Horizon Parking PCN

[Tortfeasor]

Hi @b789

Thank you once again for your help. You would get my nomination to be on the New Year Honours list!

I chuckled a lot when skim-reading Horizon’s POPLA response before I shared it. The thing that gave me the biggest chuckle was discovering these supposed provided “case records” in Schedule C showing the NtK was, “correctly issued,” weren’t included. 

I am even more convinced now that the original NtK didn’t enter the postal system. I forgot to mention to you, when I came home about 2 weeks ago, I received what I’d call a “final demand for payment” letter from Horizon with a September issue date. I was still within the POPLA appeal window, which I thought was reflective of Horizon’s practices generally. However, I’ve received that keeper reminder letter in July and the final demand for payment letter in September. Logic tells me if the NtK had actually entered the postal system in May, I’d have also received it. 

I had a feeling the matter of the 2 different issue dates given in Horizon’s response was worth mentioning. I did a double-take when I first read references to an issue date of 28 May, as everything I’d read from Horizon prior to its POPLA response had maintained it had issued the charge on 27 May. 

When I received Horizon’s reply to my appeal on July 31st, which harped on about me providing evidence the driver was a customer, I knew I’d likely been sent some template. I completely ignored it at the time as I knew I’d not made representations about, “customer status.” I didn’t think Horizon would try and resurrect it again though. I really like how you phrased the point about Horizon trying to convert its own invented premise about claiming customer status into a submission I had made! 

It also didn’t escape me about how ill-thought out it was for Horizon to criticise my provided photos from 3 months after the event but then relying on ones it has from 20 months beforehand.

Whoever wrote Horizon’s response needs to develop a better ability to paraphrase and quote too. I noted there is a reference to the appellant stating the car park entrance sign is near a tree. Incorrect preposition. I stated the sign was underneath a tree and ever since I discovered this fact, it has been central to my point about the lack of visibility that results because of it, especially at night.
Near a tree would be one thing, but underneath a tree - and as you saw from the photos and footage it’s not some little garden shrub - it causes that sign to be enshadowed.

I found the dismissiveness in Horizon’s response about my points about the entrance sign a very poor showing. It is the largest of all their signs at that car park. Its response reads like it’s downplaying the sign.  I also didn’t just focus on that one sign either despite Horizon saying I did. Clearly Horizon didn’t want to bother to comment about that other sign within the car park, which is nearest to the actual store entrance and in the parent and child bays, and is outshone by the glare from the lighting inside the shop at night 


I will keep you updated. Thank you!

[b789]

You're very welcome, and thank you for the kind words.

The September demand is worth retaining. It does not itself prove that the original NtK was never posted, but it strengthens the credibility of your evidence: Horizon successfully delivered both its July reminder and September demand, yet the supposedly crucial May NtK was the one document that never arrived. More importantly, Horizon has still produced no mailing record or audit trail showing that it entered the postal system.

The conflicting dates and missing "case records" are particularly damaging because those are matters entirely within Horizon's own records. It cannot reasonably expect you to explain discrepancies that it created and has failed to address.

Its treatment of the signage evidence is equally poor. "Near a tree" plainly misrepresents the point that the entrance sign is underneath a substantial tree and consequently obscured and unlit at night. Horizon has also ignored the internal sign affected by glare and the conflicting YourParkingSpace signs, while criticising your evidence as three months later and relying upon its own photographs from twenty months earlier.

Ultimately, Horizon's response appears to avoid the evidence it cannot satisfactorily answer. We must now see whether the POPLA assessor properly engages with those omissions. Please do keep us updated.