10-01-2026, 10:04 AM
Thank you, @Tortfeasor. I have now reviewed the complete evidence pack.
Your assessment is correct. Horizon has produced a great deal of repetitive assertion but has failed to provide the evidence upon which several of those assertions supposedly depend.
Most importantly, Section C does not contain the "relevant case records confirming issue" of the original Notice to Keeper. It contains a cover letter, a copy of an alleged NtK, the ANPR images and a registered-keeper information panel. There is no printing record, dispatch log, postal manifest, certificate of posting or other contemporaneous evidence that this particular NtK entered the postal system.
Producing a copy now proves only that Horizon can produce a document bearing an issue date. It does not prove that the document was posted. That distinction is particularly important because:
Horizon even incorrectly states that the reminder records an issue date of 28 May when it actually records 27 May. These unexplained contradictions materially undermine the reliability of its records.
Its signage evidence is equally poor. Horizon criticises your photographs for having been taken after the event, yet its own photographs are daylight images dated 3 September 2024, approximately 20 months before the event. They do not show conditions at 22:45 on 22 May 2026 and provide no evidence that any sign was illuminated or readable at night.
Horizon completely ignores your nighttime photographs and dashcam footage. It also fails to address the prominent YourParkingSpace signs offering parking for more than three hours or explain how those conflicting terms interact with Horizon's alleged one-hour limit.
Horizon's treatment of the grace period is also inadequate. It merely states that it "considered" the applicable allowances without identifying what grace period was applied or showing its calculation. The alleged excess was only slightly more than the mandatory ten-minute grace period, while the ANPR images record entry to and exit from the site—not the actual period parked.
Its claim that you said the driver was shopping at Tesco is simply false. Your initial appeal made no such claim. Horizon appears to have generated a template request for shopping evidence and has now attempted to attribute its own invented premise to you.
Finally, Horizon's statement that its authority is "evidenced simply" by the existence of its equipment is circular nonsense. Equipment proves physical presence, not the legal scope of its authority. More importantly, Horizon has not explained how its asserted authority interacts with the separate YourParkingSpace scheme operating on the same land.
The POPLA comments should remain tightly focused on those failures rather than becoming distracted by Horizon's irrelevant discussion about receipts and the second POPLA code. I will draft the comments around the missing posting evidence, contradictory records, deficient signage evidence, ignored YourParkingSpace signs and unexplained grace-period calculation.
Your assessment is correct. Horizon has produced a great deal of repetitive assertion but has failed to provide the evidence upon which several of those assertions supposedly depend.
Most importantly, Section C does not contain the "relevant case records confirming issue" of the original Notice to Keeper. It contains a cover letter, a copy of an alleged NtK, the ANPR images and a registered-keeper information panel. There is no printing record, dispatch log, postal manifest, certificate of posting or other contemporaneous evidence that this particular NtK entered the postal system.
Producing a copy now proves only that Horizon can produce a document bearing an issue date. It does not prove that the document was posted. That distinction is particularly important because:
• the original NtK was not received;
• Horizon did not produce it when its existence was first challenged;
• Horizon's SAR response said it held no relevant letters or records;
• the reminder says the original charge was issued on 27 May;
• the newly produced NtK is dated 28 May; and
• Horizon itself refers to both 27 and 28 May within the same response.
• Horizon did not produce it when its existence was first challenged;
• Horizon's SAR response said it held no relevant letters or records;
• the reminder says the original charge was issued on 27 May;
• the newly produced NtK is dated 28 May; and
• Horizon itself refers to both 27 and 28 May within the same response.
Horizon even incorrectly states that the reminder records an issue date of 28 May when it actually records 27 May. These unexplained contradictions materially undermine the reliability of its records.
Its signage evidence is equally poor. Horizon criticises your photographs for having been taken after the event, yet its own photographs are daylight images dated 3 September 2024, approximately 20 months before the event. They do not show conditions at 22:45 on 22 May 2026 and provide no evidence that any sign was illuminated or readable at night.
Horizon completely ignores your nighttime photographs and dashcam footage. It also fails to address the prominent YourParkingSpace signs offering parking for more than three hours or explain how those conflicting terms interact with Horizon's alleged one-hour limit.
Horizon's treatment of the grace period is also inadequate. It merely states that it "considered" the applicable allowances without identifying what grace period was applied or showing its calculation. The alleged excess was only slightly more than the mandatory ten-minute grace period, while the ANPR images record entry to and exit from the site—not the actual period parked.
Its claim that you said the driver was shopping at Tesco is simply false. Your initial appeal made no such claim. Horizon appears to have generated a template request for shopping evidence and has now attempted to attribute its own invented premise to you.
Finally, Horizon's statement that its authority is "evidenced simply" by the existence of its equipment is circular nonsense. Equipment proves physical presence, not the legal scope of its authority. More importantly, Horizon has not explained how its asserted authority interacts with the separate YourParkingSpace scheme operating on the same land.
The POPLA comments should remain tightly focused on those failures rather than becoming distracted by Horizon's irrelevant discussion about receipts and the second POPLA code. I will draft the comments around the missing posting evidence, contradictory records, deficient signage evidence, ignored YourParkingSpace signs and unexplained grace-period calculation.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
