You have until tomorrow to submit an appeal. The PPSCoP states that an appeal can be made up tp 28 days after "receipt" of the NtK. With an issue date of Thursday 27 November, it was deemed received (if they can prove a first class or equivalent 1-2 delivery, which they can't) on Monday 01 December.
It would be useful to see the terms signs but they are claiming "Exceeded maximum stay period ANPR" which is NOT a period of parking, but a period of time on site. Also, according to the September 2025 GSV view of the entrance, there is no compliant entrance sign, which therefore invalidates any supposed contract with the driver.
The main issue with this Notice is that it is a
PARKING charge, but the “evidence” and the allegation are about
time on site, not
parking.
On the front page Horizon only give two ANPR timestamps. Those are camera capture times at the perimeter. They do not show when the car was
parked, where it was
parked, or for how long it was
parked. They also include an “Issue Reason: Exceeded Maximum
Stay Period ANPR” which again shows they are relying on ANPR entry/exit times, not evidence of a defined
period of parking.
That distinction matters for keeper liability. Parliament did not create keeper liability for being on site for a certain length of time. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only allows a parking operator to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper if the Notice to Keeper complies with strict requirements. One of those requirements is PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a), which says the Notice to Keeper must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked,
and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
This Notice does not specify any period of parking at all. It gives entry and exit camera times and then asserts there was a breach. That is not the same thing as stating a period of parking. ANPR cannot prove a period of parking because it only records a vehicle passing a camera. It cannot account for time spent queuing, circulating, waiting for a bay, manoeuvring, loading or unloading, or any other time when the vehicle is on site but not parked. Because the Notice fails to specify a
period of parking, it fails PoFA 9(2)(a). The consequence is that Horizon cannot hold the keeper liable. They can only pursue the driver, and the keeper is under no obligation to identify the driver.
The second core point is contract formation. A private parking charge is only recoverable if the driver was clearly alerted to the existence of parking terms and given a fair opportunity to read and accept them. At this site there is no entrance sign (or there wan't one in September this year) that complies with the mandatory entrance signage requirements. If there is no compliant entrance sign at all, the driver is not alerted on entry that terms apply, who the parking operator is, what the principal terms are, or where the full terms can be read. Without that, there is no proper offer and acceptance on entry and no reliable basis for claiming a contract was formed. In a later POPLA appeal, Horizon would be put to strict proof by providing clear photographs of the entrance signage in place on the date and a site plan showing where those signs were positioned and how they would be seen by a driver entering.
Those are the two main foundations of a later POPLA appeal in this case: first, no keeper liability because the Notice does not specify a period of parking as required by PoFA 9(2)(a) and relies on time on site; second, no contract because there is no compliant entrance sign to bring terms to a driver’s attention on entry.
For now, simply submit the following as your initial appeal. Once it is rejected, you can then try and explain to POPLA why there can be no Keeper liability and, even if there was, not contract formed with the driver:
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.
