URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 128589--------------------------------------------------
       GroupNexus / CP Plus NTK – Orchard Centre Didcot – possible PoFA
       Schedule 4 failures
   DIR By: Riz101
       Date: August 23, 2026, 12:53 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Links to docs/sign post images:
  HTML https://ibb.co/m5gTM8kd
  HTML https://ibb.co/RGzgS9VZ
  HTML https://ibb.co/1h1XX54
  HTML https://ibb.co/Nn3J5vKZ
       Hi all,
       I would appreciate some experienced eyes on this Notice to
       Keeper before I submit my first appeal to the operator.
       This is a postal ANPR PCN from **GroupNexus / CP Plus Ltd t/a
       GroupNexus** for **The Orchard Centre – Main Car Park, Didcot**.
       The alleged parking event was **6 August 2026**. The Notice to
       Keeper is headed **“Date of Issue: 18-08-2026”**. It actually
       arrived through the post on **21 August 2026**.
       I have attached redacted photographs of both sides of the
       notice. The driver has not been identified and I intend to deal
       with this only as the registered keeper.
       Having compared the NTK with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the
       Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, I think there may be several
       issues, but I would be grateful if somebody could confirm
       whether I have understood them correctly.
       The main one I see is **paragraph 9(2)(f)**. I cannot find
       anywhere on either side of the NTK the required warning that,
       after the relevant 28-day period, if the charge remains unpaid
       and the creditor does not know the driver's name and current
       address for service, the creditor will (subject to the Schedule
       4 conditions) have the right to recover the outstanding amount
       from the keeper. The notice merely says that if payment is not
       made they may ask a debt recovery agent to collect it. Am I
       correct that this is not equivalent to the 9(2)(f)
       keeper-liability warning?
       I also think **9(2)(e)** may not have been complied with. The
       NTK says: “If you were not the driver then let us know their
       name and address and we will send them this Charge.” However, I
       cannot see the required statement that the creditor does not
       know both the driver's name and a current address for service,
       nor an instruction to pass the notice to the driver.
       There is also a possible **timing issue**. The parking event was
       6 August and the notice actually arrived on 21 August. My
       understanding is that the 14-day relevant period under 9(4)/(5)
       ended on 20 August. However, the NTK has a “Date of Issue” of 18
       August, so I appreciate there may be an issue around deemed
       delivery and proving the actual posting/receipt date. I would
       particularly welcome views on this point.
       A further possible issue is **9(2)(h)**. The document is
       prominently branded GroupNexus but states in small print “CP
       Plus Ltd T/A GroupNexus”. As GroupNexus Limited is now itself a
       separate incorporated company, is there a credible argument that
       the creditor has not been sufficiently identified, or would you
       regard “CP Plus Ltd T/A GroupNexus” as adequate?
       Two weaker points I noticed are that it says “Date of Issue”
       rather than specifying the date it was actually sent, and the
       alleged contravention is described using generic alternatives:
       exceeding the free parking period, OR exceeding paid-for time,
       OR exceeding the maximum stay, rather than clearly identifying
       which particular contractual condition allegedly gave rise to
       this charge.
       Before giving GroupNexus a detailed explanation of every
       potential defect, I was considering sending only the short
       keeper appeal below and preserving the detailed arguments for
       POPLA if they reject it.
       **Proposed first appeal:**
       “I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered
       keeper.
       Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory
       requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
       2012 and therefore liability has not been transferred from the
       unidentified driver to the registered keeper. The notice was
       also not received until 21 August 2026.
       The driver will not be identified.
       Please cancel the Parking Charge Notice. If you decline to do
       so, please issue your formal rejection together with a POPLA
       verification code.”
       Would experienced members recommend sending that as the initial
       operator appeal, or would you change/add/remove anything at this
       stage?
       Thanks.
       #Post#: 128627--------------------------------------------------
       Re: GroupNexus / CP Plus NTK – Orchard Centre Didcot – possible
       PoFA Schedule 4 failures
   DIR By: Dave65
       Date: August 24, 2026, 4:19 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It looks like they just crept into the 14 days, presumed
       delivered within two working days.
       Yes the PPN is a bit of a mess.
       Others will comment.
       #Post#: 128690--------------------------------------------------
       Re: GroupNexus / CP Plus NTK – Orchard Centre Didcot – possible
       PoFA Schedule 4 failures
   DIR By: Sander333
       Date: August 24, 2026, 10:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The PCN is not POFA compliant as has been set out the creditor
       has not been named submit your appeal as the RK and await their
       decision and appeal thereafter to BPA it is quite a slap dash
       PCN and would not make it to court in my opinion.
       #Post#: 129138--------------------------------------------------
       Re: GroupNexus / CP Plus NTK – Orchard Centre Didcot – possible
       PoFA Schedule 4 failures
   DIR By: Riz101
       Date: August 28, 2026, 8:44 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi,
       Can one of the experienced members kindly confirm that it is
       okay for me to send the wording below as first appeal to the
       company.
       "I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered
       keeper.
       The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory
       requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
       2012. In particular, the notice does not properly identify the
       creditor as required by paragraph 9(2)(h).
       Accordingly, you have not established any right to recover the
       parking charge from me as the registered keeper.
       For completeness, the Notice to Keeper was actually received on
       21 August 2026.
       The driver will not be identified.
       Please cancel the Parking Charge Notice. If you decline to do
       so, please provide your formal rejection together with a POPLA
       verification code."
       #Post#: 129141--------------------------------------------------
       Re: GroupNexus / CP Plus NTK – Orchard Centre Didcot – possible
       PoFA Schedule 4 failures
   DIR By: InterCity125
       Date: August 29, 2026, 1:49 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes - that is fine - it is all about getting it to POPLA stage.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1