DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85736--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: Tetreg
Date: August 15, 2025, 2:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Would mods mind removing this post? The first message may be an
issue if it ever goes to ccj
#Post#: 85755--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: b789
Date: August 15, 2025, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stop worrying. This will NEVER go as far as a court claim. Even
if it did, do you really imagine that these scamming firms who
issue over 40,000 PCNs every single day, have the time and
resources to scan the internet for a particular case? Of course
they don't.
It's not a "CCJ" if a claim is made. Do you have any
understanding of how someone gets a CCJ? Nothing we advise on
here will make anyone get a CCJ.
--- Quote ---
> A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows
a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step
by step:
>
> [indent]1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued
>
> [indent]• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to
Keeper) demanding money.
> • This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of
contract.[/indent]
>
> 2. Opportunity to Appeal
>
> [indent]• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
> •If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA
member) or IAS (if IPC member).
> • If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands
payment.[/indent]
>
> 3. Debt Collection Letters
>
> [indent]• The parking company might send scary letters or pass
the case to a debt collector.
> • Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can
be ignored.
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)
>
> [indent]• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or
their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
> • This is a warning that they may start a court case.
> • The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 5. County Court Claim Issued
>
> [indent]• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a
claim with the County Court.
> • The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and
how to respond.
> • The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they
acknowledge it).
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 6. Court Process
>
> [indent]• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides
if they owe money.
> • If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins
by default.
> • No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores
the court.[/indent]
>
> 7. Judgment & Payment
>
> [indent]• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient
has 30 days to pay in full.
> • If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit
file.
> • If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their
credit file for 6 years.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:
>
> [indent]• A parking company takes the case to court.
> • The person loses or ignores the case.
> • The person fails to pay within 30 days.[/indent]
>
> If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on
time), no CCJ happens.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 87281--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: Tetreg
Date: August 26, 2025, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So I’ve appealed both fines, and had them rejected. Do I write
the same points again about the errors in the letter or is there
anything else I should say for POPLA?
#Post#: 87283--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 26, 2025, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tetreg link ---
>
> So I’ve appealed both fines, and had them rejected. Do I write
the same points again about the errors in the letter or is there
anything else I should say for POPLA?
>
--- End Quote ---
You need to use the same points but lead POPLA by the nose,
spelling out the exact contraventions one by one.
So it’s a longer and more exacting appeal.
You will probably get input here with more advice, there’s no
hurry.
#Post#: 87289--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 26, 2025, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One of the key advantages of the forum format is that you can
look at other similar cases - do some searching for other POPLA
appeals with similar case points, draft something up and show us
and we can offer feedback.
#Post#: 93828--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: Tetreg
Date: October 12, 2025, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've submitted to popla, and nexus have replied with their
evidence. They didn't address the points raised about the NtK
being incorrectly written and have instead reiterated about not
being parked in a marked bay being the basis for the fine, and
have included various photos of signs throughout the docks, and
of when i was parked there. I can't post this document here as
it is an uneditable pdf with my personal details on it. I need
to reply by a week from 6/10/25 (things have been a bit hectic
recently so i didn't manage to post earlier).
I was wondering if anyone could please advise me regarding what
I might says in reply. Thanks
Here's the text of the document:
The Parking Charge was issued under POFA. In response to the
Parking Charge, Mr (removed) - who we are pursuing
as the registered keeper - appealed stating that the NTK is not
POFA 2012 compliant and the registered keeper
cannot be held liable.
Rejecting this appeal, we advised that clear signs at the
entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the
terms and conditions that apply there, and it is not possible to
access any part of the premises without passing
multiple signs. Your vehicle was not parked in a designated
parking space.
As the keeper did not provide us with details of the driver on
the day in question we are pursuing him as the
registered keeper. We can confirm that the Notice to Keeper
advises that if the amount requested in the Notice
has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the
driver's name and current address), the registered
keeper, will, subject to the conditions of, and under the terms
of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, be liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge.
We can confirm that the Charge was issued on 17/07/2025 and
therefore deemed to be delivered on 21/07/2025,
the contrary has not been proven. As such, the Charge was issued
within PoFa time limits. We have included in
Section C a copy of the Parking Charge which states the “This
Charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”.
By allowing his vehicle to be parked on the site, Mr (removed(
entered into a valid contract and agreed to abide by its
terms and conditions. The ample signage displayed throughout the
site advises the terms and conditions of use.
One of the conditions is that you must be parked within the
confines of a marked parking bay and that there is no
parking on pavements. The signage advises that a Parking Charge
of £100 will be issued when allowing a vehicle to
remain parked outside of a designated bay.
It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they comply with the
terms and conditions of the site. In this case, by
allowing his vehicle to remain parked outside of a designated
marked bay and in a no parking area on a pavement,
Mr (removed) breached those terms and conditions.
We have included in section G photographs taken by the warden
which show this vehicle parked outside of a
designated marked bay as the driver was parked in a no parking
area on a pavement.
We can confirm that the signage is displayed in compliance with
all relevant laws and regulations – please see
images and photographs provided in Section F which support this.
Our position remains that we have received no mitigating
circumstances or evidence for which we should cancel
the Parking Charge. We maintain Mr (removed) entered into a
valid contract and should pay the valid parking charges
as per the signage on the site.
n.b. had a potato moment but managed to edit my name out
#Post#: 93833--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unclear signage
DIR By: b789
Date: October 12, 2025, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can copy and paste the following into the web portal as your
response:
--- Quote ---
> Response summary to the operators evidence:
>
> GroupNexus never engages with the pleaded PoFA defects.
Instead, they wave the statute around as a talisman, quote
9(2)(f), and hope keeper liability materialises by incantation.
It doesn’t. Keeper liability under Schedule 4 is all-or-nothing.
Their NtK flunks mandatory content, so the keeper cannot be
liable. Everything else (signs, bays, photos) is a driver-only
dispute and legally irrelevant once PoFA fails.
>
> 1) Keeper liability under PoFA is strictly conditional
>
> Schedule 4 requires full compliance with every mandatory
element (including all limbs of para 9(2), plus 9(4)–(6)).
“Close enough” or “we mentioned PoFA” is legally meaningless.
GroupNexus nowhere demonstrates complete compliance; they merely
assert it. Threadbare assertion is not evidence.
>
> 2) Fatal 9(2)(a) defects: relevant land and period of parking
>
> a) a) Relevant land
> The NtK’s “Liverpool Docks” label is comically vague.
“Liverpool Docks” corresponds to the Port of Liverpool
waterfront—an enclosed dock system stretching about 7.5 miles
along the Mersey, from Brunswick Dock to Seaforth Dock (and
mirrored on the Wirral)—not a single car park, road, or site.
>
> It comprises dozens of named docks and waterfront districts,
penetrated by numerous public highways and flanked by major
commercial and civic buildings. Even UNESCO’s former waterfront
inscription (revoked in 2021) defined just a central slice of
this area as six separate locations extending ~4 km north–south
and ~1 km east–west, covering ~136 hectares (~0.5 sq miles),
encompassing landmark buildings such as the Three Graces and
dense city streets.
>
> Over two centuries Liverpool built more than 50 docks across
roughly seven miles; modern sources still describe around 40+
docks. Describing the location as “Liverpool Docks” is the
antithesis of “specifying the relevant land” required by PoFA
9(2)(a). If the operator cannot pinpoint one identifiable car
park or site within an urban dock estate spanning miles of
waterfront, streets and buildings, the keeper cannot be pinned
with liability.
>
> b) Period of parking
> GroupNexus’ evidence performs Olympic-level evasion. Faced
with a black-letter requirement in PoFA 9(2)(a) to “specify the
period of parking”, they serve up… nothing. Not a period, not
even a pretence of one. Instead they pad the file with still
photos and timestamps of instants, as if POPLA won’t notice that
a snapshot is the exact opposite of a period.
>
> This is not a minor nicety; it is a gateway condition for
keeper liability. The operator carries the burden to specify an
actual span of time the vehicle was parked. They have not even
tried.
>
> Their reliance on images and “observed at” notations is
legally useless for PoFA 9(2)(a). A single moment does not
establish how long a vehicle was parked, whether the driver was
in a consideration window reading terms, or whether the vehicle
left promptly before a contract could be formed. That is
precisely why appellate reasoning in Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions mattered: instants are not periods.
>
> GroupNexus knows this, which is why their “rebuttal” carefully
avoids the point altogether. Silence is not compliance. Put
bluntly: if GroupNexus could state a period, they would. They
didn’t, because they can’t. And if they can’t, Schedule 4
transfer fails as a matter of law. All the bluster about bays
and signage is driver-only noise. Without a stated period of
parking on the NtK, keeper liability does not even get out of
the starting blocks.
>
> 3) Waving 9(2)(f) around does not cure 9(2)(a)
>
> They trumpet the presence of a 9(2)(f) warning (“subject to
the conditions of Schedule 4”). But that clause depends on all
other conditions being met. It’s a warning, not a cure-all. You
cannot plaster a 9(2)(f) sentence over a 9(2)(a) hole and call
it compliant.
>
> 4) PoFA 9(2)(h) failure: creditor not identified
>
> For completeness within the same PoFA ground: the NtK fails
9(2)(h) because it does not identify the “creditor”. The notice
is branded “GroupNexus” and says that is a trading name of CP
Plus Ltd, yet since March 2024 “GroupNexus Ltd” exists as a
separate legal entity. The NtK does not state which legal person
is the creditor: CP Plus Ltd (02595379) or GroupNexus Ltd
(15560549). Ambiguity between two distinct companies (same
directors, same address) is a material failure of 9(2)(h). If
they cannot even identify who the creditor is, keeper liability
cannot arise.
>
> 5) Their “deemed delivery” mantra and 9(2)(f) name-dropping
are legally worthless
>
> GroupNexus parrots: “issued 17/07/2025, deemed delivered
21/07/2025... given under 9(2)(f).” That’s not a rebuttal; it’s
a confession that they don’t understand how PoFA (or service by
post) actually works.
>
> First, timing is a sideshow. Keeper liability lives or dies on
content compliance. Even if their deemed-delivery date were
spot-on, the NtK still flunks mandatory content under 9(2)(a)
(no relevant land; no period of parking) and 9(2)(h) (creditor
not identified). You cannot “arrive on time” with the wrong
document and expect Schedule 4 to bite. Timing cannot
resuscitate a fatally defective notice.
>
> Second, “deemed delivery” is a rebuttable presumption, not a
magic stamp. It only arises if the sender can first prove proper
posting (correctly addressed, prepaid, posted). If challenged,
the burden swings back to the operator to prove posting and, if
necessary, actual delivery. Chanting “the contrary has not been
proven” is backwards. It is their job to evidence posting; it is
not the keeper’s job to prove a negative. This is black-letter:
the presumption of service under ordinary post is contingent and
collapses when credible evidence of non-receipt is raised or
when the sender can’t prove posting. Their staff should know
this before lecturing POPLA about “deemed delivery”.
>
> Third, their fixation on 9(2)(f) is legally illiterate.
9(2)(f) is merely a warning clause that keeper liability may
follow “subject to the conditions of Schedule 4”. It does not
cure missing elements elsewhere. Quoting 9(2)(f) while failing
9(2)(a) and 9(2)(h) is like waving a boarding pass for a flight
you never booked. Name-dropping a paragraph is not compliance
with it.
>
> Bottom line: (i) They haven’t proved posting; (ii) “deemed
delivery” is rebuttable and, in any event, irrelevant to the
fatal content defects; (iii) reciting 9(2)(f) doesn’t paper over
missing 9(2)(a)/(h) requirements. Their submission on timing and
9(2)(f) doesn’t just miss the point—it advertises that they
don’t understand the statute they’re trying to hide behind.
>
> 6) Misconceived pivot to signage and bay markings
>
> They devote pages to “clear signage”, “no parking on
pavements”, and “not within a bay”. Those are driver-only
issues. GroupNexus expressly says it does not know the driver
and is “pursuing the registered keeper”. That route exists only
if PoFA is strictly met. It isn’t. Once keeper liability
collapses, their signage sermon is legally irrelevant to the
keeper.
>
> 7) Photos are not proof of a period, nor proof of contract
formation
>
> Even indulging their diversion: a couple of photos of a
stationary vehicle prove neither a period of parking nor
contract formation. The consideration period and grace
principles (now industry-standard) exist precisely because a
driver may pause briefly to read terms and leave. If there is no
evidenced period, there is no contract and no breach—quite apart
from the PoFA issue already being dispositive.
>
> 8) “We say PoFA applies” is not how statutes work
>
> The operator’s entire keeper case is a confidence trick: “PoFA
applies because we wrote the words ‘under PoFA’ on our NtK.”
Quoting a statute is not compliance with it. Their approach is
intellectually malnourished: assertion in, liability out.
Schedule 4 demands specifics; they offer slogans.
>
> 9) Bottom line
>
> - No specified relevant land (9(2)(a))
> - No stated period of parking (9(2)(a))
> - Creditor not identified (9(2)(h))
> - 9(2)(f) warning cannot cure missing 9(2)(a)/(h) content
> - Signage/bay rhetoric is driver-only and irrelevant to keeper
liability
>
> Therefore, Schedule 4 transfer fails. The operator cannot hold
the keeper liable. POPLA must allow the appeal on PoFA grounds
alone.
>
> 10) Remedy sought
>
> Allow the appeal. The operator’s evidence does not rebut the
pleaded PoFA defects; it merely repeats its own conclusions.
Keeper liability is not engaged.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page