What you’ve shown us is not an appeal rejection but a request for more information about your stay at the hotel. When the appeal is rejected, you will receive a POPLA code.
The keeper is a victim of what is known as a “double dip” where the second and third images are missing. This should be complained about as they have obviously not carried out the required manual quality control check of the ANPR images.
By failing to carry out the required manual checks for the “orphan images” they have breached their AOS Code of Practice (CoP) which therefore invalidates their KADOE contract and they have obtained the keepers data unlawfully. This breach of the keepers GDPR should be highlighted and a claim for compensation under the Data Protection Act 2018 is fully justified.
Whilst the NtK does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA, which means that the keeper cannot be liable for the charge, if the keeper has identified the driver, that useful protection is out th pe window.
The keeper should immediately complain to Horizon, not appeal, and complain that the have breached their AOS CoP, namely section 21.5a, by having failed to perform the manual quality control checks on their ANPR images as this is clearly a case of “double dipping” and they should search for the “orphan images” which will show that the driver did not breach any contractual terms.
By having breached their own ATA CoP, they have also breached their KADOE contract and obtained the keepers data unlawfully. By breaching the keepers GDPR, they have caused unnecessary stress and anxiety and the keeper is entitled to compensation under the data Protection Act 2018.
Let them know that you expect compensation for their GDPR breach and should they fail to make an offer, you are prepared to make a claim against them.
Just to give you an idea about this, have a read:
Article 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately: clearly, any data controller issuing an invoice to you because it has wrongly recorded that you parked in breach of the alleged contract between you and the landowner (or, as in this case, an agent of the landowner) is processing your personal data unlawfully.
The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333, both being binding on all County Courts in England and Wales. In the latter claim, Mr Halliday was awarded compensation of £750 at what the Court regarded was the lowest level of award, and although this was a claim under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, similar provisions - amended to take account of a decision by the EU Grand Chamber that the 1998 Act did not properly implement EU law into UK domestic legislation - replaced the old Section 13 provisions with Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
In short, you ought to give 21 days notice (the pre-action protocol only really requires 14 days but hey, you can be charitable!) to the data controller of your intention to seek (say) £100 nominal damages and compensation under Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for their unlawful processing of your personal data: you could say that you will not file your claim with the County Court if they confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within (say) 14 days. Clearly mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings".
Anyone who is fairly confident can claim as a litigant-in-person in Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (commonly but wrongly described as "the Small Claims Court"). Each party is responsible for their own legal costs whether they win or lose and the claim for £100 can be issued online for a fee of £35 at moneyclaimonline.gov.uk which also gives useful advice if you want to have a look at what is involved. Your claim will automatically be listed as being for a total of £135, i.e. the successful party gets their Court fees back.
