Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Gayle Stanton
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and the driver failed to pay for the full duration of stay.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • There was no adequate notice of the terms and conditions of the car park and the operator cannot prove that the driver say and understood the terms. • The PCN does not comply with - PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 and keeper liability cannot exist. • No proof of valid authority from landowner In the comments the appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds of appeal. They state that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence that it has authority to issue PCNs on the land. They add that the PCN was not delivered in time. The appellant has provided four images of the signage as evidence to support their appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice explains that an entrance sign is not mandatory in areas where drivers would not reasonably assume parking was permissible or where it’s not practicable, such as small shop forecourts or where planning restrictions prohibit signs. The images of the entrance signs advise that terms and conditions apply and that there are signs in the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. The operator and the appellant have provided evidence of the signage on the site and this advises that payment is required and that failing to pay will result in a PCN being issued. Due to the above I am satisfied that the signage on the site complies Section 3.1.1., 3.1.3 of The Code. I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the terms and conditions, however, it is important to note that the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and the site map, I am satisfied that the driver would have walked or driven past at least one of the operator’s signs and as such, was afforded this opportunity. The appellant has stated that they question whether the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the site. The operator has advised in the case file that it has authorisation from the landowner to operate the land. I have also taken into consideration the fact there are signs in situ and if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. I am therefore satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. The appellant states that the PCN is not PoFA compliant. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. At POPLA, we accept all evidence from both parties in good faith, and unless proven otherwise, we assume it to be correct. While I do not refute the appellant’s version of events, it is entirely possible that the Notice to Keeper did not arrive due to a third- party issue concerning the appellant’s postal the delivery service. It is outside of POPLA’s remit to assess any aspect of a third- party issue. As such, I will work on the basis that the operator issued the Notice to Keeper and posted this to the appellant’s address. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. After considering the evidence from both parties the vehicle was parked on the site and the driver did not pay for parking and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.
Comments on Point 4 – Authority to Operate:
Horizon’s response is an exercise in deflection and demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of the legal concept of authority or a deliberate attempt to conceal the absence of it. Their claim that the presence of “equipment being on the land” constitutes proof of authority is legally meaningless. It might indicate that permission existed at some point in time, but it cannot possibly establish that such authority was valid and extant on 16 August 2025 — the date of the alleged event. Contracts expire, are terminated, or replaced, and physical signage or cameras are often left behind. Horizon’s reasoning is therefore not evidence of authority; it is pure conjecture dressed up as fact.
Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) exists precisely to prevent this sort of evasive behaviour. It requires operators to hold — and to be prepared to produce — a written agreement with the landowner specifying the boundaries, duration, rights granted, and authority to issue parking charges in their own name. Those requirements are not discretionary, and they are not met by simply asserting “trust us”.
Horizon’s further suggestion that only someone with a “higher proprietary interest” can challenge their authority is equally flawed. The question before POPLA is not one of competing property rights, but whether Horizon had standing to form or enforce a parking contract. POPLA’s role includes assessing whether a parking operator has demonstrated that it has the legal capacity to contract with motorists — not to take the operator’s word for it.
If any assessor were to accept Horizon’s argument at face value, it would represent a fundamental failure to apply basic principles of contract law and the very Code they are bound to uphold. The operator has produced no evidence whatsoever of authority, merely a circular claim that their own signs prove their entitlement. In any legal setting, such reasoning would be laughed out of court. Should this point alone not give reason to cancel this PCN, in court is exactly where this will be challenged and ridiculed.
Absent a dated, signed, and contemporaneous agreement conferring authority from the landholder, Horizon’s claim to issue or enforce this Parking Charge is without legal foundation. The appeal must therefore be allowed.
Point 5 – “We sent it on time; delivery is the post office’s problem”
This is a masterclass in buck-passing. PoFA Schedule 4 doesn’t care about Horizon’s “issue date”, internal print logs, or their feelings about the post. It requires the Notice to Keeper to be given within the relevant period. For ANPR cases, that means:
- Para 9(4): the notice must be given within 14 days of the alleged parking event.
- Paras 9(5)–9(6): when sent by post, service is presumed on the second working day after posting — but only if the operator proves the date of posting.
Three fatal problems for Horizon:
1. “We issued it” is not “we posted it”.
A template print date or a back-office “generated” timestamp proves nothing. The clock runs from entry into the postal system, not when Horizon’s mail-merge spat out a PDF. If they use a consolidator (Whistl, Citipost, UK Mail, etc.), “handed to consolidator” is still not “posted”. The presumption in PoFA 9(6) only arises from actual posting.
2. The burden of proof is on the operator, not Royal Mail.
PoFA places the duty squarely on Horizon to evidence compliance. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires operators to retain a record of the date of posting. Not “date of generation”, not “we think it went out”, but the day it was put into the postal system. If Horizon can’t produce a postal manifest, DSA/OBA handover record, or equivalent third-party log proving posting, they don’t get to wave the statutory presumption around like a comfort blanket.
3. Their “not within our control” line is legally illiterate.
Horizon chose to rely on keeper liability via post. With that choice comes the statutory risk of proving service. If they won’t (or can’t) evidence posting, PoFA fails. End of story. Telling the keeper to “take it up with the post office” is the corporate equivalent of shrugging and hoping POPLA fills in the gaps for them. That isn’t law; it’s laziness.
PoFA 9(6) — what it actually says and what it means (for the avoidance of any doubt)
“(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so ‘given’ for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) 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.”
Plain meaning:
- The presumption of delivery only starts after the day of posting, and only on the second working day thereafter.
- The words “unless the contrary is proved” make this a rebuttable presumption. It is not automatic. It can be displaced by evidence.
- To benefit from the presumption at all, the operator must first prove the predicate fact: that the notice was posted on a specific date.
- Therefore, the burden of proof sits with the operator to produce independent evidence of posting (e.g., Royal Mail manifest, DSA/OBA handover, consolidator’s final handover to Royal Mail). Internal “generated” dates or PDF metadata are not proof of posting.
What the assessor must apply:
- No posting proof means no presumption under 9(6).
- No presumption means the operator cannot show the notice was “given” within 14 days per 9(4).
- Failure on this single statutory limb collapses keeper liability in its entirety.
Horizon’s argument is not only wrong but embarrassingly ignorant of the very statute they claim to rely on. Their line that “it’s up to the post office” shows a complete failure to grasp what PoFA 9(6) actually says or means. The law could not be clearer: the notice is only presumed to be “given” on the second working day after posting, unless the contrary is proved.
That phrase makes it a rebuttable presumption, not an automatic one. It exists only if the operator can first prove the predicate fact that the notice was actually posted on a specific date. Without that proof, the presumption never arises.
Producing a copy of the NtK proves nothing about when or how it entered the postal system. Horizon was put to strict proof of postal evidence, such as a Royal Mail or consolidator handover record, proof of first-class or equivalent postage, and a clear reconciliation showing that—after applying working-day rules—the notice was “given” within 14 days of the alleged event. They provided none of this.
Instead, they tried to shift responsibility to the postal service, which is legally absurd. Horizon chose to use the postal route to create keeper liability, so the burden of proving service is theirs alone. Their excuse that delivery is “not within our control” is a confession that they have no proof of compliance. This is not a minor oversight; it is a complete failure of a statutory condition precedent.
Keeper liability therefore fails, and the appeal must be allowed.
In response to Point 4, 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.I've not read the full evidence pack, but your response should go to town on this point. They've failed to demonstrate they have authority to issue parking charges on the site by failing to disclose their contract. Their position is essentially "trust us, we put up some signs".
The appellant has raised several points in their appeal to POPLA.
In response to Point 1, as shown in Section E, there is ample signage throughout the car park clearly displaying the terms and conditions that must be adhered to. Al signs state al the specific parking terms and parking charges ni the event of a breach. nI accordance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, al signage on site is conspicuous, legible and written in intelligible language. By entering this car park and choosing to remain on site, the Appellant has entered into a contract with Horizon Parking and has consented to comply with the terms and conditions set out on the signs in that car park which are clearly visible.
In response to Point 2, again 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, al signage on site si conspicuous, legible and written in intelligible language. 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 is required for parking.
In response to Point 3, The Parking Charge fuly adheres to the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and the Registered Keeper was advised of this on both pages of the letter they have received - please see below.
(POFA). The Appellant is the Registered Keeper and they have not confirmed whether they were the driver or who was the driver. Therefore, because the charge is fully compliant with POFA, the Registered Keeper is held liable for the Parking Charge their vehicle has been issued.
In response to Point 4, 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.
In response to Point 5, the vehicle breached the car park terms and conditions on 16/08/25 and the Parking Charge was then issued, and the letter sent on 26/08/25.Therefore, we have sent the Parking Charge letter within the timeframe set out in the Private Parking Sector Single code. It must be noted that once the Parking Charge is issued it is not within the control of Horizon Parking about the delivery of the letter. It is up to the local post office to deliver the letter to its destination on time. If the Appellant has any issue regarding the delivery, they wil have to take it up with their local post office.
When entering a car park located on private land and choosing to remain on site, the motorist enters a valid contract and agreed to abide by the car park's terms and conditions which are detailed on signs, which are on display at various points within the car park itself. The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use and one of the conditions is that a £85.00 Parking Charge will be issued when the terms and conditions are breached.
It is the keeper's responsibility when parking on private land to ensure they familiarize themselves with the terms and conditions on site via the signage, this ensures they are aware of the charge should they breach the terms and conditions on site.
By parking the vehicle on the site, the appellant entered a valid contract and agreed to abide by its terms and conditions. The signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use. One of the conditions is that a £85.00 Parking Charge wil be issued when the terms and conditions are breached.
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.
Dear Mr Xxxxx,
Your parking charge appeal against Horizon Parking Ltd - EW.
Horizon Parking Ltd - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking here
Please note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is not currently available on your account please check back later before contacting us.
You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Horizon Parking Ltd - EW.
Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage
Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment. Therefore, if you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by Horizon Parking Ltd - EW such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately via phone - 0330 1596 126, or email - info@popla.co.uk, so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.
After this period has ended, we will aim to issue our decision as quickly as possible. The decision we reach is final and binding. When the decision is reached there is no further option for appeal.
Yours sincerely
POPLA Team
ET6114/003
As registered keeper, I challenge this PCN on the following grounds:
Ground 1: No Charges Displayed at Entrance
Photographic evidence (Exhibits A-D) proves:
- Entrance shows "ASDA Welcome" with no charges (Exhibit B)
- Street sign shows ASDA branding, no tariff (Exhibit A)
- Charges only visible inside car park after entry (Exhibits C-D)
This violates BPA Code Section 19.3 requiring signs to "take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance." The operator actively invited drivers to enter while concealing a complex charging structure (different rates by duration, Saturday rates, Sunday free, Asda discounts).
Drivers cannot be expected to research website tariffs before entering - adequate notice must be given at the site. By the time charges are visible inside, the driver has already committed to entering and would be in "breach" if attempting to leave.
No valid contract formed.
Ground 2: Operator Cannot Prove Actual Notice
Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] requires operators prove the driver actually saw and understood terms. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 upheld £85 only because of 20 large, prominent noticeboards throughout the site with charges in "largest font size."
Mercury fails this standard:
- no charges at entrance decision point;
- signs inside car park too late.
I put the operator to strict proof of:
- Clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on 16th August 2025, at the exact location of the alleged contravention
- A detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ
- Evidence that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the BPA Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms
- Charges were visible at entrance before entry commitment
- Signage met the Beavis standard of being "reasonably large, prominent and legible"
- Photographic evidence showing entrance signage configuration on 16th August 2025
Ground 3: PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 Not Satisfied
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 requires "the driver must have been given adequate notice of the parking charges" - a mandatory condition. Paragraph 4(2): keeper liability "applies only if conditions in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are met."
Exhibits A-D prove Paragraph 5 not satisfied. Former POPLA Lead Adjudicator: "If not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."
The operator cannot pursue the keeper regardless of Notice to Keeper compliance with other procedures.
Ground 4: No Proof of Valid Authority
Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
Ground 5: Notice to Keeper Non-Compliance
I put the operator to strict proof that:
- The Notice to Keeper complies fully with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 renders keeper liability unenforceable.
- The Notice to Keeper was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated. Evidence must show the date any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.
The operator must provide actual postal records, not just system-generated dates.
Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled because:
- No adequate notice - "ASDA Welcome" invitation concealed charges until after entry
- Operator cannot prove driver saw/understood terms (Vine/Beavis standard not met)
- PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 not satisfied - keeper liability cannot exist
- No proof of valid authority from landowner
- Notice to Keeper compliance not proven
The photographic evidence proves drivers entering this car park see only invitational ASDA-branded signage with no indication of charges.
I respectfully request this appeal be allowed.
Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the BPA Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator 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.)
As registered keeper, I challenge this PCN on the following grounds:
Ground 1: No Charges Displayed at Entrance
Photographic evidence (Exhibits A-D) proves:
- Entrance shows "ASDA Welcome" with no charges (Exhibit B)
- Street sign shows ASDA branding, no tariff (Exhibit A)
- Charges only visible inside car park after entry (Exhibits C-D)
This violates BPA Code Section 19.3 requiring signs to "take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance." The operator actively invited drivers to enter while concealing a complex charging structure (different rates by duration, Saturday rates, Sunday free, Asda discounts).
Drivers cannot be expected to research website tariffs before entering - adequate notice must be given at the site. By the time charges are visible inside, the driver has already committed to entering and would be in "breach" if attempting to leave.
No valid contract formed.
Ground 2: Operator Cannot Prove Actual Notice
Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] requires operators prove the driver actually saw and understood terms. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 upheld £85 only because of 20 large, prominent noticeboards throughout the site with charges in "largest font size."
Mercury fails this standard:
- no charges at entrance decision point;
- signs inside car park too late.
I require strict proof that:
- Charges were visible at entrance before entry commitment
- Signage met Beavis standard
- Photographic evidence from entrance on 16th August 2025
Ground 3: PoFA Schedule 4 Not Satisfied
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 requires "the driver must have been given adequate notice of the parking charges" - a mandatory condition. Paragraph 4(2): keeper liability "applies only if conditions in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are met."
Exhibits A-D prove Paragraph 5 not satisfied. Former POPLA Lead Adjudicator: "If not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."
The operator cannot pursue the keeper regardless of Notice to Keeper compliance.
Ground 4: No Proof of Valid Authority
The operator must prove valid authority to issue PCNs. The prominent ASDA branding creates ambiguity about landowner identity.
I require strict proof of:
- Valid contract with landowner (Mercury Shopping Centre/Asda) in force on 16th August 2025
- Authorization to issue PCNs in Horizon Parking's own name
- Confirmation of landowner identity
Without proof of authority, the operator has no standing to pursue this charge.
Conclusion
This PCN should be cancelled because:
- No adequate notice - "ASDA Welcome" invitation concealed charges until after entry
- Operator cannot prove driver saw/understood terms (Vine/Beavis standard not met)
- PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 5 not satisfied - keeper liability cannot exist
- No proof of valid authority from landowner
The photographic evidence proves drivers entering this car park see only invitational ASDA-branded signage with no indication of charges.
I respectfully request this appeal be allowed.
As registered keeper, I challenge this PCN on the following grounds:
1: No terms/conditions displayed at entry point:
At the main entry point of the car park, there is only a basic "car park" sign with no terms, conditions, or parking charges displayed. This actively invites drivers to enter while providing no notice of the terms they will be bound by. The parking charges and terms are only displayed on signage positioned further down the entrance path, AFTER a driver has already turned in and committed to entering the car park.
The BPA Code of Practice Section 19.3 explicitly requires "the size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible." By placing only an invitational "car park" sign at the entrance with no terms displayed, the operator:
• Invites drivers to enter without informing them of charges or conditions
• Provides no opportunity to view terms and decide whether to enter
• Positions the actual terms sign after the point where drivers have already committed to entering private land
• Makes it impossible for drivers to give informed consent before parking
This creates an unfair catch-22: by the time the driver encounters the terms further down the entrance path, they have already entered private land. Reading the terms and deciding to leave would itself constitute a "breach" under the operator's rules. Adequate notice requires charges and key terms to be displayed at the decision point to enter, not after entry has occurred.|
2: Operator Must Prove Actual Notice Was Given
The operator cannot rely on theoretical visibility or generic site photos. They must prove actual notice was given to the driver at this specific location. The operator must prove the driver actually saw and understood the terms, not merely that signs existed somewhere on site. Generic site photographs are insufficient.
I put the operator to strict proof that:
- Signage was visible and readable from the vehicle's specific parking location on the material date
- The driver could reasonably see and read the terms before committing to park
- The parking charge was displayed prominently and in "large lettering" as required
- Photographic evidence showing the driver's actual view from the parking space
3: No Valid Contract Formed - Keeper Liability Cannot Exist
Due to the signage failures detailed above, no valid contract was formed between the driver and the operator. Without clear, visible, and prominent signage that the driver actually saw and understood:
- No offer was properly communicated
- No acceptance could occur
- No enforceable contract exists
Under PoFA Schedule 4, keeper liability is conditional upon the operator first establishing driver liability through adequate notice. Since adequate notice was not provided, the operator has failed to satisfy Paragraph 5, and therefore cannot pursue the keeper under Schedule 4 regardless of Notice to Keeper compliance.
I request the operator provide:
- Close-up photographs of all signage at the location on the material date
- Photographs showing sign visibility specifically from the parking space in question
- Evidence the entrance sign is visible when entering (not just when stationary)
Parking Charge Reference HP4109103
Vehicle Registration Number LD63ZFM
Breach of Terms and Conditions Failure to Pay for Full Duration of Stay ANPR
Date and Time of Breach 16th August 202505:28 PM
Location Name Mercury Shopping Centre
POPLA Code 3762745340
Date of this Correspondence 1st October 2025
1st October 2025
Dear Appellant,
Parking Charge:HP4109103
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 for parking must be made for the full duration of the vehicles stay. Our systems do not show any evidence of payment 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.
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 £85.00 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 https://horizonparking.co.uk/pay-parking-charge-notice/
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 of 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 3762745340
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,
@b789
Thanks for following up. And i most certainly will definitely be challenging this. I'm being a little thick here and i seem to have misunderstood the advice in reference to your last comment "Just follow the advice if you want to defeat these scavengers". Do I simply select "i was not the driver" from the drop down? and how best to supplement this with the comments?
(https://i.imgur.com/6KTZxEZ.png)
@DWMB2
...and have not yet reached out to the car parking management.
Is there any advice when speaking with them and and are they likely to be able to help given Horizon are a private company?A private company who they hired to manage their car park. Just explain to them that the driver was a customer (assuming that they were, as I said before) and ask them to intervene - if you can provide receipts for things they bought there at the time even better.
There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences can be made. You may not pursue the hirer under contract law without the proper legal basis to do so.
Your Notice to Hirer can only hold the driver liable, and I will not be naming them. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you test your position at POPLA, where I will be making a strong submission based on your non-compliance.