Hi,

Here is a PCN from a private parking firm for a Tesco car park. They have taken exit as entry time and entry the following day as exit time - this is clearly seen in the pictures they sent. Car is going out (picture shows back of car) on incident entry and the car is coming in (picture shows front of car) on incident exit.

Can you please help how best to appeal and cancel this as the driver did not stay overnight in the car park and the parking firm/camera got the entry and exit mixed up?

Thanks for taking the time to review and respond.

First step edit your post - "the driver" drove and you'll deal with this as the keeper.

Let's see the notice you received - both pages, redact persona info but leave everything else on, dates/times etc. - you'll need to use an external site like Imgur for this.

I would suggest that it's double dipping, one entrance and one exit on day 1 , Ditto on day 2 , plenty of information on double dipping and orphan images !

Name the parking company, plus host redacted pictures of both sides of the PCN on imgur or a similar site, leaving the dates showing

thanks Redx/DWMB2. Here are the pics,

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

You could send the below appeal as the keeper:

Dear Sirs

I have just received your Parking Charge Notice xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

The vehicle was not present at this site for 16 hours as claimed in your notice. Your defective ANPR system has failed to record two visits. You have therefore accessed my details on the DVLA registered keeper database without reasonable cause.

In addition, you have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper. There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours etc

If online, be very careful there aren't any tick boxes etc. that force you to reveal who was driving, and check your spam emails daily. If by post, send it first class and get a free certificate of posting from the post office.

Horizon parking , not compliant with Pofa, so use a typical template appeal by member Ostell, as keeper, no blabbing about who was driving ( no keeper liability )

Add a line to mention that THE DRIVER made 2 short visits on multiple occasions, so their ANPR system is flawed and they should check orphan images and then cancel the PCN because the driver did not breach any contract , exits always follow an entrance, not the reverse

Thanks very much for this DWMB2 - This is very helpful. I will send as per above.



Thanks Redx, appreciate it.

Why not simplify matters!

I refer to your PCN dated **** which claims that 'on 16 September ........ vehicle *** breached the terms .......l.'

In support and as a secondary matter, the PCN shows photos of my vehicle entering the site at ** on 17th September and leaving at ***** on 16th.

Self-evidently this is nonsense.

The PCN fails to specify correctly 'the period pf parking to which the notice relates' and therefore must be cancelled.




I prefer this direct approach as opposed to 'You have therefore accessed my details on the DVLA registered keeper database without reasonable cause. ' because IMO this has no direct bearing on the Act's provisions and therefore specific grounds for challenge, as opposed to embarrassment.

Because previous cases on here show that the PoFA template I posted above very often lead to Horizon cancelling, hence why I included it alongside the double dip issue.

Why even introduce 'double-dip'?

The PCN fails to comply with the most basic of the Act's provisions i.e. it fails to state correctly the breach in respect of which the parking charge is being demanded.

Double-dip introduces the concept of there actually being a breach with the wording of the PCN a mere slip. Why take this risk?

Self-evidently and without going into detail about whether subsequent wording, which only has to conform as regards meaning and not be stated word-for-word, meets the Act's requirements the PCN fails to meet even the most basic requirements.

Because it shows that even if the notice had complied with PoFA, which it hasn't, they still wouldn't have been correct in issuing a charge as the vehicle did not breach the terms and conditions of parking. I disagree that pointing out the failure of their ANPR equipment 'introduces the concept' of there being a breach - that concept has already been introduced by Horizon (wrongly) claiming there has been a breach.

With this being Horizon, I do think there's value in making use of Ostell's template wording, on the basis that there's evidence from this forum that Horizon often cancel when it is used. Here's an alternative that makes mention of the fair point you make about their failure to specify the period of parking, as a result of the ANPR error:

Dear Sirs

I have just received your Parking Charge Notice xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

The vehicle was not present at this site for 16 hours as claimed in your notice. Your defective ANPR system has failed to record two visits. You have therefore failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to failing to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates, as required by section 9 (2) (a) of the Act. You have also failed to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours etc

As above , that is an excellent appeal based on 2 fronts and the OP should use it , appealing as keeper ( no blabbing about who was driving )

Horizon implied the breach, the OP is denying any breach , pointing out their errors and failures, without divulging who was driving

They appear to be in breach of the following: (BPA Code of Practice v8 / my emphasis)



Looks like could be misuse of personal information to me.

No it doesn't, the pictures show that it entered on the 15th and left on the 16th. I very much doubt that their systems would ever issue a ticket the way that you are saying.

But the entry shot shows the car leaving and the exit shot shows the car arriving.

Indeed, as spelt out by the OP.

thanks DWMB2 for sharing the updated wording - much appreciated.

thanks everyone for your contributions - this has been a great help and I hope this goes away after the suggested response.

Thanks to everyone who helped on this - I got the confirmation that PCN has been cancelled.

Good result well done and thanks for the update

Good result, the proper outcome !