DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 61069--------------------------------------------------
Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: March 7, 2025, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I have received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the
3-hour free parking limit at Gallagher Retail Park in Coventry.
The driver was delayed due to an unexpected vehicle breakdown,
which left them unable to leave the car park until the issue was
resolved.
Upon reviewing the signage, I noticed that it states "Maximum
Stay 5 Hours", which is misleading, as it implies that parking
is free for 5 hours, when in reality, only 3 hours are free.
This could be especially confusing for individuals who are in a
rush.
I wanted to ask if there is a way to appeal this, given that the
overstay was due to circumstances beyond the driver’s control
and the signage itself could be considered unclear.
Has anyone had success in appealing a similar case, particularly
on the basis of a breakdown and misleading signage? Any advice
would be greatly appreciated, as I am getting frustrated with
these parking companies taking advantage of drivers.
I know this is an amazing community and any help is greatly
appreciated.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/jLHtuks.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/CjRRRRx.jpeg
Sign at entrance
HTML https://i.imgur.com/tKfXwfa.png
sign within parking
HTML https://i.imgur.com/H5A57Mn.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/KSuoKfx.png
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nujg1uWUSQwfJVAW9
#Post#: 61135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: ixxy
Date: March 7, 2025, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The second sign is pretty poor, the information you need is
there but it's not clear and the 5 hours max stay is the bit
most people would read and process. Others can help you draft an
appropriate response around that. The sign at the entrance could
be clearer and better placed as well. You may have grounds to
appeal based on the signage being poor and misleading if nothing
else.
#Post#: 61241--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: b789
Date: March 7, 2025, 1:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Any initial appeal will be rejected no matter what is pleaded.
The arguments about signage can be used in a subsequent POPLA
appeal. They would certainly be very valid defence points should
GN try to recover the alleged debt through litigation.
There are other useful pints you should be aware of. The Notice
to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements
of PoFA and at least two stand out. The notice requires the
driver to pay. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires the NtK to invite the
Keeper to pay the charge or give the "creditor" (I'll come back
to this) the drivers details. However, there is no legal
obligation on the Keeper to reveal the drivers identity.
This NtK only says that the driver is required to pay the charge
or for the Keeper to tell them who was driving. As there is no
legal obligation on the latter and the former is based on the
driver always being liable, where is the invitation for the
Keeper to pay the charge? They cannot rely on implied obligation
just because the NtK is addressed to the Keeper.
The second PoFA failure is 9(2)(h) because the "creditor" is not
identified anywhere on the NtK. The notice MUST identify the
creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to
the creditor may be made.
So, based solely on those two PoFA failures, they cannot hold
the Keeper liable, only the driver. They have no idea who the
driver is unless the Keeper blabs it to them, inadvertently or
otherwise.
Another point is that the PCN is not compliant with the PPSCoP.
The second paragraph of the NtK states that the charge amount is
required to be paid within 28 days of the date of the charge
whereas section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP states that the recipient
has 28 days from the date of receipt to appeal. In this case,
the deadline before they say they can initiate debt recovery is
shortened by two days.
So, for now, simply appeal with the following and then when the
appeal is rejected, you can concentrate on a POPLA appeal
covering all the technical and signage points. As long as the
unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal
obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to
Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and
no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA
which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they
cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver
to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. GroupNexus has relied on contract law allegations
of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
GroupNexus have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us
both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 61285--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: March 8, 2025, 3:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your response.
I have appealed exactly as you advised.
Will keep you updated.
Thank you once again.
#Post#: 65120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: April 1, 2025, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Appeal rejected as told. This is what they responded to
my appeal:
'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 that the maximum stay at this site is 3 hours, and it is
not possible to access any part of the premises without passing
multiple signs. Please note that payment for parking is required
after that. 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 £60 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: XXXXXXXXX
Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above
criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you will no
longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. 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.'
Please do advise me on the next steps to take. As always, any
advice is appreciated.
#Post#: 65124--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 1, 2025, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit
a POPLA appeal. Have a search of this forum for POPLA appeals
and get a feel for how they are formatted and what is pleaded.
POPLA will only consider legal and PPSCoP breaches by the
operator, They do not take into account mitigation.
When you've read up on this, see if you can put a POPLA appeal
together yourself and show us here before you send anything and
we will assist from there.
#Post#: 65350--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: April 2, 2025, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the appeal I have written. Please do give any feedback.
'
To Whom It May Concern,
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and
am writing to formally appeal the issuance of the Parking Charge
Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
a. Failure to Invite the Keeper to Pay (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i))
The NtK issued by GroupNexus fails to comply with PoFA Schedule
4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The notice states that the driver is
required to pay the charge or the Keeper must identify the
driver. However, PoFA requires the NtK to clearly invite the
Keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address
of the driver. There is no legal obligation for the Keeper to
name the driver, and the notice omits the essential statutory
invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge, which is a clear
procedural failure.
Because this requirement is unmet, GroupNexus cannot pursue the
Keeper for the charge under PoFA and must instead pursue the
unknown driver, whose identity has not been and will not be
disclosed.
b. Failure to Identify the Creditor (PoFA 9(2)(h))
The NtK also fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(h), which states
that the notice must identify the “creditor” — the party legally
entitled to recover unpaid parking charges. Nowhere in the NtK
is the creditor clearly identified. The absence of this key
piece of information makes the notice invalid under PoFA, and
again, no Keeper liability can be transferred.
As the NtK is materially non-compliant with PoFA, liability
cannot be transferred to the Keeper, and the PCN must therefore
be cancelled.
________________________________________
2. Misleading and Unclear Signage — Contravention of BPA Code of
Practice (Section 19)
The signage at Gallagher Retail Park is inconsistent and
misleading. Prominently displayed signs state “Maximum Stay 5
Hours”, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that
parking is free for five hours. In reality, only 3 hours are
free, and this is mentioned only in much smaller text, which is
not easily readable — especially for visitors in a hurry or
under pressure.
This discrepancy misleads motorists into believing they have
more time than actually permitted, which is a clear breach of
the BPA Code of Practice Section 19.3, which states that signage
must be “clear, intelligible and unambiguous” and must not
mislead. It also violates 19.4, which requires that terms must
be in “sufficiently large text” and be visible to drivers upon
entering and parking.
Therefore, the signage is insufficient to form a legally binding
contract and fails to convey the terms clearly to motorists.
________________________________________
3. PCN Breach of Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) –
Incorrect Timeframe for Payment and Appeal
The NtK issued by GroupNexus incorrectly states that the charge
must be paid within 28 days of the charge date, rather than 28
days from receipt of the notice as required under the Private
Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 8.1.2(e). This is a
procedural failure that shortens the appeal period unjustly and
demonstrates non-compliance with the applicable standards.
________________________________________
4. Mitigating Circumstances
It is important to record that the alleged overstay occurred
solely due to an unexpected vehicle breakdown, which left the
vehicle temporarily immobile and unable to exit the car park
within the time limit. This was an unforeseen and uncontrollable
situation and should never result in a punitive charge —
especially where the signage was misleading to begin with.
________________________________________
Conclusion:
•
transferred to the registered Keeper.
•
requirements and invalidating the contract.
•
the appeal window improperly.
•
assumptions can legally be made.
On all these grounds, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal
and instruct GroupNexus to cancel this PCN.
'
Thank you in advance. As always, any advice is appreciated.
#Post#: 65365--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 2, 2025, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA will not consider mitigation but you could reference the
specific section in the PPSCoP that does reference mitigation
and requires the operator to take it into account.
If you mention the inadequate or problematic signage, use your
own or the evidential photos to show exactly what you mean.
Regarding your point #3, try explaining it like this:
--- Quote ---
> 3. Misleading Payment Deadline – Breach of Paragraphs 9(2)(f)
and 9(6) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA)
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by GroupNexus contains a
misleading and incorrect statement on the front page:
>
> “Payment to be made within 28 days of the date issued.”
>
> This contradicts the mandatory statutory wording required by
Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 to PoFA, which states that the
28-day period for payment must be calculated from the day after
the notice is deemed to have been given. Paragraph 9(6)
clarifies that a notice sent by post is deemed to have been
given two working days after the date of posting. Therefore, the
correct deadline must run from the day after this deemed service
date, not from the date of issue.
>
> By incorrectly stating that payment is due “within 28 days of
the date issued”, GroupNexus creates a misleading and ambiguous
deadline. The incorrect statement is presented more prominently
than any statutory wording and is likely to be relied upon by a
reasonable recipient. This engages the fairness provisions of
the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which require that contract terms
be transparent and not misleading, and that ambiguity is to be
resolved in favour of the consumer.
>
> This error was raised in the appeal, yet GroupNexus has failed
to address or rebut the issue in any subsequent correspondence
or evidence. No explanation has been offered to justify the use
of non-compliant wording, nor have they acknowledged the legal
implications of conflicting and misleading payment information.
>
> Given that PoFA compliance must be strict and unequivocal,
this failure to comply with the prescribed wording under
Paragraph 9(2)(f), compounded by the misleading impression
created, renders the NtK non-compliant. Accordingly, liability
cannot be transferred to the registered keeper, and the appeal
must therefore be upheld.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 68265--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: April 23, 2025, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the summary of the case presented by the parking charge
company in their response to POPLA
Please do inform me on how I should respond.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 68288--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: b789
Date: April 23, 2025, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Copy and paste the following into the POPLA response webform:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal Comments – Rebuttal to Operator Evidence Pack
>
> I am responding to the operator’s evidence and highlighting
the key appeal points they have failed to address, as well as
rebutting misleading claims made in their response. The
following points are fundamental to this appeal and remain
unrebutted or misunderstood by the operator.
>
> 1. Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
>
> a. Breach of Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) – Failure to invite the
Keeper to pay
>
> PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) requires the Notice to
Keeper to “invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges”
if the operator does not know the driver’s name and address. The
notice issued by GroupNexus fails to do this. It merely states
that the driver is required to pay, or the Keeper must name the
driver. This is not the same as a statutory invitation to the
Keeper to pay the charge, which is a key precondition for
establishing Keeper liability.
>
> The operator has not quoted the wording used in the NtK to
prove compliance. They simply assert compliance in vague terms.
Their evidence does not address or rebut the precise legal point
raised, which is that the NtK does not include the required
statutory invitation to pay. Therefore, the operator cannot rely
on PoFA to transfer liability to the Keeper.
>
> b. Breach of Paragraph 9(2)(h) – Failure to identify the
creditor
>
> The operator has also failed to address my submission that the
NtK does not identify the “creditor” as required by PoFA. The
creditor is the party legally entitled to recover the charge.
The NtK does not clearly name any legal entity as the creditor.
Without identifying the creditor, the notice is invalid under
PoFA and cannot be used to pursue the Keeper. Again, the
operator has not even attempted to rebut this point.
>
> 2. Misleading payment deadline – Breach of Paragraphs 9(2)(f)
and 9(6)
>
> The NtK incorrectly states that payment must be made “within
28 days of the date issued.” This is factually and legally
wrong. PoFA requires the payment deadline to be calculated from
the day after the notice is deemed to have been given (Paragraph
9(6)), which is two working days after posting. The operator’s
deadline misrepresents this statutory timeframe and gives the
impression that the Keeper has fewer days to pay than the law
allows.
>
> This misleading and incorrect statement is printed more
prominently than any statutory wording and is likely to be
relied on by a reasonable consumer. That is a clear breach of
the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires all terms and
notices to be fair, clear, and transparent. The operator has
completely failed to address or justify this misleading payment
deadline in their evidence pack.
>
> 3. Signage is unclear and misleading
>
> The operator asserts that signage at the site complies with
all relevant laws and regulations, but they have not answered
the actual concern raised: the prominent sign at the entrance
says “Maximum Stay 5 Hours” while only 3 hours are actually
free. This creates confusion and misleads motorists into
believing they can stay for 5 hours without paying. This is a
direct breach of the BPA Code of Practice Section 19.3 and 19.4,
which require signage to be clear, intelligible, and not
misleading.
>
> The operator has not explained why such contradictory signage
exists or how it meets the standards of clarity and fairness
expected in contract law and consumer protection. Their generic
statements about signage compliance do not resolve this issue.
>
> 4. Operator’s objection to new appeal grounds is irrelevant
>
> The operator objects that some grounds of appeal were not
raised in the initial appeal to them. That argument is
completely without merit. POPLA has always accepted that
appellants may raise new legal and evidential points at the
POPLA stage. It is the role of POPLA to assess the lawfulness of
the charge, not to restrict appellants from pointing out legal
failures. The operator was given a full opportunity to respond
to the POPLA appeal and could have addressed all points raised.
Their complaint is a distraction and has no bearing on the
validity of the points made.
>
> 5. Vehicle breakdown and mitigating circumstances
>
> The operator claims no evidence was provided regarding the
vehicle breakdown. However, they did not ask for evidence when
the appeal was submitted. A breakdown is a frustrating event in
contract law, meaning the driver is prevented from complying
with the terms through no fault of their own. The operator
argues that the driver could have paid to extend the stay, but
this is speculative and irrelevant where a mechanical fault
affects the ability to move the vehicle or operate a payment
system.
>
> Moreover, the point about the breakdown was raised in the
POPLA appeal, and the operator had the opportunity to respond
properly. They failed to do so and instead tried to deflect the
issue.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> - The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with multiple PoFA
requirements, including Paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i), 9(2)(f), and
9(2)(h). The operator has failed to rebut these points.
> - The signage is contradictory and misleading and was not
addressed meaningfully by the operator.
> - The incorrect and misleading payment deadline creates
consumer confusion and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
> - The operator’s objection to new grounds raised in the POPLA
appeal is a red herring and legally irrelevant.
> - The breakdown was a legitimate mitigating circumstance and
was not properly considered.
>
> For all of the above reasons, I request that POPLA uphold my
appeal and instruct GroupNexus to cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page