Horizon Parking PCN

[b789]

The nighttime evidence significantly strengthens the signage ground. The YourParkingSpace signs advertise a paid extension or pre-booking scheme. The decisive point is that motorists are presented with conflicting parking regimes without any clear explanation of how they interact.

I would replace sections 4 and 6 with the following:

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.