(09-03-2026, 10:43 PM)b789 Wrote: If you can upload the photos and video somewhere I can access them, then I can have a look and see how f anything stands out.

Quote:4. THE CONFLICTING YOURPARKINGSPACE SIGNS PREVENT HORIZON FROM ESTABLISHING CLEAR CONTRACTUAL TERMS

Horizon apparently contends that parking between 10pm and midnight is limited to one hour and to 15 minutes when the store is closed.

However, at least three prominent YourParkingSpace signs within the same car park ask:

"Parking for more than 3 hours?"

They invite motorists to pay through the YourParkingSpace application or pre-book in advance. The corresponding webpage identifies this Tesco car park by location ID 11276 and states:

"The spaces are available 24 hours on all days. You can enter/exit this car park multiple times throughout the duration of your booking."

These signs advertise parking for more than three hours, 24 hours a day. That conflicts with Horizon's asserted restrictions unless motorists are clearly told how the two schemes interact, which bays or vehicles they apply to and whether a YourParkingSpace booking overrides Horizon's maximum stay. No such explanation is apparent.

The point is not that every motorist may park for more than three hours without payment. It is that two materially different parking regimes are advertised within the same apparently undivided car park without any clear explanation of which terms apply.

Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides that where a consumer term or notice could have different meanings, the meaning most favourable to the consumer must prevail.

This also reinforces the standing issue. Horizon must prove the extent of its authority, how it interacts with YourParkingSpace and whether it was entitled to enforce its asserted restrictions throughout the car park. Its own signs do not prove those matters.

The photographs were taken after the alleged event. Horizon must therefore produce contemporaneous evidence showing the signage and parking arrangements in force on 22 May 2026. If it says the YourParkingSpace scheme was introduced later, it should produce evidence of its commencement and the signs' installation dates.

Without that evidence, Horizon cannot establish which contractual regime applied or that its asserted restriction was clearly communicated.

6. HORIZON'S TERMS WERE NOT VISIBLE OR LEGIBLE AT NIGHT

The alleged event occurred between approximately 22:45 and 23:57. Horizon must therefore prove that its terms were prominent and legible under nighttime conditions.

The entrance sign is positioned beneath a large tree at the edge of a roundabout and has no dedicated illumination. It is almost invisible at night, even when illuminated by a vehicle's main-beam headlights.

A pedestrian crossing is located immediately ahead as vehicles turn into the car park. A driver must concentrate upon negotiating the roundabout, observing other traffic and pedestrians, and entering safely.

The video follows the normal approach at a safe speed and demonstrates that the entrance sign cannot be read from the driver's proper position. To obtain any meaningful view, the vehicle had to leave its normal line and stop on the roundabout, causing a potential obstruction. Even then, the sign remained unreadable.

A driver cannot reasonably be expected to stop on a live roundabout or divert attention from an immediate pedestrian crossing to discover contractual terms. Entrance terms must be readable by a driver entering safely, not merely by someone standing immediately before the sign.

The only photographed terms-and-conditions sign noticed whilst checking the location is mounted high on a post in front of the brightly illuminated store in a parent and child bay. The glare behind it, combined with its height and small lettering, makes its detailed terms unreadable at night.

Horizon's daylight close-up of a sign does not address these conditions. It proves only that the wording can be read when deliberately photographed under favourable circumstances.

Horizon must produce contemporaneous nighttime photographs from a driver's normal approach, evidence of the signs' illumination and a dated site plan showing all Horizon and YourParkingSpace signs. Daylight close-ups or isolated photographs taken directly in front of a sign are insufficient.

The evidence demonstrates that Horizon's entrance terms could not be read from a moving vehicle following the safe route into the car park, while its detailed terms were obscured by height, small text and glare. Horizon has therefore failed to establish that its alleged restriction and £100 charge were adequately brought to the driver's attention.

Quote:APPELLANT'S COMMENTS ON HORIZON'S EVIDENCE

1. HORIZON HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE TO KEEPER WAS POSTED

This is the primary and dispositive issue.

The driver has not been identified. Horizon can therefore hold the appellant liable only by proving full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

Paragraph 9(4) requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to be given within the relevant 14-day period by:

"sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period."

Horizon bears the burden of proving the facts required for keeper liability, including that this NtK was sent by post.

Paragraph 9(6) provides:

"A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered… on the second working day after the day on which it is posted."

The statutory sequence is clear:

1. Horizon must first prove that the NtK was sent by post.
2. Only then does paragraph 9(6) presume delivery on the second working day.
3. That delivery presumption may then be rebutted by contrary evidence.

Paragraph 9(6) presumes delivery after posting; it does not presume posting merely because Horizon can produce a document bearing an issue date. "Unless the contrary is proved" concerns the presumed date of delivery once posting is established. It does not reverse the burden or require the appellant to prove that an unproven act of posting did not occur. Evidence of Horizon's printing and mailing processes is exclusively within Horizon's possession.

A copy of an NtK proves, at most, that Horizon can now produce such a document. It does not prove that it was printed, properly addressed, prepaid and placed into the postal system on the date alleged.

Horizon says Section C contains "the relevant case records confirming its issue." It does not. Section C contains a cover letter, the alleged NtK, ANPR images and a registered-keeper information panel. It contains no contemporaneous print record, dispatch log, postal manifest, certificate of posting, mailing-provider record or audit trail showing that this NtK entered the postal system.

Horizon was put to strict proof of posting in the appeal. Its failure to produce records it expressly claims to have supplied must be resolved against Horizon, which bears the burden of establishing keeper liability.

The newly produced document is further undermined by inconsistent records:

• the reminder says the original charge was issued on 27 May 2026;
• the document now produced is dated 28 May 2026;
• Horizon refers to both dates in its case summary;
• Horizon incorrectly tells POPLA that the reminder states 28 May; and
• its earlier SAR response said it held no relevant letters or records containing the appellant's name or address.

Horizon has not explained why the alleged NtK was not produced when first challenged, why it was omitted from the SAR disclosure, or why the issue dates conflict.

The appellant's evidence remains that no original NtK was received. Horizon has produced a copy but no evidence of posting. It has therefore failed at the first statutory stage and cannot invoke paragraph 9(6). Without proof that a compliant NtK was posted so as to be delivered within 14 days, keeper liability is not established. The appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.

2. HORIZON'S SIGNAGE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ADDRESS NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY

Horizon criticises the appellant's photographs because they post-date the event, yet relies on daylight photographs dated 3 September 2024, approximately 20 months before it.

Those images do not show:

• conditions at 22:45 on 22 May 2026;
• that the entrance sign was illuminated or visible from a moving vehicle negotiating the roundabout;
• that the terms were readable against glare from the illuminated store; or
• the signage arrangements on the material date.

Horizon ignores the appellant's nighttime photographs and dashcam footage. They show that the entrance sign was effectively invisible from the normal route, even with headlights, and could only be approached closely by stopping unsafely on the roundabout immediately before a pedestrian crossing.

Horizon's daylight close-ups show only that signs can be photographed by someone standing directly in front of them during daylight. The site plan proves neither nighttime legibility nor which internal sign was visible from the vehicle's position and route.

Horizon has therefore failed to prove that the alleged one-hour restriction and £70 charge were adequately brought to the driver's attention.

3. HORIZON HAS IGNORED THE CONFLICTING YOURPARKINGSPACE SIGNS

Horizon has not addressed prominent YourParkingSpace signs in the same car park stating:

"Parking for more than 3 hours?"

The corresponding booking information identifies the same location and advertises parking 24 hours a day, including multiple entry and exit during a booking.

Those signs advertise materially different rights from Horizon's alleged one-hour restriction. Horizon has not explained how the schemes interact, whether they apply to different bays or motorists, whether a booking overrides the maximum stay, how booked vehicles are exempted, or which terms prevail.

This is especially significant because Horizon's authority document refers to "Site Specific Requirements" yet it does not explain how those requirements accommodate the YourParkingSpace regime.

Horizon cannot establish a clear contractual term while ignoring conflicting notices on the same land. Under section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, ambiguity in a consumer notice must be interpreted in the way most favourable to the consumer.

4. HORIZON HAS NOT SHOWN HOW THE MANDATORY GRACE PERIOD WAS APPLIED

Horizon alleges an overstay of approximately 11 minutes. The applicable Code requires a ten-minute grace period after the permitted period and prohibits a charge during it.

Horizon merely says it "considered" applicable allowances. It does not identify the grace period applied, its calculation, when parking actually began or ended, or how much of the ANPR interval represented movement through the site.

ANPR records entry and exit, not the period parked. After the mandatory ten minutes, only a very short interval remains. Horizon has not shown that this was continued parking rather than time spent leaving a space, navigating the car park, approaching the roundabout and passing the exit camera. Saying allowances were "considered" is not evidence that they were correctly applied.

5. HORIZON HAS ATTRIBUTED A CLAIM TO THE APPELLANT THAT WAS NEVER MADE

Horizon says: "During the initial appeal, the Appellant indicated that the driver was shopping at Tesco."

That is false. The appeal reproduced in Horizon's pack contains no such statement. It concerns PoFA compliance and non-receipt of the original NtK. Horizon's request for receipts or Clubcard evidence appears to be an irrelevant template response. It cannot convert its own invented premise into a representation by the appellant. This further demonstrates that its evidence and records were not reviewed with reasonable care.

6. THE EXISTENCE OF HORIZON'S EQUIPMENT DOES NOT PROVE ITS AUTHORITY

Horizon says its authority is "evidenced simply by the existence of Horizon's equipment being on the legal occupier's land."

That is circular. Equipment's presence proves only that it is present, not the legal scope, duration or restrictions of Horizon's authority.

The issue is whether written authority covered this enforcement, including the one-hour nighttime restriction and its interaction with YourParkingSpace. Horizon's assertion that its signs and cameras must be authorised because they exist is not evidence of those matters.

CONCLUSION

Horizon bears the burden of proving keeper liability. It has produced a copy of an alleged NtK but no evidence that it was posted. The paragraph 9(6) delivery presumption cannot arise until posting is established.

The conflicting issue dates, absent "case records", defective SAR disclosure, inadequate nighttime-signage evidence, ignored YourParkingSpace signs and unexplained grace-period calculation further undermine its case.

As the driver has not been identified and Horizon has not proved that a compliant NtK was sent within the statutory process, the appeal must be allowed.