DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110876--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: February 24, 2026, 12:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> I'm struggling to see why the NTK is not POFA compliant.
>
--- End Quote ---
Where's the invitation to the RK to pay the invoice?
That omission makes the NTK defective.
#Post#: 110879--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: ixxy
Date: February 24, 2026, 1:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's an opinion, not a legal certainty and the PPC won't
cancel on that basis and nor will a second stage appeal service.
#Post#: 110880--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 24, 2026, 1:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In order to be compliant the NtK must contain specific text and
legal choices as specified by Schedule 4 of PoFA.
In this instance, the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph
9(2)(e) are not satisfied by the operators NtK.
To be compliant, the requirements of 9(2)(e) can only be met if
a specific paragraph is placed in the NtK which should read as
follows;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the current time, Group Nexus (the creditor) does not know
both the name and a current address for service for the driver.
The keeper is therefore INVITED TO PAY THE UNPAID PARKING
CHARGES (Para 9(2)(e)(i) requirement but not present on the
Group Nexus NtK)
Or
If the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the
creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass this notice onto the driver
(Para 9(2)(e)(ii) requirement)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The required paragraph is clearly missing from the operators
NtK.
The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant
ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved by, for
example, placing the information at random points throughout the
NtK since this would not present the keeper with the legal
choice which 9(2)(e) requires.
NtK never states the mandatory wording required by para.
9(2)(e).
NtK never 'invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking
charges'.
NtK never presents the two limbed legal invitation which para.
9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.
This probably won't work with the initial appeal but it has a
much better chance with POPLA because we can word the POPLA
appeal in such a manner as to ask Group Nexus to highlight the
missing wording on their NtK.
#Post#: 110940--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: February 24, 2026, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ixxy link ---
>
> That's an opinion, not a legal certainty and the PPC won't
cancel on that basis and nor will a second stage appeal service.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree that both appeals will undoubtedly fail but that's
neither here nor there, it's to be expected.
Some breaches of POFA could be argued to be technical in nature
- omitting the invitation to the keeper to pay is not.....it's a
mandatory element and if it's missing then the NTK is
non-compliant and liability cannot be transferred from driver to
keeper.
#Post#: 110948--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: Higym
Date: February 24, 2026, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible to try both approaches i.e ask to cancel due
legitimate gym use, or if u don't cancel on that basis then the
ntk definitely will(eventually) be thrown out anyway due to non
compliance?
#Post#: 110949--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 24, 2026, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brenda_R2 link ---
>
> Some breaches of POFA could be argued to be technical in
nature - omitting the invitation to the keeper to pay is
not.....it's a mandatory element and if it's missing then the
NTK is non-compliant and liability cannot be transferred from
driver to keeper.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=7581]Brenda_R2[/member] unless you can quote an
authority or binding precedent on this point, then that is still
an opinion. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I'm saying
we can't describe it as if it is established fact.
#Post#: 111121--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: Higym
Date: February 25, 2026, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyone?
#Post#: 111136--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 25, 2026, 10:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am the registered keeper.
As your notice is not PoFA compliant I will not be accepting any
liability for the outstanding parking charges.
The driver is not known to you and I will not be providing any
driver details.
Your options are;
Cancel the notice
OR
Waste further money by providing a POPLA code.
Many thanks,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxx
#Post#: 111139--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: Brenda_R2
Date: February 25, 2026, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote author=Brenda_R2 link=topic=10016.msg110940#msg110940
date=1771940875]
> Some breaches of POFA could be argued to be technical in
nature - omitting the invitation to the keeper to pay is
not.....it's a mandatory element and if it's missing then the
NTK is non-compliant and liability cannot be transferred from
driver to keeper.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=7581]Brenda_R2[/member] unless you can quote an
authority or binding precedent on this point, then that is still
an opinion. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I'm saying
we can't describe it as if it is established fact.
[/quote]
Apologies.
You’re absolutely right that there’s no binding appellate
precedent on this specific POFA omission, and I’m not suggesting
otherwise. My point is simply that POFA Schedule 4 sets out
mandatory requirements, and paragraph 9(2)(e) is one of them.
If a Notice to Keeper doesn’t include a mandatory element, then
by definition it doesn’t comply with POFA, and keeper liability
cannot arise. That isn’t a controversial interpretation — it’s
the standard way statutory “must include” provisions are read.
So I’m not claiming an established precedent, just applying the
statute as written. I’m happy to phrase it as:
“In the absence of 9(2)(e), the NTK does not meet the statutory
requirements of POFA, and therefore cannot create keeper
liability — although there is no binding authority specifically
on this omission.”
#Post#: 111144--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus the gym group PCN
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 25, 2026, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I find the wording of Schedule 4 to be 'legally tight' - meaning
that it is 100% mechanically objective in nature and therefore,
subjectivity cannot be introduced in the normal course of
events.
Of course, what could happen, theoretically, is a parking
operator may issue an NtK which provides a significant variation
in the mandatory wording but still transmits the required
information.
Then some subjectivity could creep in.
This is why legal experts advise businesses NOT to vary from
prescribed wording when setting out terms and conditions etc.
If you stray too far from mandatory wording then you risk
leaving yourself exposed to the accusation of non compliance.
In the case of PoFA, the schedule uses the word "MUST" - this is
a legally recognised word meaning 100% compliance and therefore
there is little to no chance of a parking operator ever bringing
a court case which would turn on the interpretation of "MUST".
Some statutes use the word "SHOULD" as apposed to "MUST" and
this does cause legal wrangling as it is accepted that "SHOULD"
does not require absolute compliance.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page