DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100072--------------------------------------------------
Horizon Parking PCN - Failure to Pay - Galleria, Hatfield
DIR By: dingus
Date: November 27, 2025, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A family parked at the Galleria Hatfield with a disabled badge
displayed. They got a PCN for non payment. I raised with the
shopping centre and showing proof. They gave the following
response:
"As our Car park is now being managed by Horizon Parking who
have installed new machines and Signage across the site.
All blue badge holders will be required to scan their blue
badges at the pay machines at the end of each stay to ensure the
discount is applied of 3hrs free parking.
You can leave the clock on display and keep your badge with you,
then once you have finished shopping scan the badge at the
machine.
You can park in our plaza car park which is opposite pure gym as
the car park you parked in is for contractors only as per the
signs."
[img width=624
height=871]
HTML https://scontent-man2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/587038466_10161614923600759_8350051676574155831_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=73gQ1N2_VtkQ7kNvwFkURZ7&_nc_oc=AdmspMR_sXek_kJVqneMn2kps2WknNlNtBPTQLs5AWCyZGyXuWmXoLplk5OHyduuuXk&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-man2-1.xx&_nc_gid=ztKCVa5WoK5LP6gTTRQxSg&oh=00_AfhopHnDVMdI8ygHOYgL2Ah2z56wlrLLdkFUwhWVpcYeJw&oe=692E442D[/img]
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://scontent-man2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/589530065_10161614923575759_2628705332004992616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=pekSthFECV0Q7kNvwFF62rG&_nc_oc=Adn1Qhqe-ODc39RJ9sn-B3Jm1m2KyusYbcy3k6O96Sxrdg0Yn078aTHqQFjzxB0AG1s&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-man2-1.xx&_nc_gid=dNB8YwdYzLQS1dJzVgvV1Q&oh=00_AfjqUDSprC-yI4g-3Bsx4cv_wv6t4YhzYlPoRCbzABYOPg&oe=692E4F74[/img]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/b5kxfT28/3bf613d0-2100-4e20-869c-33530827779f.jpg
Any grounds to appeal?
#Post#: 100086--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking PCN - Failure to Pay - Galleria, Hatfield
DIR By: b789
Date: November 27, 2025, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No... The "family" didn't "park". The "driver" parked. The
"Keeper" 'got' a PCN. The Keeper should not identify the driver.
The Keeper should only ever refer to the driver in the third
person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or
that".
In my view there are definitely potential Equality Act issues
with how the Galleria and Horizon are running this new system.
Both the shopping centre and Horizon are “service providers” to
the public, which means they have legal duties under the
Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate against disabled people
and to make reasonable adjustments for them. The Blue Badge
scheme itself doesn’t bind private land, but the Equality Act
does.
The key problem is this new rule that all Blue Badge holders
must remove the badge, take it to a pay machine at the end of
the stay, and scan it to get three hours free. That is a
“provision, criterion or practice” that only applies to disabled
visitors. Non-disabled customers just pay at the machine in the
usual way. Disabled customers now have to remember an extra
step, physically reach the machine, handle and scan the badge
correctly, and understand a process which is not standard or
widely known. For people with mobility issues, fatigue, pain,
cognitive or visual impairments, that is exactly the sort of
extra barrier the Equality Act is meant to prevent. The law says
they should anticipate those difficulties and take reasonable
steps to avoid substantial disadvantage – not introduce a system
that makes things more complicated for Blue Badge users.
On top of that, it sounds like this scanning requirement and the
“contractors only” status of that car park were not clearly
communicated. If you had a badge on display, parked as a genuine
disabled shopper, and reasonably believed you were doing the
right thing, then hit with a PCN afterwards, that points to poor
signage and communication. That is relevant both to the parking
contract issue (were the terms clearly brought to the driver’s
attention?) and to the Equality Act angle: if their signs and
processes are confusing or inaccessible, disabled people are
more likely to be caught out and penalised.
There is also a possible argument of “discrimination arising
from disability”. If the person with the Blue Badge meets the
Equality Act definition of disabled, then issuing and pursuing a
PCN in these circumstances can amount to unfavourable treatment
because of something arising in consequence of that disability –
for example difficulty engaging with a new, more complex system
or needing to park in the most accessible area. The operator
would have to justify that as a proportionate means of achieving
a legitimate aim. Saying “we want to enforce our parking rules”
may not be enough to justify hammering a genuine disabled
shopper with a charge simply because they did not know they had
to scan their badge at a machine, especially when a badge was
visibly displayed.
The “contractors only” point has an extra twist. If that car
park is particularly convenient or close to entrances, it is
likely to be more attractive to disabled visitors. If the
signage is not absolutely clear and obvious that it is for
contractors only, disabled people may be more likely to be
misled into using it and then being penalised. That starts to
look like a rule which, in practice, puts disabled users at
particular disadvantage unless they have taken proper steps to
mitigate that.
So, overall, my advice is that you can legitimately challenge
this situation on Equality Act grounds as well as on the usual
parking-law points. The core message is that the new system and
its implementation appear to create extra barriers and penalties
for disabled visitors, rather than providing reasonable
adjustments to make their visit easier.
#Post#: 100087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking PCN - Failure to Pay - Galleria, Hatfield
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 27, 2025, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agree with all of the above. If you have them (or can easily
acquire them), photos of the signage outlining these apparent
terms might be useful.
#Post#: 100091--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking PCN - Failure to Pay - Galleria, Hatfield
DIR By: b789
Date: November 27, 2025, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In your case the PCN is for “Failure to pay for full duration of
stay”, based purely on ANPR saying the vehicle was on site for 2
hours 15 minutes. Importantly, there is no evidence – and no
wording on the notice – describing the actual period of parking,
just the time between the ANPR cameras logging entry and exit.
That matters for a few reasons:
1. ANPR only records when a vehicle passes a camera, not when it
is actually parked. The time “on site” can include finding a
space, unloading, reading the signs, and queuing to leave. For a
disabled person, all of that inevitably takes longer. So even
before we get into the Equality Act, the operator hasn’t shown a
clear period of parking, just a drive-in/drive-out timestamp.
2. The site’s own policy is that Blue Badge holders get three
hours free if they “scan” the badge. Your ANPR time of 2:15 is
well within that three-hour concession. In other words, if the
system had been designed in a way that properly accommodates
disabled visitors, the correct “full duration of stay” for you
should have been free. The problem here is not that you
underpaid; it’s that the operator has introduced a convoluted
scanning process and is then treating disabled customers as if
they were non-payers when they don’t navigate it perfectly.
3. If Horizon are trying to rely on keeper liability under the
Protection of Freedoms Act, they are supposed to specify a
“period of parking”, not just give a single entry and exit time
from an ANPR system. Here they’ve simply equated an ANPR “time
on site” of 2:15 with a period of parking and then labelled it a
“failure to pay for full duration of stay”. That’s a stretch,
and in my view it’s not good enough to fix liability on the
keeper.
So, putting it together:
• As a disabled Blue Badge user, you were entitled to a
three-hour concession.
• You were recorded on site for 2 hours 15 minutes only.
• The operator hasn’t shown any distinct period of parking, just
ANPR timestamps.
• They are trying to characterise this as a “failure to pay for
full duration of stay” when (a) the stay was within the
advertised concession and (b) the real issue is their new,
poorly communicated scanning requirement, which arguably
disadvantages disabled visitors and raises Equality Act
concerns.
My advice is that you challenge the PCN on both fronts: (1) the
Equality Act angle (failure to make reasonable adjustments,
possible discrimination arising from disability), and (2) the
parking-law angle (ANPR time on site vs actual period of
parking; misdescription of the alleged breach; and, if they’re
claiming PoFA, failure to properly specify a period of parking).
Use the following as your initial appeal to Horizon:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am the registered keeper of vehicle PJ60 VYC and I dispute
your Parking Charge Notice HP4428925.
>
> The vehicle was at The Galleria, Hatfield on 11 November 2025
so that a disabled family member, who holds a valid Blue Badge,
could shop. The Blue Badge was clearly displayed in the
windscreen for the duration of the visit. Your ANPR images show
only that the vehicle was on site between 12:35:30 and 14:50:26,
a total of 2 hours and 15 minutes.
>
> Following receipt of this notice I contacted the Galleria
management. They have confirmed in writing that Blue Badge
holders are entitled to three hours’ free parking provided the
badge is scanned at the pay machine, and that this is a new
system introduced when Horizon installed new machines and
signage. In other words, on your own landowner’s stated policy a
disabled Blue Badge holder is allowed three hours’ stay without
payment. The alleged “breach” of “Failure to Pay for Full
Duration of Stay” is therefore misconceived: the total time on
site was well within the three hour concession for disabled
visitors.
>
> Your system appears to penalise disabled visitors simply
because they were unaware of, or unable to comply with, a
recently introduced and non-standard requirement to remove a
Blue Badge from the vehicle and scan it at a machine after the
visit. That requirement places disabled people at a particular
disadvantage compared with non-disabled visitors, who simply pay
in the usual way, and it does not amount to a reasonable
adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. The landowner and
Horizon are service providers and must anticipate the needs of
disabled visitors. Issuing and pursuing a parking charge against
a genuine disabled shopper, whose vehicle stayed less than three
hours and displayed a valid Blue Badge, is in my view a clear
failure to make reasonable adjustments and may amount to
discrimination arising from disability.
>
> In addition, your Notice to Keeper does not comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) and you cannot
transfer any liability to me as keeper. In particular:
>
> [indent]1. You have not described any “period of parking” as
required by paragraph 9(2)(a). You have merely stated ANPR entry
and exit times, which include time spent driving around, finding
a space, loading and exiting. Your allegation is based on
“duration of stay”, not on a proven period when the vehicle was
parked.
> 2. The wording you rely on for keeper liability under
paragraph 9(2)(f) does not reproduce the mandatory statutory
invitation to the keeper in the form required by PoFA. Instead
you assert that, after 28 days, you “have the right to recover
any unpaid part of the notice” from the keeper, which mis-states
the law and is expressly conditional on full compliance with all
the other requirements of Schedule 4. As your notice is not
fully compliant, no such right arises.[/indent]
>
> Because the notice is not PoFA-compliant, there is no keeper
liability in law. I am under no obligation to identify the
driver and I will not be doing so. Any liability (which is
denied) could only ever rest with the driver, who you must
pursue separately if you believe you have a cause of action.
>
> For the reasons above, this Parking Charge must be cancelled.
Please confirm in writing that you have done so and that my
details have been removed from your records, other than what you
are required to retain for audit purposes. If you refuse, please
treat this as a formal complaint as well as an appeal and
provide me with a POPLA verification code together with a copy
of the Equality Act impact assessment and any policy documents
relied upon when introducing the Blue Badge scanning
requirement.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper of PJ60 VYC
--- End Quote ---
Also, send the following to the Galleria management:
--- Quote ---
> Dear [Centre Manager’s name],
>
> I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle PJ60 VYC
regarding a Parking Charge Notice issued by your agent, Horizon
Parking Ltd, at The Galleria, Hatfield:
>
> PCN number: HP4428925
> Date of incident: 11 November 2025
> Allegation: “Failure to Pay for Full Duration of Stay”
>
> On that date the vehicle was at The Galleria so that a
disabled family member, who holds a valid Blue Badge, could
shop. The Blue Badge was clearly displayed in the windscreen for
the entire visit. Horizon’s ANPR images show only that the
vehicle was on site between 12:35:30 and 14:50:26 – a total of 2
hours and 15 minutes.
>
> After receiving the PCN I contacted the Galleria and was told
in writing:
>
> [indent]“As our Car park is now being managed by Horizon
Parking who have installed new machines and Signage across the
site.
> All blue badge holders will be required to scan their blue
badges at the pay machines at the end of each stay to ensure the
discount is applied of 3hrs free parking. You can leave the
clock on display and keep your badge with you, then once you
have finished shopping scan the badge at the machine.”[/indent]
>
> In other words, under your own stated policy a disabled Blue
Badge holder is entitled to three hours’ free parking. The total
time on site of 2 hours 15 minutes was comfortably within that
concession. There was no “failure to pay for full duration of
stay”. The only issue appears to be that a disabled visitor did
not follow a newly introduced and non-standard requirement to
remove a Blue Badge from the vehicle and scan it at a machine.
>
> As the occupier/centre operator you are a “service provider”
under the Equality Act 2010 and remain responsible for the
actions of your agent, Horizon. The “scan your badge at the
machine” rule is a provision, criterion or practice which
applies only to disabled visitors and places them at a
particular disadvantage compared with non-disabled visitors, who
simply pay in the usual way. It requires disabled people to
remember an extra step, physically reach and use a machine, and
correctly operate an unfamiliar system. For those with mobility,
fatigue, sensory or cognitive impairments, that is precisely the
sort of barrier the Equality Act is intended to prevent.
>
> I am therefore very concerned that:
>
> [indent]1. The way this new system has been implemented may
amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled
visitors, and
> 2. The decision to pursue a Parking Charge against a genuine
disabled shopper, where the stay was within the three-hour
concession, may amount to discrimination arising from
disability.[/indent]
>
> In light of the above, I now ask that The Galleria, as
principal, immediately instruct Horizon Parking Ltd to cancel
PCN HP4428925 and confirm this to me in writing.
>
> I would also invite you to review, as a matter of urgency,
whether your current arrangements for Blue Badge users at The
Galleria comply with your duties under the Equality Act 2010,
and what steps you will take to ensure that disabled visitors
are not placed at a disadvantage in future. It would be helpful
if you could outline any changes you propose to make to the
system, signage or procedures for Blue Badge holders.
>
> If this matter is not resolved and the charge is not
cancelled, I will have to consider escalating it further,
including raising formal concerns about Equality Act compliance
with your head office and any other appropriate bodies. For the
time being I hope that will not be necessary and that you will
agree that penalising a disabled customer in these circumstances
is neither fair nor consistent with your legal obligations.
>
> I look forward to your prompt written confirmation that you
have instructed Horizon to cancel this charge.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Name]
> Registered keeper of PJ60 VYC
> [Address]
> [Email]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 100108--------------------------------------------------
Re: Horizon Parking PCN - Failure to Pay - Galleria, Hatfield
DIR By: dingus
Date: November 27, 2025, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you a great deal for raising valid points and providing
template's. Something which i found strange as the registered
keeper. Galleria mentioned the driver parked in a contractors
area. The bay the driver parked in was a disabled bay. Will get
this sent to both companies
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1