DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 126410--------------------------------------------------
Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park
DIR By: Artichoke
Date: July 31, 2026, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I would appreciate comments on this. Unfortunately driver
overstayed the Maximum Stay of 3 hours at this retail park.
Notice sent to registered keeper.
Letter and signage photo included below.
Thanks in advance
HTML https://ibb.co/xqk7sgXY
HTML https://ibb.co/TDX20WZ6
HTML https://ibb.co/DHTb9XCH
#Post#: 126414--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park
DIR By: Sander333
Date: July 31, 2026, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no period of parking stipulated time of arrival and
departure.On first photograph there is a vehicle which is a
Peugeot which is prominent but the Skoda is barley visible
behind. The reg plate is blurred but probably can be enhanced.
Perhaps it would be a better option to contact landowner to try
and get it cancelled as a customer using facilities.
#Post#: 126539--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 2, 2026, 1:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The NtK is not compliant with POFA schedule 4.
The creditor is not clearly identified.
The wording required by 9(2)(e) is not present - no invite to
the keeper and a misrepresentation of the legislation regarding
the supply of driver details.
#Post#: 126794--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park
DIR By: Artichoke
Date: August 4, 2026, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks.
Following your comments I have searched the forum and see that
the notice doesn't comply with Paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(h) of
the Act. Is the following appeal sufficient at this stage, or
should I be more specific?
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle.
I challenge this Parking Charge Notice.
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. Accordingly, you cannot transfer liability for the parking
charge from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
I am under no obligation to identify the driver and decline to
do so.
Therefore, please cancel this Parking Charge.
#Post#: 126797--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 4, 2026, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you need to be more specific because they will
reject your appeal regardless of what you say - you need to keep
the specifics for the defence to the county court claim which
may well follow.
In the meantime an appeal to POPLA would be justified but don't
worry if it is also rejected.
It's all a game to them, most people pay up, so if you don't
eventually they'll give in.
#Post#: 126798--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 4, 2026, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think this will win at POPLA due to the issue with the
creditor.
#Post#: 130626--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park
DIR By: Artichoke
Date: September 16, 2026, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, this appeal has been rejected and a POPLA code
provided. I would be grateful for thoughts on this draft for
POPLA appeal:-
I am the registered keeper's authorised representative. The
registered keeper has not identified the driver. I have
authority to conduct this appeal on the keeper's behalf and do
so on the following grounds.
Ground 1: The Notice to Keeper does not comply with paragraph
9(2)(e) of Schedule 4
The operator relies upon keeper liability under Schedule 4 of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
In particular, paragraph 9(2)(e) requires the Notice to Keeper
to invite the keeper either to pay the unpaid parking charge or,
if the keeper was not the driver, to provide the driver's name
and current address for service.
The notice instead states:
"As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address,
if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the
name and current postal address of the driver and pass this to
them."
I put the operator to strict proof that this wording satisfies
paragraph 9(2)(e) and all other applicable requirements of
Schedule 4. If it does not, the conditions for keeper liability
under Schedule 4 have not been met.
Ground 2: The creditor is not properly identified — paragraph
9(2)(h)
Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the Notice to Keeper to identify the
creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to
the creditor may be made.
The notice identifies CP Plus Ltd T/A Group Nexus but also
refers repeatedly to "our Client's property". The site signage
states that the car park is "managed and operated on behalf of
Savills by CP Plus Ltd", indicating an agency relationship.
I put the operator to proof that the Notice to Keeper properly
identifies the creditor as required by paragraph 9(2)(h), and
that the entity identified as creditor was entitled to recover
the charge on 14 July 2026.
Ground 3: The contractual basis for the charge has not been
demonstrated
The operator's rejection merely asserts that clear signage was
present.
I require the operator to provide evidence of the contractual
signage and terms applicable on 14 July 2026, including the
entrance signage, the positioning of the signs relied upon, and
evidence that they were in place in that form on that date.
I also put the operator to proof that it had authority from the
landowner or other party with sufficient interest in the land to
enter into parking contracts, issue charges and pursue them in
its own name on that date.
Ground 4: ANPR evidence
The charge relies upon ANPR evidence.
I require the operator to demonstrate that the ANPR equipment
was maintained and that the relevant timestamps were accurate
and synchronised on 14 July 2026, in accordance with the
applicable Code of Practice.
Conclusion
The driver has not been identified.
The operator has not demonstrated that its Notice to Keeper
satisfies the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, in
particular paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(h).
I therefore ask POPLA to allow the appeal unless the operator
can demonstrate that keeper liability has been established and
that the charge was otherwise properly issued.
I reserve the right to comment on the operator's evidence pack
and request the opportunity to do so before determination.
#Post#: 130627--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: September 16, 2026, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This was a successful appeal point against GroupNexus from
another case relating to 9(2)(h);
Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the Notice to Keeper to identify the
creditor. That means the legal person said to be entitled to
recover the parking charge.
This Notice to Keeper does not clearly identify the creditor. It
uses GroupNexus branding, refers in the footer to CP Plus
Limited (company number 02595379) t/a GroupNexus, and elsewhere
refers to “our Client’s property”. That wording is not clear
identification of the creditor. It leaves the recipient to infer
the alleged creditor’s identity rather than stating it
expressly.
That defect is particularly serious here because GroupNexus is
no longer merely a trading name used by CP Plus Limited.
GroupNexus Limited (company number 15560549) is now itself a
separate incorporated legal entity. That is the crucial point.
Historically, an operator might have argued that “GroupNexus”
was simply branding for CP Plus Limited and nothing more. That
is no longer safely arguable once GroupNexus Limited exists as a
distinct company in its own right.
Accordingly, when this Notice to Keeper uses “GroupNexus”
branding, refers in the footer to CP Plus Limited (company
number 02595379) t/a GroupNexus, and also refers to “our
Client’s property”, the recipient is left uncertain as to which
legal person is allegedly the creditor. Is it said to be CP Plus
Limited? Is it said to be GroupNexus Limited (company number
15560549)? Or is it some unnamed client or principal? The Notice
does not say.
That is not a trivial technicality. The whole purpose of
paragraph 9(2)(h) is to ensure that the recipient knows the
identity of the creditor. PoFA requires the creditor to be
identified clearly within the Notice to Keeper itself. It is not
enough for the recipient to be left to guess from branding,
trading styles or vague references to a client.
POPLA is therefore invited to understand the precise implication
here: once GroupNexus Limited exists as a separate legal entity,
the old casual use of “GroupNexus” as if it were merely a
harmless trading label is no longer sufficient for PoFA
purposes. The Notice must make clear which legal person is the
creditor. This Notice fails to do so. Paragraph 9(2)(h) has
therefore not been complied with.
POPLA decision (Assessor: Paul E Walker. Case: ET6121/001)
confirmed that the pro forma notice did not meet the
requirements of POFA - your notice is identical save for the
parking details.
I would lead the Assessor by the nose to this case after using
the above appeal point verbatim.
#Post#: 130630--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park
DIR By: Artichoke
Date: September 16, 2026, 11:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great. Thanks.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1