DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54935--------------------------------------------------
CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: January 24, 2025, 9:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon all, new to the forum following pepipoo's demise and
was after some advice on this one please.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/HRo7slW
Link above has pictures of the charge along with the entrance to
the car park, where signs are located within the car park
relevant to where the driver parked and the sign to the machine
that at the time was being repaired.
All pictures are from going back to take after receiving said
letter.
So driver entered car park, turning left into the site, there is
no signage visible when turning left in stating charges etc.
Driver parked up and was offered from a member of the public a
ticket with no registration on the ticket, as it was an all day
ticket the driver accepted not realising the car park had anpr,
proceeded to walk the park then leave. Did not keep the parking
ticket after.
Letter was received approximately a week go.
Let me know if there is any further info you may need. Many
thanks
#Post#: 54954--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: b789
Date: January 24, 2025, 12:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hicks Lodge, the National Forest Cycle Centre, is land under
statutory control. Land under statutory control typically falls
under the jurisdiction of byelaws or legislation, such as local
government acts, railway byelaws, or specific statutory
instruments.
Hicks Lodge is managed by Forestry England, which operates as
part of the Forestry Commission, a statutory body. The Forestry
Commission operates under the Forestry Act 1967 and has
established byelaws to regulate activities on the lands it
manages. These byelaws, known as the Forestry Commission Byelaws
1982
HTML https://www.forestryengland.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Forestry%20Commission_Byelaws.pdf,<br
/>apply to all lands under the Commission's management or
control
where the public has, or may be permitted to have, access.
One of the key provisions of the Forestry Commission Byelaws
1982:
As such, it is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA which
means that the Keeper cannot be liable. Group Nexus have no idea
of the driver identity and there is no legal obligation on the
Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking
company.
As GroupNexus has issued a Notice to Keeper (NtK) claiming that
they have the right under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA) to hold the Keeper liable for an alleged parking
contravention on land that is not 'relevant land' under PoFA,
such as the Hicks Lodge car park, they are acting unlawfully by
misrepresenting their legal position.
Claiming a right under PoFA to hold the Keeper liable on
non-relevant land constitutes a misrepresentation of the law,
which breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading
Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) which prohibits businesses from making
false or misleading claims that influence consumers' decisions.
It is also a breach of The Fraud Act 2006 (Section 2). If the
misrepresentation is deliberate and intended to gain a financial
advantage (e.g., payment of a charge), this constitutes fraud.
GroupNexus is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA)
and the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
requires members to adhere to the law. Misstating the
applicability of PoFA breaches the PPSCoP and is grounds for a
complaint to the BPA.
I advise that you send a formal complaint to GroupNexus, which
met also be considered as an appeal under section 11.2 of the
PPSCoP. Send it as a PDF attachment in an email to
info@groupnexus.co.uk. Let's see how they respond:
--- Quote ---
> GroupNexus
> Jack Straws Castle
> 12 North End Way
> London, NW3 7ES
>
> By email: info@groupnexus.co.uk
>
> [Date]
>
> Subject: Formal Complaint and Appeal Regarding Notice to
Keeper [Reference Number]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I am writing as the Registered Keeper regarding the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) issued by GroupNexus, reference [insert reference
number], for an alleged parking contravention at Hicks Lodge,
the National Forest Cycle Centre.
>
> This correspondence is a formal complaint and must also be
considered an appeal under Section 11.2 of the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
>
> Grounds of Appeal and Complaint
>
> [indent]1. Misrepresentation of Keeper Liability under PoFA
>
> Your NtK claims that the registered Keeper is liable for this
parking charge under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
However, Hicks Lodge is managed by Forestry England and is
subject to the Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982. Land subject to
statutory control is not "relevant land" as defined in Schedule
4, Paragraph 3(1)(c) of PoFA, and therefore PoFA cannot be used
to transfer liability to the Keeper.
>
> 2. Right to Issue PCNs
>
> While GroupNexus may have a valid contract with the landowner
allowing the issuance of Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) for
alleged contractual breaches, your NtK misrepresents your
ability to rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable. As the land
is not relevant land under PoFA, you can only pursue the driver
of the vehicle, whose identity has not been disclosed.
>
> 3.Compliance with the PPSCoP
>
> Your NtK fails to meet the requirements of the PPSCoP,
including:
>
> [indent]• Transparency: Misstating the applicability of PoFA
breaches transparency standards.
>
> • Accuracy: Failing to acknowledge the land's statutory
control.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Required Actions
>
> I formally request that you:
>
> [indent]1. Cancel the Parking Charge Notice immediately, as it
has no legal standing against me as the registered Keeper.
>
> 2. Provide written confirmation that no further action will be
taken against me.
>
> 3. Ensure all future NtKs issued for land not classified as
relevant under PoFA are amended to avoid
misrepresentation.[/indent]
>
> Failure to resolve this complaint satisfactorily will result
in escalation to:
>
> [indent]• The British Parking Association (BPA) for breaches
of the PPSCoP.
>
> • Trading Standards for misrepresentation of legal rights.
>
> • The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), if there is
evidence of improper handling of personal data.[/indent]
>
> I expect a full response to this complaint and appeal within
the timeframe set out in the PPSCoP.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> Registered Keeper of Vehicle [Registration Number]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 56117--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: February 1, 2025, 5:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for your reply, it's great to see so many helpful
people on here. I've had the following response, let me know
your thoughts.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking
Charge.
The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance
with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and all
relevant laws and regulations.
Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform
drivers of the requirement to pay for parking, and it is not
possible to access any part of the premises without passing
multiple signs. Your representations are not considered a
mitigating circumstance for appeal.
We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As no driver details have been
provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle
liable.
In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have
been carefully considered and rejected.
We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate
of £50 for a further 14 days from the date of this
correspondence. If no payment is received within this period,
and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate
and further costs may be added.
Please find below the payment options:
Online: www.groupnexus.co.uk/pcn
By Telephone: Credit/Debit cards via our automated payment line:
0844 371 8784
By Post: Cheques or Postal Orders to: PO Box 1750, Northampton,
NN1 9PN
----------
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
This correspondence represents our final stance on the matter
and we will therefore not enter into any further correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL
WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR EXTEND THE DATE IN WHICH PAYMENT
SHOULD BE MADE.
Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have
recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA),
an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made
within 28 days of the date of this correspondence. POPLA will
only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge
exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not
improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise
not liable for the Parking Charge. To appeal to POPLA, please
go to their website
HTML http://www.popla.co.uk
and follow the
instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post,
please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the
necessary paperwork.
Your POPLA reference number is:
POPLA will not consider any cases where payment has been made.
You must pay the charge or appeal to POPLA, you cannot do both.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman
Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative
dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with
your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in
their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should
you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained
above.
Yours faithfully,
CP Plus Ltd
#Post#: 56149--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: b789
Date: February 1, 2025, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
SO, they didn't answer the point about the land being under
statutory control and therefore not relevant land for the
purposes of PoFA. There are now two things to do...
One is to submit a POPLA appeal and the other is to raise a
formal complaint about CP Plus with the BPA as they have not
responded to all your points in the formal complaint.
Normally I would suggest a lengthy POPLA appeal covering as many
points as possible. However, there was a very recent POPLA
decision that was successful and the appeal was very succinct
and to the point. Using that successful POPLA appeal I thought
it would be good to adapt it to this situation, which is very
similar to the one it was originally made.
You are appealing ONLY as the Keeper:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle [XXXXXX] and have
received the Notice to Keeper (NTK) from CP Plus. I note that
the operator has not identified the driver. I understand that I
have no legal obligation to disclose the identity of the driver.
>
> My primary ground for this appeal is that the 28-day warning
within your NTK misleadingly implies that I, as the keeper, can
be held liable for this charge under the provisions of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This is legally
incorrect because the location in question—Hicks Lodge, National
Forest Cycle Centre—is land owned and managed by Forestry
England, which operates as part of the Forestry Commission, a
statutory body.
>
> The Forestry Commission operates under the Forestry Act 1967
and has established byelaws that regulate activities on the
lands it manages. These byelaws, known as the Forestry
Commission Byelaws 1982, apply to all lands under the
Commission’s management or control where the public has, or may
be permitted to have, access. As such, Hicks Lodge is not
'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, meaning
that the keeper cannot be held liable for any parking charge if
the driver is not identified.
>
> Your NTK appears to suggest otherwise, misleadingly omitting
any acknowledgment that PoFA does not apply in this case. This
constitutes a misrepresentation of legal authority, making the
demand for payment against the keeper wholly invalid.
>
> Given that you have not identified the driver, that I am not
willing nor obliged to provide such information, and that you
have no legal basis to hold me liable as keeper due to the
statutory control of this land, I respectfully request that this
appeal be upheld and that the PCN be withdrawn.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 56153--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 1, 2025, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would change the "you"/"your" to CP Plus or "the operator" -
as the audience for the POPLA appeal is the assessor, not the
parking company.
I'd also be tempted to quote the specific section of the
byelways that state they apply to all land managed by the
Commission.
I know it's rather stating the obvious, but that's never a bad
thing with POPLA ;D
#Post#: 57659--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: February 11, 2025, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the replies, I see popla ask for evidence such as
photos and a time line of everything, am I ignoring the latter
on the basis that it's not relevant on the basis it's on
forestry land then I just provide the above from b789 and add in
if I feel necessary the bylaw info? Assume with the BPA just
basically attach their original letter and state areas from your
reply b789 as to why I'm making the complaint?
#Post#: 57671--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: b789
Date: February 11, 2025, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you need to read the Forestry Commission Byelaws:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/648/pdfs/uksi_19820648_en.pdf
• Statutory Control – The byelaws confirm that vehicle use,
including parking, is subject to rules set by the Forestry
Commission, a statutory body operating under the Forestry Act
1967. This suggests that the land is under statutory control.
• Not 'Relevant Land' under PoFA – Since PoFA 2012 only applies
to land that is not under statutory control, the presence of
enforceable byelaws indicates that this location does not meet
the definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of PoFA.
• No Explicit Keeper Liability Mechanism – The byelaws do not
specify any mechanism allowing a private parking operator to
impose liability on the registered keeper. This further supports
the argument that CP Plus has no legal authority to pursue the
keeper under PoFA.
#Post#: 57695--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 11, 2025, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Create a PDF using Word or some other word processor, using the
text suggested by b789 (and the suggested amendments by me,
referring to the operator instead of 'you' etc.).
You then upload that to the POPLA online portal once you've
logged in etc. You're choosing "Other" as your reason for
appeal.
#Post#: 58435--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: February 16, 2025, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks both, I'll update you with the responses I get
#Post#: 59240--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: February 21, 2025, 4:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So I have had no reply as of yet from popla which is to be
expected (I submitted on the 18th Feb) but I've had a letter
since from nexus, a "parking charge reminder and legal action
pending" dated 17th Feb. Can I keep this as part of my complaint
as their original response to my "appeal" stated I had 14 days
to pay at the lower rate and 28 days to submit to popla, surely
in that timeframe they shouldn't be then sending more letters
threatening legal action or is there nothing to say they can't
do so? Just screams scare tactics to make you not appeal to
popla to me.
It makes a very big point of mentioning a case between parking
eye vs beavis established a parking charge is enforceable on
private land which we have already told them this land is not
which I find quite ironic.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page