09-01-2026, 04:13 PM
That is potentially very useful evidence. Those are not merely signs belonging to another company; they appear to advertise a second and directly conflicting parking regime operating within the same car park.
Horizon apparently says that parking between 10pm and midnight is limited to one hour, and to only 15 minutes when the store is closed. Yet the conspicuous YourParkingSpace signs invite motorists to park for more than three hours, while the corresponding location page says that the spaces are available 24 hours a day and that motorists may enter and exit repeatedly throughout their booking.
Those propositions cannot coexist unless the signs clearly explain how the two schemes interact and which motorists, bays or areas are subject to each one. A motorist should not have to guess whether Horizon’s restrictions apply, whether a YourParkingSpace booking overrides them, or whether different parts of the same apparently undivided car park are governed by different terms.
This strengthens two separate POPLA grounds.
First, it puts the adequacy and clarity of the contractual terms directly in issue. If the signs within the same car park convey materially different permitted durations, there is no single clear contractual offer. Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) also provides that where a consumer term or notice is capable of different meanings, the meaning most favourable to the consumer prevails.
Second, it makes the standing point even more important. Horizon must now produce evidence showing not merely that it has some connection with the site, but precisely what land and parking activity it is authorised to control, how that authority interacts with YourParkingSpace bookings, and whether vehicles using that scheme are exempted or entered onto a whitelist. The existence of Horizon signs cannot prove the extent of Horizon’s authority when another company is simultaneously advertising a conflicting right to park on the same land.
The one point that needs establishing is whether the YourParkingSpace signs were present on 22 May 2026. Your photographs prove that they were present on 31 August, but Horizon may say they were installed later. Preserve the photographs with their original metadata and take dated screenshots of the YourParkingSpace webpage showing the Tesco location, location ID, availability and booking terms. If YourParkingSpace can confirm when that location first became bookable or when the signs were installed, that would close off the obvious response from Horizon.
Your nighttime evidence concerning the entrance sign is also very strong. The issue is not simply that it was difficult to read. Your footage apparently demonstrates that a driver negotiating the roundabout and pedestrian crossing could not position the vehicle close enough to read it without leaving the proper lane and stopping on the roundabout. Horizon cannot reasonably contend that a driver should compromise road safety or obstruct a roundabout to discover contractual terms hidden beneath an unilluminated tree.
The phrase “what the Hell are they playing at?” is entirely understandable. For POPLA, however, we can translate that into the rather more restrained proposition that Horizon has failed to establish any clear, coherent and unambiguous contractual regime at the location.
I will draft an additional section for the POPLA appeal you can incorporate into the appeal later today or tomorrow.
Horizon apparently says that parking between 10pm and midnight is limited to one hour, and to only 15 minutes when the store is closed. Yet the conspicuous YourParkingSpace signs invite motorists to park for more than three hours, while the corresponding location page says that the spaces are available 24 hours a day and that motorists may enter and exit repeatedly throughout their booking.
Those propositions cannot coexist unless the signs clearly explain how the two schemes interact and which motorists, bays or areas are subject to each one. A motorist should not have to guess whether Horizon’s restrictions apply, whether a YourParkingSpace booking overrides them, or whether different parts of the same apparently undivided car park are governed by different terms.
This strengthens two separate POPLA grounds.
First, it puts the adequacy and clarity of the contractual terms directly in issue. If the signs within the same car park convey materially different permitted durations, there is no single clear contractual offer. Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) also provides that where a consumer term or notice is capable of different meanings, the meaning most favourable to the consumer prevails.
Second, it makes the standing point even more important. Horizon must now produce evidence showing not merely that it has some connection with the site, but precisely what land and parking activity it is authorised to control, how that authority interacts with YourParkingSpace bookings, and whether vehicles using that scheme are exempted or entered onto a whitelist. The existence of Horizon signs cannot prove the extent of Horizon’s authority when another company is simultaneously advertising a conflicting right to park on the same land.
The one point that needs establishing is whether the YourParkingSpace signs were present on 22 May 2026. Your photographs prove that they were present on 31 August, but Horizon may say they were installed later. Preserve the photographs with their original metadata and take dated screenshots of the YourParkingSpace webpage showing the Tesco location, location ID, availability and booking terms. If YourParkingSpace can confirm when that location first became bookable or when the signs were installed, that would close off the obvious response from Horizon.
Your nighttime evidence concerning the entrance sign is also very strong. The issue is not simply that it was difficult to read. Your footage apparently demonstrates that a driver negotiating the roundabout and pedestrian crossing could not position the vehicle close enough to read it without leaving the proper lane and stopping on the roundabout. Horizon cannot reasonably contend that a driver should compromise road safety or obstruct a roundabout to discover contractual terms hidden beneath an unilluminated tree.
The phrase “what the Hell are they playing at?” is entirely understandable. For POPLA, however, we can translate that into the rather more restrained proposition that Horizon has failed to establish any clear, coherent and unambiguous contractual regime at the location.
I will draft an additional section for the POPLA appeal you can incorporate into the appeal later today or tomorrow.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
