DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59261--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: b789
Date: February 21, 2025, 10:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You didn't show us the initial appeal rejection reason from CP
Plus and you didn't show us what you submitted to POPLA.
For now, submit the following as a formal complaint to
GroupNexus as a PDF attachment to an email to:
info@groupnexus.co.uk and also CC in yourself.
--- Quote ---
> Complaints Team
> GroupNexus
> Jack Straws Castle
> North End Way
> London
> NW3 7ES
>
> Delivered by email to: info@groupnexus.co.uk
>
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Procedural Breach and Unfair
Enforcement During POPLA Appeal
>
> PCN ref: [PCN number]
>
> Date
>
> Dear Complaints Team,
>
> I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding your
enforcement actions in relation to Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
[PCN Reference Number], issued for an alleged parking
contravention at Hicks Lodge, National Forest Cycle Centre.
>
> Grounds for Complaint
>
> Your actions in continuing enforcement processes while my
appeal is pending with POPLA constitute a serious procedural
breach of industry standards, including the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Specifically:
>
> 1. Issuing Reminder Letters and Debt Recovery Action During a
Pending POPLA Appeal
>
> [indent]• I submitted a formal appeal to POPLA on [Date of
POPLA Appeal Submission], which is currently awaiting
adjudication.
>
> • Despite this, I received a "Parking Charge Reminder and
Legal Action Pending" letter, dated 17th February 2025, which
improperly threatens further enforcement action before the
independent appeals process has concluded.
>
> • This is a clear violation of consumer protection
expectations and suggests an attempt to pressure me into paying
rather than allowing the appeal to be fairly
adjudicated.[/indent]
>
> 2. Breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP)
>
> [indent]• The PPSCoP explicitly states that enforcement action
must be paused while an appeal is under review by an accredited
ADR provider (such as POPLA).
>
> • Your decision to continue enforcement action before the
appeal is decided contradicts fair appeals procedures and is
unacceptable.[/indent]
>
> 3. Violation of the DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE)
Contract
>
> [indent]• The KADOE contract governs your access to vehicle
keeper data and requires strict compliance with all relevant
industry codes of practice.
>
> • Since the PPSCoP is referenced within BPA governance, your
breach of the PPSCoP also constitutes a KADOE contract
violation.
>
> • This matter will be escalated to the DVLA for investigation,
as the consequences of such a breach could result in sanctions
or suspension of your ability to access registered keeper
data.[/indent]
>
> Required Actions
>
> To resolve this matter fairly and in accordance with
regulatory expectations, I require that GroupNexus:
>
> [indent]1. Immediately cease all enforcement action, including
debt recovery, while the POPLA appeal remains pending.
>
> 2. Confirm in writing that you have withdrawn all active
enforcement measures until a final POPLA decision is reached.
>
> 3. Provide an explanation as to why these procedural breaches
have occurred and what corrective measures you will take to
prevent future non-compliance.[/indent]
>
> Next Steps
>
> If you fail to confirm compliance with these actions within 14
days of the date of this letter, I will escalate this complaint
to the DVLA, the British Parking Association (BPA), and Trading
Standards, citing unfair consumer practices and non-compliance
with the industry codes of practice governing private parking
enforcement.
>
> Please treat this matter with urgency and confirm receipt of
this complaint at your earliest convenience. I expect a full
response no later than [Response Deadline – 14 Days from Letter
Date].
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
> Your Contact Information]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 61983--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: March 11, 2025, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I put up their rejection and yourselves replied telling me
what to say to their rejection, I amended with what dwmb2 said
about amending from you etc to the operator for the popla
appeal, apologies if I've not done what I should. I've had cp
plus respond with their "evidence". Would it be best to upload
this?
#Post#: 61995--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: March 11, 2025, 4:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
B789 with regards you saying to make a complaint the letter was
sent 17th February whilst I made the appeal to popla on the
18th. Am I best not doing that right now or should they have
waited the full amount of time I could appeal to popla before
sending a reminder?
#Post#: 62012--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: b789
Date: March 11, 2025, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Upload the operators evidence pack so that we can see it. Use
DropBox or GoogleDrive.
What reminder are you talking about? If GroupNexus (CP Plus)
have not responded to the formal complaint, then you escalate it
to the BPA and the DVLA.
#Post#: 62425--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: March 13, 2025, 5:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Link below to their evidence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k4ximu2vy9730wk4wwvw8/Popla.pdf?rlkey=on0wqmgvq2wgsuucet6xwdt12&st=c7bjio5b&dl=0
CP plus sent me a reminder to respond with payment or they will
take further action on the 17th after their initial rejection
response. I started my case with popla on the 18th so I wanted
to check that I should still be making a complaint to the
various people you've said as at the point of sending me the
letter I hadn't started my appeal process. Or should they not be
sending any reminders until the time has passed for me to start
my appeal with popla? Hope I've not confused things too much.
#Post#: 62429--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: b789
Date: March 13, 2025, 6:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Use logic here, please. If their reminder is dated before you
submitted your POPLA appeal, then of course your complaint
doesn't apply.
I also suggest you redact all your personal info such as your
name, address, PCN number and VRM from that evidence pack before
you shoe it to the whole world.
#Post#: 62434--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: b789
Date: March 13, 2025, 7:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What exactly did you send as your POPLA appeal? Did you include
a copy of the byelaws I linked to?
I don't see your actual POPLA appeal, only a copy of your formal
complaint to the operator.
This is such a slam dunk case if the byelaws evidence was
provided in the POPLA appeal.
Anyway, you can submit your response to the operators evidence
pack on their webform. They have not shown that the land is
relevant land for the purposes of PoFA and so cannot hold you
liable as the Keeper.
Post the following in the POPLA response webform. It is under
the 10,000 character limit:
--- Quote ---
> Rebuttal to GroupNexus’ Evidence Pack – POPLA Appeal
Reference: [Your POPLA Reference]
>
> Introduction
>
> This rebuttal challenges the flawed assertions in GroupNexus’
evidence pack and their continued misrepresentation of PoFA
liability. They have failed to refute the fundamental legal
point raised in my appeal: the land at Hicks Lodge is
indisputably subject to statutory control under the Forestry
Commission Byelaws 1982, which means it is not relevant land for
the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA). Consequently, the operator cannot lawfully hold the
registered keeper liable for any charge.
>
> 1. The Operator’s Evidence Pack Ignores the Statutory Control
of Hicks Lodge
>
> GroupNexus has ignored the fact that Hicks Lodge is managed by
Forestry England and covered by the Forestry Commission Byelaws
1982 (SI 1982/648), established under the Forestry Act 1967.
These byelaws regulate vehicle use, including parking, on
Forestry England land. This alone makes the land not relevant
land under Schedule 4, Paragraph 3(1)(c) of PoFA 2012.
>
> Relevant Byelaw Extract:
>
> - Byelaw 5(1): "No person shall, without reasonable excuse,
drive or ride a vehicle or cause or permit a vehicle to be
driven or ridden on any land of the Commissioners except on a
road or place where there is a right of way for vehicles or on a
way or place indicated by a notice erected by the Commissioners
as being available for vehicular traffic."
>
> - Byelaw 5(3): "No person shall drive or ride a vehicle or
cause or permit a vehicle to be driven or ridden or to stand on
any land of the Commissioners in contravention of any notice
erected by the Commissioners."
>
> These byelaws confirm that Forestry England has sole statutory
authority over parking regulations at Hicks Lodge. As PoFA
applies only to land that is not subject to statutory control,
GroupNexus' claim that the NTK was issued in compliance with
PoFA is demonstrably false.
>
> Definitive Legal Evidence:
>
> The Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982 (SI 1982/648) are
definitive legal proof that Hicks Lodge is under statutory
control, meaning PoFA does not apply. The operator has provided
no counter-evidence, instead attempting to mislead POPLA with
irrelevant claims about signage and contractual authority, which
are not disputed and do not override statutory control. Their
complete failure to address this issue confirms their intent to
deceive:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/648/pdfs/uksi_19820648_en.pdf
>
> 2. GroupNexus' NTK is Non-PoFA Compliant and in Breach of the
PPSCoP
>
> GroupNexus has failed to rebut the fact that their NTK is not
PoFA compliant and is in direct breach of the PPSCoP. Their
evidence pack remains silent on this, demonstrating that they
cannot dispute their misrepresentation of PoFA liability.
>
> Under Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP, operators must not serve
a Notice to Keeper that states the keeper is liable under PoFA
where they cannot be held liable. Hicks Lodge is under statutory
control, meaning PoFA does not apply. GroupNexus has knowingly
issued an NTK falsely implying keeper liability, in direct
breach of the PPSCoP.
>
> - They have provided no evidence that the land is 'relevant
land' under PoFA because they cannot.
>
> - Instead of addressing this, they attempt to mislead POPLA
with distractions about signage and contractual authority.
>
> - Their NTK unlawfully states that the keeper is liable,
despite this being factually and legally incorrect.
>
> The operator’s refusal to acknowledge this violation is an
insult to the intelligence of anyone reading it. They are hoping
this misrepresentation will go unnoticed so they can wrongfully
enforce a charge with no legal basis. This alone is another
compelling reason why this PCN must be cancelled.
>
> 3. The Operator’s Evidence is Non-Responsive to the Core Issue
>
> The operator's evidence fails to address the fact that the
land is under statutory control:
>
> - Contractual Authority: The appeal did not dispute whether
GroupNexus has a contract to issue PCNs. The issue is their
attempt to unlawfully impose keeper liability under PoFA when
the land is not relevant land.
>
> - Signage Compliance: The appeal did not dispute the existence
of signs. The issue is that signage does not override statutory
control, and PoFA does not apply regardless of how many signs
are present.
>
> - PoFA Compliance: GroupNexus claims their NTK is
PoFA-compliant but fails to address the fact that PoFA cannot
apply on this land.
>
> No amount of sidestepping will change the fact that Hicks
Lodge is under statutory control, making their entire case for
keeper liability null and void.
>
> 4. Conclusion – This Appeal Must Be Allowed
>
> GroupNexus has failed to:
>
> - Provide any evidence that Hicks Lodge is not under statutory
control.
>
> - Justify their reliance on PoFA when it is legally
inapplicable to this location.
>
> - Address their blatant non-compliance with Section 8.1.1(d)
of the PPSCoP.
>
> - Acknowledge their misrepresentation of keeper liability.
>
> As PoFA cannot apply to land under statutory control, the
registered keeper cannot be held liable. The appeal must be
upheld, and this Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled
immediately.
>
> It is patently obvious that GroupNexus has deliberately
misrepresented PoFA liability, assuming the POPLA assessor will
be too incompetent to notice. Their entire evidence pack avoids
addressing the statutory control of Hicks Lodge, which they know
full well excludes the application of PoFA. This is an attempt
to pull the wool over POPLA’s eyes, relying on repetition of
irrelevant arguments in the hope that the assessor does not
grasp the fundamental legal point at hand.
>
> Final Request to POPLA:
>
> Given the operator’s complete failure to address the key
issue, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal
without further delay and instruct GroupNexus to cancel this
unlawful charge.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 62442--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 13, 2025, 7:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The above is good but before you send it, as b789 asks above,
can you show us your POPLA appeal?
#Post#: 62611--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: March 14, 2025, 6:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
B789 that was what I trying to say in my post on Feb 21st at
10.37 that I shouldn't make any complaint due to the timings but
thanks for confirming, apologies if that wasn't clear. I'm doing
this on my phone so I'll delete the file for now and then reload
once I can get in front of my computer at work to redact
details, I'm not in the office on a laptop very often. I'll put
what I sent to popla in my original appeal in here before
sending any response
#Post#: 62612--------------------------------------------------
Re: CP Plus - no permit Hicks Lodge
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: March 14, 2025, 6:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The below was sent as a pdf.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle ****** 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 CP Plus’s 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.
CP Plus’s 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.
I have summarised these points based on the Forestry Commission
Byelaws below and
included a link to the government legislation:
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.
Given that CP Plus have not identified the driver, that I am not
willing nor obliged to provide
such information, and that CP Plus 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.
Yours faithfully
******
(Registered keeper of vehicle *****)
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page