You are the registered keeper. You are not admitting who was driving and you are not required to do so. Your position is that Horizon have issued a parking charge for the wrong area and they cannot prove the vehicle was parked on land where Horizon’s terms apply.
The location is not a single, clearly defined car park. On entry there is a sign stating “Customer and guest car park”, but it is positioned parallel to the roadway rather than facing approaching drivers and it does not set out any contractual terms. It merely directs drivers to look for other signs inside the site.
Further in, there is a high-mounted Horizon tariff board on the right which sets out tariffs for Premier Inn guests, Table Table customers, Costa customers and “just want to park”. That sign is plainly aimed at the joint use customer and guest car park for those businesses.
Separately, there is a directional sign on the left, which is not a Horizon sign, clearly distinguishing a different area. It directs “Hotel guest parking” ahead, but separately directs “Charles & Wensum House car park (permit holders only)” to the left. The driver followed that instruction and parked in the Charles & Wensum House permit holders only area, not in the Premier Inn/customer car park to which Horizon’s tariff sign relates.
Within the Charles & Wensum House car park itself, there is only a single wall-mounted sign. This is plainly a legacy sign referring to clamping of unauthorised vehicles. There are no Horizon signs in that area and no signage offering parking on terms, no requirement to pay, and no instruction to register a vehicle. There is therefore no Horizon contractual offer in that area capable of being accepted by a driver.
If the Charles & Wensum House car park is, as signed, “permit holders only”, then by definition it is not offering parking to non-permit holders on contractual terms. A non-permit holder cannot be contractually bound to pay a parking charge in an area where parking is not offered to them at all. At most, a non-permit holder would be a trespasser.
Trespass is a matter for the landowner only. Horizon are not the landowner and have no standing to pursue a claim in trespass. Even if the landowner were pursuing trespass, the only recoverable sum would be nominal damages for actual loss. There was no loss caused here, so no damages would arise in any event. Horizon cannot convert an alleged trespass into a contractual parking charge.
Horizon’s allegation is “Failure to pay or register for the full duration of the stay (ANPR)”. ANPR only shows a vehicle passing cameras at the perimeter of the wider site. It does not show where the vehicle was parked and does not establish that it was parked in a location subject to Horizon’s contractual terms. Horizon must therefore be put to strict proof of the vehicle’s actual parked location and the signage that applied at that precise location.
You clearly hold contemporaneous photographs of all signage encountered along the route taken into the site and within the area where the vehicle was parked, together with a map showing the route taken and the exact parking location. These images demonstrate that the route taken leads directly to the Charles & Wensum House permit holders only car park and that there are no Horizon contractual terms displayed in that area.
You should preserve this evidence carefully. The original digital photographs should be retained in their original form so that the metadata can be relied upon. The EXIF data showing the date and time the photographs were taken should be extracted or screenshotted, as this provides independent proof that the images are contemporaneous with the material period. These timestamps should be kept with the photographs and submitted if required, particularly at POPLA or if the matter were ever escalated further.
You should also retain the Google Street View map with the route taken clearly marked and the parking location identified, as this assists in demonstrating how a driver is directed away from the Horizon-controlled customer car park and into a separate permit-only area.
Your appeal, as keeper only, should require cancellation unless Horizon can provide strict proof of all of the following.
First, a contemporaneous site boundary plan and landowner contract showing that the Charles & Wensum House permit holders only car park is included within Horizon’s enforcement area and that Horizon has authority there to offer parking contracts and pursue charges in its own name.
Second, photographs of Horizon contractual terms signage located within the Charles & Wensum House car park itself, taken from the driver’s route and from the parked location, demonstrating a clear offer to park on terms and a requirement to pay or register.
Third, an explanation of how a contractual parking charge can arise in an area signed as “permit holders only”, where the only on-site sign refers to clamping and no Horizon terms are displayed.
If Horizon cannot evidence these points, then no contract was formed, no breach can be established, and the parking charge must be cancelled.
If Horizon reject and issue a POPLA code, you should repeat the same position: Horizon have not proven the vehicle was parked on land subject to their terms; there were no Horizon contractual terms displayed in the Charles & Wensum House permit holders only area; any alleged non-permit parking could only sound in trespass, which Horizon has no standing to pursue and which would give rise to no recoverable loss; and ANPR evidence does not prove parking location or contractual liability.
As any initial appeal is unlikely to succeed, because there is no money in it for them, you should simply appeal, ONLY as the Keeper with the following:
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.
If/when they reject, come back and we can assist with a comprehensive POPLA appeal. You will have 33 days from the date of the rejection to submit your POPLA appeal.
