly signed as permit holders only via the on-site directional signage. In that permit-holder area there are no Horizon contractual terms and no pay or registration instructions. The only sign present there is a legacy clamping warning, which is plainly not your ANPR pay/registration regime.

If the area is permit holders only, there is no contractual offer to non-permit holders and no driver could be contractually bound to pay a parking charge. At most, parking without a permit would be trespass, which only the landowner can pursue and only for nominal loss. You are not the landowner and there was no loss.

Cancel the charge, or provide the following strict proof so the keeper can understand your case.

1. A contemporaneous site plan and boundary map showing that Charles & Wensum House car park is within your enforcement area for this site.
2. A copy of the landowner contract confirming you are authorised to operate and enforce in that specific permit-holder area.
3. Photographs of the signage within Charles & Wensum House car park that you say created any obligation to pay or register, taken from the driver’s route and from the parked location.

If you reject, you must issue a POPLA code.

They rejected with 

Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the above-referenced Parking Charge.
 
Review of your Appeal
 
The Parking Charge was issued lawfully and in full and proper accordance with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice issued by the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’).
 
There are signs located at the entrance to, and within the car park, that state the terms and conditions that apply when parking. 
 
As clearly stipulated on signage within the car park, payment or registration for parking must be made for the full duration of the vehicles stay.  Our systems do not show any evidence of payment or registration made against this vehicle on the incident date.
 
The signs throughout the car park are clear and comply fully with the BPA’s prescribed rules and regulations.  When parking on private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park concerned.
 
As we have not been provided with the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. We have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this charge.
 
Please note that your vehicle was found to be parked in the designated Premier Inn area of the car park instead of the permit parking area which is situated before our camera capture zone. 
 
If parking cannot be made without breaching the terms and conditions of the car park, alternative parking arrangements must be sought or motorists will be issued with a Parking Charge as per the car park terms stated on the signage on site.
 
Given the above, and whilst we have considered your representations carefully, on this occasion your appeal has been rejected.
 
 
The Charge Amount and Methods of Payment
 
In good faith, Horizon will hold the charge at the current amount of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence to allow you further time to pay.
 
Payment of the outstanding charge can be made using our 24-hour payment line: 020 8106 0789 or online at Horizon Parking Portal 
 
Alternatively, payment can be made via cheque made payable to Horizon Parking Ltd and posted to Horizon Parking Ltd, Finitor House, 2 Hanbury Road, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 3AE.
 
Additional Types of Appeal
 
If you have no evidence that you wish to submit to us, then you have now reached the end of our appeals procedure.  Although we have rejected your appeal, the Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA) provides an independent appeals service. To use this service, you must appeal to POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.
 
For full instructions on how to appeal to POPLA, please visit their website at www.popla.co.uk. If you would rather progress this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.
 
Your POPLA reference number is XXXXXXXXXX
 
Please be advised that if you elect for independent arbitration of your case, you will be required to pay the charge at the full amount and, as such, will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. Please also be advised that POPLA will not accept an appeal where payment is made against the Parking Charge in question.
 
We are required by law to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal; however, Horizon has not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such, should you wish to appeal, then you must do so to POPLA as explained above.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Appeals Department
Horizon Parking Limited

[candlestick]

---

@b789 I know you very kindly helped elsewhere so really keen to get your advice

---

Before I found you here I drafted this POPLA response

Does this look ok for the popla appeal?

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this charge as keeper only. I am not identifying the driver and no inference may be drawn as to the identity of the driver.

This appeal is based on the following grounds.


1. The ANPR evidence does not demonstrate that the vehicle was parked on land subject to Horizon Parking contractual terms

The operator relies solely upon ANPR images showing entry and exit to a large mixed-use site. ANPR cameras record vehicles crossing a boundary but do not demonstrate the location where a vehicle was parked.

The site contains multiple distinct parking areas with separate directional signage and physical separation between areas. The vehicle was parked in a smaller side parking area separate from the main Premier Inn and restaurant customer parking area.

The operator has produced no evidence that Horizon Parking contractual terms applied to this smaller parking section. The operator is therefore put to strict proof of the exact parking location and confirmation that the area falls within the land covered by any Horizon Parking contract.


2. Inadequate and non-compliant signage at the parking location

The vehicle was parked within a smaller side section of the site where no Horizon tariff signage, payment instructions, or contractual terms are visible.

The only tariff signage relied upon by the operator is positioned within the main customer parking area serving the Premier Inn and restaurant. Drivers using the smaller side section are directed away from this signage by directional signs.

Upon exiting the smaller parking section, drivers do not pass any tariff signage or payment instruction boards before leaving the site. This confirms that the terms relied upon by the operator were not brought to the attention of the driver.

The BPA Code of Practice requires that parking terms must be clearly displayed and capable of being read before parking occurs. The operator has failed to meet this requirement.

3. The site contains separate parking zones which create ambiguity and fail the test of clear contractual offer

Directional signage within the site clearly separates:

• Hotel guest parking
• Charles & Wensum House permit holder parking

The presence of clearly marked permit holder only parking demonstrates that the site is not a single uniform parking area but instead contains separate zones with different restrictions.

The vehicle was parked in a smaller section physically separated from the main customer parking area. The operator has not demonstrated that the tariff signage relating to hotel and restaurant customers applies to this separate parking section.

Where signage creates ambiguity or multiple possible interpretations, contract law requires that such ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the consumer.


4. A permit holder designated area cannot form a contractual parking charge

The smaller parking section is associated with signage identifying parking for permit holders only. Parking is therefore not offered to non-permit holders as a contractual offer but instead indicates restricted land use.

Where parking is not offered on contractual terms, no contract can be formed. Any alleged unauthorised parking would amount only to trespass, which can only be pursued by the landowner and not by a parking management company unless landowner authority is proven.

The operator has not produced any evidence of landowner authority covering this specific section of land.


5. The operator has failed to demonstrate landowner authority for the specific parking area

The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to hold written authorisation from the landowner for the land they enforce.

The operator is put to strict proof by producing:

• A contemporaneous landowner agreement
• A site boundary map clearly identifying the enforcement area
• Evidence that the smaller side parking section forms part of the area covered by the Horizon Parking agreement


6. ANPR evidence fails to demonstrate actual parking time or compliance with mandatory grace periods

The operator alleges the vehicle remained on site between 14:10 and 18:08. ANPR captures boundary entry and exit times only and does not demonstrate actual parking duration.

The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to allow:

• Reasonable time to enter, locate parking and read signage
• A minimum ten minute grace period at the end of parking

The operator has not demonstrated that these mandatory grace periods were applied.

Conclusion

The operator has failed to demonstrate:

• That the vehicle was parked within land governed by Horizon Parking contractual terms
• That adequate signage existed at the parking location
• That a clear parking contract was formed
• That Horizon Parking holds authority for the specific parking area
• That ANPR evidence accounts for grace periods

For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct Horizon Parking Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

[b789]

Before I go on, I want to clarify whether those are your evidential photos or theirs?

[b789]

Your proposed POPLA appeal is broadly on the right lines, but it is doing more work than necessary and it contains a couple of weaknesses that Horizon will try to exploit. POPLA assessors skim. You want a tight appeal that forces Horizon to prove facts they cannot prove, not one that gives them multiple angles to wriggle.

Below is a refined POPLA appeal that keeps your core arguments, removes anything that weakens the case, and directly counters Horizon’s rejection. It assumes Keeper-only, no driver identification, and relies on your contemporaneous photos and mapped route without over-explaining.

You can safely replace what you drafted with this.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am appealing as keeper only. I am not identifying the driver and no inference may be drawn.


1. The operator has not proven the vehicle was parked on land subject to Horizon Parking contractual terms

The operator relies solely on ANPR images showing vehicle entry and exit past cameras. ANPR evidence does not demonstrate where a vehicle was parked, nor does it establish that the vehicle was parked in an area governed by Horizon Parking’s contractual terms.

This site is not a single uniform car park. It contains multiple distinct parking areas, clearly separated by on-site directional signage. One area is customer/guest parking for Premier Inn and associated businesses. Another area is clearly identified as “Charles & Wensum House – permit holders only”.

The vehicle was parked in the Charles & Wensum House permit-holder area. The operator has produced no evidence that this area falls within Horizon Parking’s enforcement boundary or contractual remit.

The operator is put to strict proof of the exact location where the vehicle was parked and evidence that this specific area is subject to Horizon Parking’s terms.


2. No Horizon contractual signage at the parking location

At the location where the vehicle was parked, there are no Horizon Parking signs, no tariff boards, no payment instructions, and no contractual terms.

The only sign present in that area is a legacy sign referring to clamping of unauthorised vehicles. This is plainly not Horizon Parking contractual signage and is inconsistent with an ANPR pay or registration scheme.

Any Horizon tariff signage relied upon by the operator is located in a different area of the site serving Premier Inn and restaurant customers. Drivers entering the permit-holder area are directed away from that signage by the site’s own directional signs.

The operator has failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were displayed at the location where the vehicle was parked.


3. A permit-holder-only area cannot give rise to a contractual parking charge

The area where the vehicle was parked is signed as “permit holders only”. Parking is not offered to non-permit holders on contractual terms.

Where parking is not offered, no contract can be formed. A non-permit holder cannot accept terms that are not offered to them.

At most, parking without a permit could amount to trespass. Trespass can only be pursued by the landowner and only for nominal loss. Horizon Parking is not the landowner and has no standing to pursue trespass. No loss has been evidenced.

The operator cannot convert an alleged trespass into a contractual parking charge.


4. Failure to prove landowner authority for this specific area

The operator has not produced any evidence of landowner authority covering the Charles & Wensum House permit-holder parking area.

The operator is put to strict proof by providing:

• a contemporaneous landowner agreement, and
  
• a site boundary plan showing that this permit-holder area is included within Horizon Parking’s enforcement area.
  

Without this evidence, the operator has no authority to issue or pursue parking charges in this location.


5. ANPR does not evidence parking duration or contractual compliance

The operator alleges a period “on site” based on ANPR timestamps. These timestamps record only boundary movements and do not evidence actual parking time or location.

Given the site layout and multiple parking zones, ANPR evidence alone is incapable of establishing a breach of any parking terms.

Conclusion
The operator has failed to demonstrate that:

• the vehicle was parked on land subject to Horizon Parking’s contractual terms,
  
• any contractual signage existed at the parking location,
  
• a contract was capable of being formed in a permit-holder-only area, or
  
• Horizon Parking holds authority to operate in that specific location.
  

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

Two practical notes:

1. First, make sure your own photos are submitted. Keep the originals and extract the EXIF metadata showing date and time. A simple screenshot of the metadata is sufficient. This directly undermines any suggestion the photos are historic or irrelevant.
   
2. Second, include the annotated Google Street View map showing the route taken and the exact parking location. POPLA assessors find visual route evidence persuasive, especially where the operator is asserting the vehicle was in a different area without proof.
   

This is a stronger POPLA appeal. Horizon’s rejection letter is generic and evidentially weak, and their assertion about “designated Premier Inn area” is unsupported.

[candlestick]

Before I go on, I want to clarify whether those are your evidential photos or theirs?

Hey b789! Thank god I found you again. They are mine

---

Your proposed POPLA appeal is broadly on the right lines, but it is doing more work than necessary and it contains a couple of weaknesses that Horizon will try to exploit. POPLA assessors skim. You want a tight appeal that forces Horizon to prove facts they cannot prove, not one that gives them multiple angles to wriggle.

Below is a refined POPLA appeal that keeps your core arguments, removes anything that weakens the case, and directly counters Horizon’s rejection. It assumes Keeper-only, no driver identification, and relies on your contemporaneous photos and mapped route without over-explaining.

You can safely replace what you drafted with this.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am appealing as keeper only. I am not identifying the driver and no inference may be drawn.


1. The operator has not proven the vehicle was parked on land subject to Horizon Parking contractual terms

The operator relies solely on ANPR images showing vehicle entry and exit past cameras. ANPR evidence does not demonstrate where a vehicle was parked, nor does it establish that the vehicle was parked in an area governed by Horizon Parking’s contractual terms.

This site is not a single uniform car park. It contains multiple distinct parking areas, clearly separated by on-site directional signage. One area is customer/guest parking for Premier Inn and associated businesses. Another area is clearly identified as “Charles & Wensum House – permit holders only”.

The vehicle was parked in the Charles & Wensum House permit-holder area. The operator has produced no evidence that this area falls within Horizon Parking’s enforcement boundary or contractual remit.

The operator is put to strict proof of the exact location where the vehicle was parked and evidence that this specific area is subject to Horizon Parking’s terms.


2. No Horizon contractual signage at the parking location

At the location where the vehicle was parked, there are no Horizon Parking signs, no tariff boards, no payment instructions, and no contractual terms.

The only sign present in that area is a legacy sign referring to clamping of unauthorised vehicles. This is plainly not Horizon Parking contractual signage and is inconsistent with an ANPR pay or registration scheme.

Any Horizon tariff signage relied upon by the operator is located in a different area of the site serving Premier Inn and restaurant customers. Drivers entering the permit-holder area are directed away from that signage by the site’s own directional signs.

The operator has failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were displayed at the location where the vehicle was parked.


3. A permit-holder-only area cannot give rise to a contractual parking charge

The area where the vehicle was parked is signed as “permit holders only”. Parking is not offered to non-permit holders on contractual terms.

Where parking is not offered, no contract can be formed. A non-permit holder cannot accept terms that are not offered to them.

At most, parking without a permit could amount to trespass. Trespass can only be pursued by the landowner and only for nominal loss. Horizon Parking is not the landowner and has no standing to pursue trespass. No loss has been evidenced.

The operator cannot convert an alleged trespass into a contractual parking charge.


4. Failure to prove landowner authority for this specific area

The operator has not produced any evidence of landowner authority covering the Charles & Wensum House permit-holder parking area.

The operator is put to strict proof by providing:

• a contemporaneous landowner agreement, and
  
• a site boundary plan showing that this permit-holder area is included within Horizon Parking’s enforcement area.
  

Without this evidence, the operator has no authority to issue or pursue parking charges in this location.


5. ANPR does not evidence parking duration or contractual compliance

The operator alleges a period “on site” based on ANPR timestamps. These timestamps record only boundary movements and do not evidence actual parking time or location.

Given the site layout and multiple parking zones, ANPR evidence alone is incapable of establishing a breach of any parking terms.

Conclusion
The operator has failed to demonstrate that:

• the vehicle was parked on land subject to Horizon Parking’s contractual terms,
  
• any contractual signage existed at the parking location,
  
• a contract was capable of being formed in a permit-holder-only area, or
  
• Horizon Parking holds authority to operate in that specific location.
  

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

Two practical notes:

1. First, make sure your own photos are submitted. Keep the originals and extract the EXIF metadata showing date and time. A simple screenshot of the metadata is sufficient. This directly undermines any suggestion the photos are historic or irrelevant.
   
2. Second, include the annotated Google Street View map showing the route taken and the exact parking location. POPLA assessors find visual route evidence persuasive, especially where the operator is asserting the vehicle was in a different area without proof.
   

This is a stronger POPLA appeal. Horizon’s rejection letter is generic and evidentially weak, and their assertion about “designated Premier Inn area” is unsupported.

All makes complete sense. Thanks so so much. Will let you know how it goes

[candlestick]

Hey! Here is their evidence on the POPLA appeal.

The appellant has stated they were parked in another car park, by the name of
Charles & Wensum House car park. In response to this, the images shown in Section
C show the vehicle entering and exiting the Premier Inn private land.



The above image has been taken from Google maps are shows the road markings
visible in the images taken of the vehicle on the day.

The image of the signs stating “Charles & Wensum House car park” pointing to the
left that the appellant has provided is known on site and is set before the area where
the vehicle was captured. The sign in question points to the left for Charles &Wensum House car park because the car park for Charles & Wensum House car park is on the left before entering Premier Inn’s car park.



Highlighted in blue is the Charles & Wensum House car park and highlighted in green
is the entrance to the Premier Inn car park. Because the vehicle was captured by our
cameras at the entrance to Premier Inn, it is clear the vehicle entered the Premier
Inn car park. If they had used the Charles & Wensum House car park, the vehicle
would not have been captured by our cameras at all.

Horizon Parking Limited has the authority of the legal occupier of the land to provide
parking management services in accordance with the stated terms and conditions of
parking. This is evidenced simply by the existence of Horizon’s equipment being on
the legal occupier’s land. Such equipment could not be on the land without the
consent of the legal occupier. Regardless of these facts, it is settled law that only a
third party with a higher proprietary interest in the land can challenge Horizon’s
authority to act. In absence of such higher proprietary interest, Horizon is under
neither a duty nor obligation to disclose commercial documents between Horizon
and its clients.

All signs state all the specific parking terms and parking charges in the event of a
breach. In accordance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, all
signage on site is conspicuous, legible and written in intelligible language. Please see
below in Section E timed and date stamped images of signs and the signage location
plan.

Our position remains that this Parking Charge was issued correctly. We maintain the
appellant entered a valid contract and should pay the valid parking charges as per
the signage on the site.

________________________________________________

It impossible to turn left into the Charles and Wensum car park as that entrance is now blocked as is clearly shown in my evidence.

[b789]

You can rebut their obvious attempt to obfuscate your appeal and the clear evidence you provided that shows the only accessible route to the Charles & Wensum parking lot is through their ANPR gate. They are clearly lying when they claim that the sign that says you can turn left before the sign into the Charles & Wensum parking lot.

Use the following as the rebuttal to their mendacious evidence and the fact that the have not even provided any proof of standing to issue PCNs for any alleged contravention in the Charles & Wensum parking lot:

I am the registered keeper. This is my formal rebuttal to the operator’s evidence pack.

The operator’s case collapses on a single false premise: that the Charles & Wensum House parking area is located before the ANPR capture point and therefore would not have been captured by their cameras.

That assertion is demonstrably untrue.


1. The operator has misrepresented the site layout


The operator states that the Charles & Wensum House car park is “on the left before entering Premier Inn’s car park” and that if the vehicle had used that area, it would not have been captured by the ANPR system.

This is incorrect.

The Google Street View image submitted by the appellant clearly shows that the only accessible vehicular route to the Charles & Wensum House parking area is through the ANPR capture point and then turning left.

There is no accessible vehicular left turn prior to the ANPR cameras. The route the operator implies exists is physically blocked by fencing and by parked vehicles. It is not a usable access road.

The operator’s own aerial signage plan does not show any separate pre-camera access route. It simply asserts one exists without evidencing it.

The ANPR capture is therefore entirely consistent with the vehicle entering the Wensum parking area. The operator’s assertion that camera capture proves use of the Premier Inn area is false.


2. The operator has not proven the vehicle’s parking location


ANPR images show only entry and exit timestamps. They do not show the vehicle parked anywhere.

The operator has not produced:

- A photograph of the vehicle parked in the Premier Inn customer bays.
- Any CCTV image showing the vehicle within a specific parking bay.
- Any marked bay reference tied to a site boundary plan.

They simply state that because the vehicle was captured by ANPR, it must have used the Premier Inn area.

That is not evidence. It is assumption.


3. The operator has ignored the appellant’s photographic route evidence


The appellant submitted:

- A marked Google Street View aerial image showing the precise route taken.
- A highlighted parking location within the Wensum area.
- Photographs demonstrating the physical layout.

The operator has not addressed this evidence. Instead, they have relied on a cropped Google aerial image and a narrative description which does not reflect the physical reality of the site.

The difference between the operator’s image and the appellant’s image is material. The appellant’s image shows the actual access route. The operator’s image is selective and does not show any drivable pre-camera route to the Wensum area.

This omission is significant.


4. No evidence that Horizon contractual terms apply in the Wensum area


The operator has provided:

- A generic signage location plan.
- Photographs of tariff boards within the Premier Inn customer parking area.

They have not provided:

- A photograph of any Horizon contractual signage within the Charles & Wensum House parking area.
- A boundary plan showing that the Wensum area falls within their enforcement zone.
- Any document demonstrating that Horizon’s ANPR contract includes the Wensum parking area.

The absence of such evidence is fatal to their case.


5. The operator has failed to prove standing


The appellant expressly required strict proof of landowner authority/standing covering the Wensum parking area.

The operator has not provided a contract.

Instead, they assert that the mere presence of signage and equipment proves authority and that they are under no obligation to disclose documents.

That is not proof of standing.

The existence of equipment does not establish:

- The identity of the landowner.
- The boundaries of the land covered.
- That Horizon is authorised to pursue charges in that specific area.
- That Horizon has authority to litigate in its own name.

A bare assertion of authority is not evidence.

The burden of proof rests with the operator. They have failed to discharge it.


6. A permit-holder-only area cannot create a contractual charge


The Charles & Wensum House parking area is signed as permit holders only.

That is not an offer of parking to the public. It is a restriction.

Where no contractual offer is made to non-permit holders, no contract can be formed. At most, an alleged unauthorised parking event would amount to trespass.

Trespass is actionable only by a party with sufficient proprietary interest. The operator has produced no evidence of such interest.

Conclusion

The operator’s evidence relies on a demonstrably incorrect description of the site layout.

They have:

- Mischaracterised the access route.
- Failed to prove the parking location.
- Failed to rebut the appellant’s route evidence.
- Failed to produce any boundary plan including the Wensum area.
- Failed to produce any landowner contract.
- Failed to show Horizon signage in the Wensum parking area.

Their case rests on assertion, not proof.

The operator has not discharged the burden required to establish contractual liability or keeper liability.

The appeal must be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

Just copy and paste that into the POPLA response webform.

[b789]

@candlestick, based on your PM to me confirming that Chou have contacted POPLA and that they have your full appeal, if you have not yet submitted the response to Horizons evidence pack, here is a revised response that you can submit:

I am the registered keeper. This is my rebuttal to the operator’s evidence pack.

Preliminary matter – Omission of Appellant’s Evidence

POPLA has confirmed that it holds the full appeal submission and all supporting evidence provided by the appellant.

The operator’s evidence pack asserts “No evidence provided” and reproduces only a truncated version of the appeal. That is incorrect. The appellant submitted a marked Google Street View aerial image showing the precise route taken, photographs of the location, and evidence identifying the exact parking position within the Charles & Wensum House area.

The operator has chosen not to engage with that evidence and has instead presented a reduced summary of the appeal as though no supporting material existed. The assessor is invited to note that the full evidential record is before POPLA, notwithstanding the operator’s omission.

1. The operator’s description of the site layout is incorrect

The operator states that the Charles & Wensum House car park is situated before the ANPR capture point and that if the vehicle had used that area, it would not have been captured by camera.
This is factually wrong.

The appellant’s submitted aerial image clearly demonstrates that the only vehicular access to the Charles & Wensum House parking area is via the ANPR capture point and then turning left. There is no drivable left turn before the camera. The supposed route implied by the operator is physically blocked and not accessible to vehicles.

The operator’s assertion that ANPR capture proves use of the Premier Inn customer parking area is therefore demonstrably incorrect.

2. ANPR capture does not prove parking location

The operator has produced entry and exit timestamps only. These show boundary crossing, not the place where the vehicle was parked.

No image has been produced of the vehicle parked in any Premier Inn bay. No CCTV image, no bay reference, and no location-specific evidence has been provided.

The operator’s case rests on assumption rather than proof.

3. Failure to address the Appellant’s route and location evidence

The appellant provided:

- A marked Google Street View aerial showing the route taken.
- A highlighted parking location within the Charles & Wensum House area.
- Photographs demonstrating the physical layout and separation of zones.

The operator has not engaged with that evidence at all. Instead, they rely on a selective aerial image and narrative description which does not reflect the physical reality of the site.

The contrast between the operator’s simplified aerial plan and the appellant’s marked route image is material. The appellant’s evidence shows the actual drivable route. The operator’s version omits that context.

3. No proof that Horizon contractual terms apply in the Charles & Wensum House area

The operator has produced signage photographs from the Premier Inn customer parking area and a generic signage location plan.

They have not produced:

- Any photograph of Horizon contractual signage within the Charles & Wensum House parking area.
- Any boundary plan clearly including that area within Horizon’s enforcement zone.
- Any evidence that Horizon’s ANPR scheme applies to that permit-holder-only section.

The burden rests on the operator. They have not shown that Horizon contractual terms were displayed or applicable at the location where the vehicle was parked.

4. Failure to prove standing

The appellant expressly required strict proof of landowner authority covering the Charles & Wensum House area.

The operator has provided no contract and no redacted landowner agreement. Instead, they assert that the presence of equipment proves authority and that they are under no obligation to disclose commercial documents.

That is not evidence of standing.

The existence of signage or cameras does not establish the identity of the landowner, the boundaries covered, or the operator’s right to pursue charges in that specific section of land.

The operator has therefore failed to demonstrate that it has authority in relation to the Charles & Wensum House parking area.

5. Permit-holder-only area cannot create contractual liability

The Charles & Wensum House area is signed as permit holders only. That is a restriction, not an offer of parking to non-permit holders.

Where no contractual offer is made to the public, no contract can be formed. At most, any alleged unauthorised parking would be a matter of trespass.

Trespass is actionable only by a party with sufficient proprietary interest. The operator has not demonstrated such interest.

Conclusion

The operator’s case depends on a demonstrably incorrect description of the site layout and an unsupported assumption that ANPR capture proves use of the Premier Inn customer parking area.
They have:

- Omitted the appellant’s route and photographic evidence from their pack.
- Failed to rebut the appellant’s marked aerial route evidence.
- Failed to prove the parking location.
- Failed to show Horizon signage within the Charles & Wensum House area.
- Failed to produce any evidence of landowner authority covering that area.

The operator has not discharged the burden of proof required to establish contractual liability or keeper liability.

The appeal should be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled

[b789]

Just for the record here, this is what Horizon have stated in their Operators Evidence Response Pack:

Horizon response to appeal and appellants contention


Parking Charge: HP1234567

Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the above-referenced Parking Charge.

Review of your Appeal

The Parking Charge was issued lawfully and in full and proper accordance with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice issued by the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’).There are signs located at the entrance to, and within the car park, that state the terms and conditions that apply when parking.

As clearly stipulated on signage within the car park, payment or registration for parking must be made for the full duration of the vehicles stay. Our systems do not show any evidence of payment or registration made against this vehicle on the incident date.

The signs throughout the car park are clear and comply fully with the BPA’s prescribed rules and regulations. When parking on private land, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of the car park concerned.

As we have not been provided with the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we do have the right, subject to meeting the requirements of the Act, to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount that remains outstanding. We have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this charge.

Please note that your vehicle was found to be parked in the designated Premier Inn area of the car park instead of the permit parking area which is situated before our camera capture zone.

If parking cannot be made without breaching the terms and conditions of the car park, alternative parking arrangements must be sought or motorists will be issued with a Parking Charge as per the car park terms stated on the signage on site.

Given the above, and whilst we have considered your representations carefully, on this occasion your appeal has been rejected.

Evidence Provided by Appellant

No evidence provided.  <<< Note this lie

[candlestick]

@candlestick, based on your PM to me confirming that Chou have contacted POPLA and that they have your full appeal, if you have not yet submitted the response to Horizons evidence pack, here is a revised response that you can submit:

I am the registered keeper. This is my rebuttal to the operator’s evidence pack.

Preliminary matter – Omission of Appellant’s Evidence

POPLA has confirmed that it holds the full appeal submission and all supporting evidence provided by the appellant.

The operator’s evidence pack asserts “No evidence provided” and reproduces only a truncated version of the appeal. That is incorrect. The appellant submitted a marked Google Street View aerial image showing the precise route taken, photographs of the location, and evidence identifying the exact parking position within the Charles & Wensum House area.

The operator has chosen not to engage with that evidence and has instead presented a reduced summary of the appeal as though no supporting material existed. The assessor is invited to note that the full evidential record is before POPLA, notwithstanding the operator’s omission.

1. The operator’s description of the site layout is incorrect

The operator states that the Charles & Wensum House car park is situated before the ANPR capture point and that if the vehicle had used that area, it would not have been captured by camera.
This is factually wrong.

The appellant’s submitted aerial image clearly demonstrates that the only vehicular access to the Charles & Wensum House parking area is via the ANPR capture point and then turning left. There is no drivable left turn before the camera. The supposed route implied by the operator is physically blocked and not accessible to vehicles.

The operator’s assertion that ANPR capture proves use of the Premier Inn customer parking area is therefore demonstrably incorrect.

2. ANPR capture does not prove parking location

The operator has produced entry and exit timestamps only. These show boundary crossing, not the place where the vehicle was parked.

No image has been produced of the vehicle parked in any Premier Inn bay. No CCTV image, no bay reference, and no location-specific evidence has been provided.

The operator’s case rests on assumption rather than proof.

3. Failure to address the Appellant’s route and location evidence

The appellant provided:

- A marked Google Street View aerial showing the route taken.
- A highlighted parking location within the Charles & Wensum House area.
- Photographs demonstrating the physical layout and separation of zones.

The operator has not engaged with that evidence at all. Instead, they rely on a selective aerial image and narrative description which does not reflect the physical reality of the site.

The contrast between the operator’s simplified aerial plan and the appellant’s marked route image is material. The appellant’s evidence shows the actual drivable route. The operator’s version omits that context.

3. No proof that Horizon contractual terms apply in the Charles & Wensum House area

The operator has produced signage photographs from the Premier Inn customer parking area and a generic signage location plan.

They have not produced:

- Any photograph of Horizon contractual signage within the Charles & Wensum House parking area.
- Any boundary plan clearly including that area within Horizon’s enforcement zone.
- Any evidence that Horizon’s ANPR scheme applies to that permit-holder-only section.

The burden rests on the operator. They have not shown that Horizon contractual terms were displayed or applicable at the location where the vehicle was parked.

4. Failure to prove standing

The appellant expressly required strict proof of landowner authority covering the Charles & Wensum House area.

The operator has provided no contract and no redacted landowner agreement. Instead, they assert that the presence of equipment proves authority and that they are under no obligation to disclose commercial documents.

That is not evidence of standing.

The existence of signage or cameras does not establish the identity of the landowner, the boundaries covered, or the operator’s right to pursue charges in that specific section of land.

The operator has therefore failed to demonstrate that it has authority in relation to the Charles & Wensum House parking area.

5. Permit-holder-only area cannot create contractual liability

The Charles & Wensum House area is signed as permit holders only. That is a restriction, not an offer of parking to non-permit holders.

Where no contractual offer is made to the public, no contract can be formed. At most, any alleged unauthorised parking would be a matter of trespass.

Trespass is actionable only by a party with sufficient proprietary interest. The operator has not demonstrated such interest.

Conclusion

The operator’s case depends on a demonstrably incorrect description of the site layout and an unsupported assumption that ANPR capture proves use of the Premier Inn customer parking area.
They have:

- Omitted the appellant’s route and photographic evidence from their pack.
- Failed to rebut the appellant’s marked aerial route evidence.
- Failed to prove the parking location.
- Failed to show Horizon signage within the Charles & Wensum House area.
- Failed to produce any evidence of landowner authority covering that area.

The operator has not discharged the burden of proof required to establish contractual liability or keeper liability.

The appeal should be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled

Can't thank you enough again. Have submitted the above. Will let you know the final outcome