1. Horizon Parking has not addressed the core issue in my appeal, which is that the signage was not visible or legible at night. Their own evidential photos, dated 15/05/2025, were taken over six weeks after the date of the alleged contravention and appear to be either taken at dusk or deliberately over-exposed to give the false impression that the signs were readable in low light. Even in those photos, the terms and conditions on the signs are not readable. These images are clearly an attempt to undermine the contemporaneous photos I submitted, which accurately show that the signs could not be read at night. Horizon has not provided any images from the date of the alleged breach or any proof that the signage was legible under the lighting conditions at 1am or 2.30am.
2. Horizon states that lighting was present and claims that no faults were reported on the night in question. This is not evidence. A vague, unverified statement that no faults were “reported” is meaningless and does not prove the lighting was operational or adequate at the time of the alleged contravention. Horizon has not provided any lighting inspection records, maintenance logs, engineer reports, or photographs taken on the date of the alleged incident to support this claim. It is entirely hollow and cannot be relied upon as rebuttal. By contrast, the appellant has supplied contemporaneous photos taken in comparable conditions, which clearly show that the signage was not illuminated and that the lighting was wholly inadequate. The operator’s weak and unsupported assertion does not come close to rebutting the clear photographic evidence already submitted.
3. Horizon relies heavily on the wording and timing of the Notice to Keeper and argues that the Parking Charge is compliant with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, they have completely ignored the separate and equally mandatory requirements set out in paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3). These state that the parking charge MUST have been "adequately" brought to the attention of the driver through clear, visible signage at the time of parking. This requirement is not optional and must be met before any right to recover the charge from the keeper can arise. Horizon’s failure to acknowledge or address this point speaks volumes. Their evidence does nothing to prove that the signage met the standard of “adequate notice” as defined in paragraph 2(3). Unless ALL the conditions of Schedule 4 are met in full, including those in paragraph 2, the operator has no lawful basis to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. Just as a person cannot be partially pregnant, they either are or they aren't, a PCN cannot be partially PoFA compliant. It either is or it isn't. In this case, it obviously is not.
4.Horizon claims that the signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice Version 9, but their own evidential photos show otherwise. The images they have submitted clearly demonstrate that the signs are not legible — even in daylight. The wording is small, cluttered, and difficult to read, and the placement of the signs does not make the terms obvious to a driver. Their inclusion of a facsimile sign in the evidence pack proves nothing. It is not a photograph taken from a driver's perspective, nor does it demonstrate what was visible or readable at the time of the alleged contravention. Their own photos support the appellant’s point: the signs are not “clear and easy to understand” as required by paragraph 19.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, nor are they “conspicuous and legible from a driver’s perspective” as required by paragraph 19.3.
5. Horizon claims a contract was formed, but a contract can only be formed if the driver was made aware of the terms before parking. Horizon has not shown that the terms were visible or readable at night. No contract could have been formed in those conditions.
6. Horizon's evidence pack falsely states that I provided no evidence. This is incorrect and mendacious. I provided contemporaneous photographic evidence showing that the signs were not visible in darkness. Horizon has not challenged the authenticity of these photos, nor have they supplied anything taken in similar conditions. This statement in their pack is misleading.
7. Horizon has not proven that it has the necessary contractual authority to issue and enforce parking charges at this location. Anyone can claim to have "authority" to act, but without evidence, that claim is hollow and meaningless. The unsigned, heavily redacted document they have submitted — described as a "witness statement" — does not establish any legally binding relationship with the landowner and does not meet the burden of proof. It fails to show that Horizon is authorised to issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name, or to enforce them through legal action. There is no confirmation that the agreement was valid on the date of the alleged contravention, no definition of the site areas covered, and no detail of any restrictions placed on the operator’s authority.
Section 14.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, 17 February 2025) requires a written agreement with the landowner or their authorised agent that confirms the operator’s rights, responsibilities, and any limits to their authority. Horizon has not provided anything that satisfies these requirements.
If this case were to proceed to court, such a vague and unverified claim of "authority" would not withstand scrutiny. In fact, relying on it could be viewed as unreasonable conduct and an abuse of process. If POPLA accepts this level of vague and unproven material as evidence of landowner authority, it will only confirm the serious concern that POPLA functions as a rubber-stamping exercise, applying a far lower standard of proof than any proper tribunal would accept.
In summary, Horizon has not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim. They have not rebutted my evidence, have not proven signage was visible and legible at night, have not proven landowner authority, and have failed to meet the conditions required to pursue the keeper under PoFA.
Just to clarify, I’m choosing this as my grounds to appealYou shouldn't be, you should be choosing 'other'.
POPLA Reference: [Insert POPLA Reference Number]
Parking Charge Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Operator: Horizon Parking Ltd
Appellant: Registered Keeper
1. The operator has failed to fully comply with all mandatory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 and cannot transfer liability to the Keeper
Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the unknown driver to the registered Keeper if, and only if, the operator fully complies with all requirements set out by the Act.
The Act imposes two sets of obligations:• Compliance with Paragraph 9: setting out the content, wording, and service deadlines for the Notice to Keeper (NtK).
• Compliance with Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3): which require that the parking charge itself was properly brought to the attention of drivers at the time of parking by way of clear and adequate signage.
While Horizon Parking’s NtK appears to be mostly compliant with Paragraph 9, it is fatally defective because they have failed to comply with the core requirement under Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3). These paragraphs state:“(2) The reference in the definition of ‘parking charge’ to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).”
“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) ‘adequate notice’ means notice given by—
(a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12; or
(b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which—(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.”
In this case, Horizon Parking failed to provide adequate notice of the parking charge. The evidence provided clearly shows that the signage at the car park was unlit, unreadable, and wholly inadequate at night.
It follows that the parking charge was not properly brought to the attention of the driver, in breach of PoFA Paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3).
Compliance with PoFA is not a matter of degree. It is a binary matter. The statutory framework requires absolute compliance with all mandatory conditions. Just like you can't be partially, or even mostly pregnant. You either are or you are not. Likewise, a PCN cannot be partially, or even mostly PoFA compliant. It either is or it isn't PoFA compliant. In this case, it is not.
If an operator does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA, then they cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. Because Horizon Parking has failed to meet the strict requirements imposed by Parliament, they have no lawful right to pursue the registered Keeper for this charge.
2. No contract was formed because the signage was not clear or visible at the time of parking
A contract can only be formed if clear terms are communicated to the driver before parking, allowing the driver to make an informed choice to accept or reject those terms.
The BPA Code of Practice Version 9 (January 2024) states:• Paragraph 19.3:“Signs must be conspicuous and legible from a driver’s perspective, without their needing to look away from the road ahead.”
• Paragraph 19.4:“Signage must be clear and legible, and it must be easy to see, read and understand.”
The contemporaneous evidence provided by the appellant shows that the signage at the car park was not illuminated, not clear, and not legible at night. Drivers would not have seen or understood the parking terms, including the parking charge.
If drivers are not properly informed of the terms and charges before parking, then no contract is formed. Without a contract, no parking charge can lawfully arise.
Horizon Parking’s failure to ensure that the signage was visible and readable means there was no contract formed between the driver and the operator.
(https://i.imgur.com/8KD7qrY.jpeg) (https://i.imgur.com/WMl9161.jpeg) (https://i.imgur.com/ONLE0Nb.jpeg)
3. Horizon Parking is put to strict proof that they have the required landowner authority
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice, Section 14.1, states:"You must have a written agreement with the landowner (or their appointed agent) to manage and enforce parking on the land.
The agreement must include the landowner’s authority for you to operate, the areas you are responsible for, and any conditions or restrictions on your authority."
The operator is put to strict proof to produce the following:• A full, contemporaneous, and unredacted copy of their written agreement with the landowner or authorised agent.
• Evidence that the agreement was valid on the date of the alleged parking event.
• Evidence that the agreement defines the areas operated, grants authority to issue Parking Charge Notices in their own name, and has not been materially changed or superseded.
A simple witness statement or redacted contract is not sufficient. If Horizon Parking cannot provide strict proof of compliance with Section 14.1 of the PPSCoP, the Parking Charge must be cancelled.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above — Horizon Parking’s failure to comply with all requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, their failure to form a contract due to inadequate signage, and their failure to provide strict proof of landowner authority — I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Horizon Parking Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Horizon has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.