You are probably overthinking the photographs slightly. From what I have seen, the footage and photographs adequately demonstrate the essential points: the entrance sign is unilluminated and effectively invisible from the normal approach; reading it would require a driver to stop unsafely on the roundabout while immediately approaching a pedestrian crossing; and the other Horizon sign is rendered unreadable by its height, small print and the glare from the illuminated store behind it.
The fact that the darkness prevents the tree from being clearly reproduced in a photograph rather proves the point about the conditions. A marked-up still identifying the tree, sign, roundabout and pedestrian crossing may assist the assessor, but I would not regard another extensive photographic expedition as necessary. You certainly do not need to photograph every Horizon sign in the car park. Horizon bears the burden of proving that its terms were adequately displayed and capable of forming a contract.
However, I would not place a huge amount of faith in POPLA applying the evidence and law properly. Ground 1 should be dispositive because Horizon has produced no evidence that a compliant Notice to Keeper was ever given within 14 days, but POPLA assessors can sometimes accept remarkably weak operator evidence or make assumptions that they should not make.
The important reassurance is that a refusal by POPLA would not determine your legal liability or end the matter. A POPLA decision is binding upon Horizon if the appeal is allowed, but it is not binding upon you if the appeal is refused. Horizon would still have to bring a county court claim and prove its case before a judge, who would determine the matter independently. POPLA's opinion would not bind the court.
If matters ever progressed that far, I would have considerably greater confidence in the outcome. On the evidence presently available, Horizon would face several fundamental problems:
• no evidence that a compliant Notice to Keeper was given within the statutory period and therefore no established keeper liability;
• no entrance signage capable of communicating contractual terms safely and legibly at night;
• another material sign rendered unreadable by height and glare;
• conspicuous YourParkingSpace signs offering parking for more than three hours, in direct tension with Horizon's alleged one-hour restriction;
• no clear explanation of how those conflicting parking regimes interact; and
• the statutory requirement that ambiguity in a consumer contract or notice be interpreted in the way most favourable to the consumer.
A sensible judge would be likely to ask the basic questions that POPLA sometimes avoids: Where is the original Notice to Keeper? What proves it was posted? What terms could the driver actually see? Which of the conflicting signs governed the parking? What authority did Horizon possess to enforce its particular terms alongside the YourParkingSpace scheme?
Horizon would have to answer those questions with evidence, not assumptions. Therefore, give POPLA the best-supported appeal possible, but do not regard an adverse POPLA decision as establishing that Horizon has a viable claim. It does not.
