Free Traffic Legal Advice

Received Letter Before Claim from Gladstone Solicitors on behalf of Horizon regarding alleged overstay at Tesco Car Park, Wokingham on 15/11/2024.

This letter, dated 23/12/25 is the first correspondence received.

The PCN concerns an approx 6 hour stay at Tesco Car Park.

Horizon has photo evidence of vehicle entering car park at 07:09:57 on the 15/11/24

They also have photo evidence of vehicle leaving car park at 13.09.22 on 15/11/24 

The driver is not disputing entering and leaving the car park at those times. However, the evidence show 2 separate visits.

The vehicle left the car park approx. 15 mins after entering so entered at 07:09:57 and left approx. 07:24

The vehicle re-entered the car park approx. 15 mins before 13:09:22 so approx. 12:55

The first exit and second entry has not been recorded by the camera system and so it is seen as one 6 hour visit which would be an overstay.

The driver visited the Tesco store before work and then drove and parked at their company car park whilst at work. They then returned to the Tesco store during a lunch break. At no time did the driver or vehicle overstay.

The driver moved address prior to the PCN dates. The drivers license was updated with the new address at the time but the V5C wasn't updated until afterwards (05/01/25). It would seem previous correspondence went to the previous address.

So that's the detail. Is there anyway to fight this? The length of time means that it can't be appealed directly with Horizon, which would have happened immediately had the driver been aware of the PCN being issued. Would Horizon still have data from the date of the PCN? The vehicle was absolutely not in the car park for the length of time the PCN details. It would not have made sense for the driver to park there and then walk to work, then walk back to pick up the vehicle and return to work.

The work car park doesn't have CCTV unfortunately so there is no real way to prove this.

Is it worth the fight or should the fine be paid to make this go away? If there had been genuine fault by the driver it would have been accepted and paid but it's just not what happened!

TIA

Thank you for the reply!

I have had a search and there was a successful campaign against fines issued due to a system fault with parking spaces but not double dipping. I did wonder if others had been caught by this around that time.

It's frustrating that so much time has elapsed as it would have been appealed immediately, both in store and with Horizon!

Copy of the original PPN would help, as Horizon`s older PPn`s didn`t fulfil to claim against the keeper.

A subject access request to Horizon`s data officer asking for all the info they have relating to this PPN.

Send with proof of a utility bill (suitably redacted) as proof of address and tell them your new address. 

Copy of the original PPN would help, as Horizon`s older PPn`s didn`t fulfil to claim against the keeper.

A subject access request to Horizon`s data officer asking for all the info they have relating to this PPN.

Send with proof of a utility bill (suitably redacted) as proof of address and tell them your new address.

Thank you, I am trying to get a copy of the original PPN, but unsurprisingly, Horizon don't make it easy to find the relevant information on where to obtain this. Any idea how/who I should send an SAR to?

You will not get anything meaningful from Horizon now. Gladstones have issued a Letter of Claim (LOC), so you respond to Gladstones and you deny any liability.

Do not identify the driver. Respond only as the registered keeper.

State that their client is put to strict proof of a single continuous period of parking for the full duration alleged. Explain that the “evidence” provided (first entry and last exit only) is entirely consistent with a double-dip/missing ANPR capture, i.e. two short visits with the first exit and second entry not recorded, and that ANPR systems are well known to produce that failure mode.

Point out that their client is required to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCOP) requirements for ANPR quality control. In particular, PPSCoP clause 7.3(d) requires manual quality control checks, including the risk of errors, and Note 1 expressly highlights the need to detect “double dipping” where the system fails to record each instance of entry/exit. Their client is therefore expected to search for and match all ANPR images for the vehicle for the material date and to locate and correctly attribute any orphan images (unmatched entry/exit captures) before issuing or pursuing a charge.

Require, as part of your LOC response, copies of the evidence and documents relied upon, including:

• All ANPR images for that VRM for the entire day (not just the first entry and last exit) and the full unredacted ANPR event log entries for that VRM for the day.
• The site/ANPR “back-office” audit trail showing the manual quality control check that was carried out before the PCN was issued (as required by PPSCoP 7.3).
• The ANPR system maintenance, calibration and synchronisation records covering the material date (and surrounding period), and confirmation of the time source used for timestamps.
• The signage terms relied upon (photos/plan) and the full contract/landowner authority relied upon.
• A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and all correspondence allegedly sent, with the addresses used and dates of posting.

Make clear that if they proceed without addressing the double-dip issue and without providing the above, that will be unreasonable conduct in pre-action correspondence, and you will draw it to the court’s attention.

Thank you so much for taking the time to provide this advice, it is fantastic and exactly what I was looking for!

I feel much more confident about being able to fight now.

Thank you again.