DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102026--------------------------------------------------
Re: How does the PCN deadline work while transferring liability
from Hertz to hirer/keeper?
DIR By: b789
Date: December 11, 2025, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are telling Hertz Collections that you formally dispute
their £42 “administration fee” and you do not authorise payment.
You explain that this is not a statutory fine but a private
Parking Charge Notice on private land, that Hertz’s wording and
pricing are inconsistent and unclear, and that no fine was
actually paid by Hertz – they simply passed your details to
GroupNexus, which is minimal administration.
You also make it clear that the underlying PCN is in active
dispute and will be escalated to POPLA, so it is premature and
unfair for Hertz to pursue their own admin fee now. You then set
out what you expect them to do: cancel the fee as a goodwill
resolution, confirm the account is on hold and will not be
passed to any third party while the dispute is open, confirm
Hertz will not pay or settle the PCN on your behalf, or, if they
refuse to cancel, provide the exact contractual clause they rely
on and a full breakdown of how £42 is justified. Finally, you
ask for their complaints procedure and confirmation that this is
logged as a formal complaint.
Here is a slightly better adaptation of the email you should
send Hertz:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Hertz Collections,
>
> I dispute invoice 24366916 for £42 and do not authorise
payment. Please place this account on hold while you review.
>
> This is not a fine or a penalty. It is a speculative invoice
from an unregulated private parking company. GroupNexus is not
an authority and no statutory penalty has been incurred. As
Keeper, Hertz elected to transfer liability to me as Hirer under
the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Once that
transfer has been made, GroupNexus cannot pursue Hertz under any
circumstance and no liability can revert to you. Hertz has paid
nothing and is not at risk of any future liability.
>
> Your administration fee is unsupported. Your correspondence
and website contain inconsistent amounts and misleading
references to “authorities” and “fines”, none of which apply.
Passing on the hirer’s details is minimal administration and
does not justify a £42 fee. The underlying speculative invoice
is being actively contested with GroupNexus and will be
escalated to POPLA. Pursuing an administration fee at this stage
is premature.
>
> I require the following:
>
> [indent]1. Cancellation of the £42 administration fee.
> 2. Written confirmation that the account is on hold and will
not be referred to any third party while this dispute is open.
> 3. If you refuse cancellation, the exact rental agreement
clause relied upon and an itemised breakdown of the actual time
and cost incurred to justify £42.
> 4. Your formal complaints procedure and confirmation that this
email is logged as a formal complaint.[/indent]
>
> I look forward to confirmation that the administration fee has
been cancelled or, alternatively, a full response to each point
above.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 102029--------------------------------------------------
Re: How does the PCN deadline work while transferring liability
from Hertz to hirer/keeper?
DIR By: mjlazer
Date: December 11, 2025, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Legend, thank you that's more concise and it's gone straight
over to the Hertz Collections team.
#Post#: 102036--------------------------------------------------
Re: How does the PCN deadline work while transferring liability
from Hertz to hirer/keeper?
DIR By: mjlazer
Date: December 11, 2025, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Next up, this is the POPLA appeal I've drafted based on examples
I've found. Any feedback more than welcome. I have about a month
to submit it.
---------------------------------------------------------
Evidence to upload:
- Hertz email forwarding the PCN
- GroupNexus’ original document sent to Hertz (the original NTK
quoting para 9)
- The notice they sent to me (re-addressed, with no hire docs)
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA verification number [1753445551]
Parking charge notice [2000064523643]
- Operator CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus
- Vehicle OY26 VKY
- Site Moto Blyth Services
- Date of event 27/10/2025
---------------------------------------------------------
I am the hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability. The appeal
is allowed on the following grounds.
1. No keeper/hirer liability under POFA 2012 schedule 4 (hire
vehicles)
GroupNexus has not complied with the strict requirements of
Schedule 4 paragraphs 13–14. What I received is plainly a
re-addressed copy of the original Notice to Keeper to Hertz that
still purports to rely on paragraph 9. For a hire vehicle, a
valid Notice to Hirer must be served with all of the prescribed
documents:
- a copy of the hire agreement
- a statement of liability signed by the hirer
- a copy of the original notice
None of these documents were enclosed. In addition, the operator
has provided no evidence that any Notice to Hirer (with all
enclosures) was delivered within the statutory timescale in para
14(2)(a). POPLA will be able to see from the operator’s own
rejection letter that they assert “we are holding the registered
keeper liable”. The registered keeper is Hertz, not me. In the
absence of full compliance with Sch 4 paras 13–14, the operator
cannot transfer liability to the hirer/keeper. I am not naming
the driver.
This ground alone requires that the appeal be allowed.
2. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof of a current, unredacted
contract with the landowner (not merely a site agreement with an
agent) that:
- grants CP Plus/GroupNexus authority to manage parking, issue
PCNs, and pursue charges to POPLA/court, and
- covers this specific site and the material period
If such authority is not produced, the charge is invalid under
the BPA Code of Practice (section 7).
3. Inadequate and non-prominent signage, including at EV
charging bays
The terms relied upon (free 2-hour limit and tariff thereafter)
were not prominently brought to the attention of drivers using
the EV charging area. The operator must supply a contemporaneous
signage plan and dated photos showing: entrance signage
legibility from a moving vehicle, the font sizes of the core
terms, and the signs positioned at the EV chargers. Under the
BPA Code (sections 19 & 21), core terms must be clear and
prominent. In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court stressed
that charges are only enforceable where the signage is “clear
and prominent”. That standard is not met here.
4. No evidence of a compliant “period of parking” and failure to
allow grace/consideration periods
The times shown are ANPR entry/exit times, not the mandatory
“period of parking” required by PoFA Sch 4. They will include
circulation, queueing for a charger, connecting/disconnecting,
and exiting. The BPA Code requires both a reasonable
consideration period on arrival and a minimum 10-minute grace
period on leaving. The operator is put to strict proof that both
were allowed and that the alleged overstay is not merely ANPR
timestamp padding.
5. Unfair/unclear consumer terms
If the operator relies on any alleged contractual term, it must
be transparent and prominent. Given the EV-charging context and
the absence of prominent warnings at the chargers themselves,
any purported agreement to pay £100 is not transparent or fairly
incorporated (Consumer Rights Act 2015). The operator is put to
strict proof.
Conclusion
Because GroupNexus failed to comply with PoFA Schedule 4 for
hire vehicles, they cannot transfer liability to me as
hirer/keeper. The remaining points (authority, signage, and
grace periods) give further independent reasons to allow the
appeal. I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct the
operator to cancel the charge.
#Post#: 102044--------------------------------------------------
Re: How does the PCN deadline work while transferring liability
from Hertz to hirer/keeper?
DIR By: b789
Date: December 11, 2025, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a tightened version with the points ordered and framed as
needed: PoFA hire-vehicle failure front and centre, everything
else clearly secondary/back-up. You can copy/paste and tweak
dates/refs if needed.
--- Quote ---
> POPLA verification number: [1753445551]
> Parking Charge Notice: [2000064523643]
> Operator: CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus
> Vehicle: OY26 VKY
> Site: Moto Blyth Services
> Date of event: 27/10/2025
>
> I am the Hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability. This
appeal is made on the following grounds.
>
> 1. No Hirer/keeper liability under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 (hire
vehicles) – fatal to the charge
>
> GroupNexus has not complied with the strict requirements of
Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> What I received is plainly just a re-addressed copy of the
original Notice to Keeper sent to Hertz, still purporting to
rely on PoFA paragraph 9 (a notice to the registered keeper)
rather than a compliant Notice to Hirer under PoFA paragraph 14.
For a hire vehicle, a valid Notice to Hirer must:
>
> [indent]• be served on the Hirer within the mandatory
timescale at paragraph 14(2)(a); and
> • be accompanied by all of the prescribed documents at
paragraph 13(2), namely:
> [indent]– a copy of the hire agreement,
> – a statement of liability signed by the Hirer, and
> – a copy of the original notice.[/indent][/indent]
>
> None of these documents were enclosed with the notice sent to
me. The operator has also provided no evidence that any fully
compliant Notice to Hirer with all enclosures was ever delivered
within the statutory deadline.
>
> Further, in their rejection letter GroupNexus state that they
are “holding the registered keeper liable”. The registered
keeper at the time of the event was Hertz, not me. I am the
Hirer only. PoFA Schedule 4 creates a very narrow exception to
the general rule that only the driver can be liable. For a hire
vehicle, that exception only applies if the operator strictly
complies with paragraphs 13 and 14. If they do not, then only
the unknown driver could be liable and there is no lawful route
to transfer liability to the Hirer.
>
> I am under no obligation to name the driver and I will not be
doing so. In the absence of full and strict compliance with
Schedule 4 paragraphs 13–14, GroupNexus cannot transfer
liability from the unknown driver to the Hirer and cannot rely
on any presumption, inference or “assumption” that the Hirer was
also the driver. That is precisely what PoFA was enacted to
prevent.
>
> Because the operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012 for a
hire vehicle, there is no Hirer or keeper liability. This point
alone is fatal to their case and this appeal must be allowed.
>
> 2. No evidence of landowner authority and mismatch of
contracting entity
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of their standing. They
must produce a current, unredacted written agreement with the
landholder (not merely an agreement with an agent) that:
>
> [indent]• identifies the land to which it applies (including
Moto Blyth Services and this EV charging area);
> • is in force for the material period; and
> • expressly authorises the same legal entity that issued this
PCN to:
> [indent]– manage parking on the land,
> – issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name, and
> – pursue those charges through POPLA and, if they choose, the
courts.[/indent][/indent]
>
> The PCN and correspondence are issued in the name “CP Plus Ltd
t/a GroupNexus”. However, GroupNexus is now itself a separate
limited company. CP Plus Ltd and GroupNexus Ltd are distinct
legal entities. “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” is not, in itself,
a company that can hold a contract with the landowner. Any
landholder agreement will be with either CP Plus Ltd or
GroupNexus Ltd (or some other entity), not with a hybrid trading
description.
>
> The operator is therefore put to strict proof that:
>
> [indent]• the landowner contract is with the same legal person
that issued this PCN; and
> • if the contract is with a different entity (for example CP
Plus Ltd only, or GroupNexus Ltd only), there has been a clear,
properly executed assignment or novation of rights that permits
the PCN-issuing entity to enforce charges in its own
name.[/indent]
>
> The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires operators
to have written authorisation from the landholder covering the
relevant land and specifying the correct operator identity. If
the operator cannot produce such authority, or if the agreement
is with a different company to the one issuing this PCN, then
they have no locus standi and the charge cannot be enforced.
>
> 3. Inadequate and non-prominent signage, including at the EV
charging bays
>
> The terms relied upon (a “free” 2-hour limit and tariff
thereafter) were not clearly and prominently brought to the
attention of motorists using the EV charging area.
>
> The operator is put to strict proof, with contemporaneous
evidence, of:
>
> [indent]• a site plan showing the locations of all signs,
> • dated photographs of each sign in situ at the material time,
> • the text on those signs, and
> • the font sizes of the “core” terms (time limit, charge
level) on any signs visible from the EV bay used.[/indent]
>
> In particular, they must show that:
>
> [indent]• there is a clear and legible entrance sign that can
be read from a moving vehicle; and
> • there are clear, prominent tariff/terms signs positioned at
or immediately adjacent to the EV chargers, such that a driver
using the chargers would have the key terms drawn to their
attention before or while parking.[/indent]
>
> Under the BPA Code of Practice (for signage) core terms must
be clear and prominent. In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme
Court stressed that charges are only enforceable where the
signage is “clear and prominent” so that the motorist is fully
informed. That standard is not met if the EV-area terms are
buried in small print or not clearly displayed at all.
>
> 4. No evidence of a compliant “period of parking” and failure
to allow the mandatory grace period
>
> The operator appears to rely solely on ANPR entry and exit
timestamps. Those record only the times the vehicle drove past
the cameras (time on site), not the “period of parking” required
by PoFA Schedule 4.
>
> These timestamps will inevitably include non-parking time such
as:
> [indent]• circulation while looking for a space or charger,
> • any queueing for a charger to become free,
> • time spent manoeuvring, connecting and disconnecting the
vehicle, and
> • driving to the exit and waiting to leave.[/indent]
>
> PoFA Schedule 4 requires that the operator identifies a
“period of parking”, not merely the total time between passing
cameras. The operator is put to strict proof that they have:
> [indent]• identified a true period of parking in accordance
with PoFA, excluding all non-parking time; and
> • then applied the mandatory post-parking grace period
required by the applicable Code of Practice before issuing a
charge.[/indent]
>
> If they cannot demonstrate both a properly defined period of
parking and a correctly applied grace period at the end, they
cannot show that any breach of a parking term has actually
occurred.
>
> 5. Unfair and unclear consumer terms
>
> If the operator seeks to rely on any contractual term
requiring payment of £100, that term must be transparent,
prominent, and fairly incorporated into any alleged contract
with the driver, particularly in the specific context of EV
charging.
>
> Given:
>
> [indent]• the EV-specific layout,
> • the lack of clearly-prominent warnings at the chargers
themselves, and
> • the operator’s failure (to date) to show that any driver
using the EV charger would have seen and accepted a clear offer
to pay £100,[/indent]
>
> any purported agreement to pay this sum is not transparent or
fairly incorporated, and is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act
2015. The operator is put to strict proof that the alleged
contractual term satisfies the requirements of transparency and
prominence.
>
> Conclusion
>
> GroupNexus has failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 for
hire vehicles and therefore cannot transfer liability to me as
Hirer. The driver is not identified, and without strict PoFA
compliance there is no lawful basis to hold the Hirer or keeper
liable or to presume that the Hirer was the driver. That is a
complete defence and this appeal should be allowed on that
ground alone.
>
> In the alternative, even if POPLA were to look beyond that
fatal defect, the operator has also failed to demonstrate
landowner authority, adequate and prominent signage (especially
at the EV chargers), a properly defined “period of parking” with
a mandatory post-parking grace period, or fair and transparent
consumer terms.
>
> For all of these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA
uphold this appeal and direct the operator to cancel the Parking
Charge.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 102462--------------------------------------------------
Re: How does the PCN deadline work while transferring liability
from Hertz to hirer/keeper?
DIR By: mjlazer
Date: December 15, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, this is extremely helpful and appreciated.
For the POPLA appeal, am I right in thinking I would need to
select 'Other' as the reason rather than 'I was not the driver
or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time'?
#Post#: 102472--------------------------------------------------
Re: How does the PCN deadline work while transferring liability
from Hertz to hirer/keeper?
DIR By: b789
Date: December 15, 2025, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Correct. Just select "Other".
#Post#: 107316--------------------------------------------------
Re: How does the PCN deadline work while transferring liability
from Hertz to hirer/keeper?
DIR By: mjlazer
Date: January 25, 2026, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, we did it 🥳🍾
The predatory scumbags at GroupNexus have given up and withdrawn
the parking charge.
Big shout out to jfollows, b789, and everyone else who
contributed to this momentous (at least for me) decision. I
didn't even think this was possible, really, but I've learned a
lot and can't wait to sound like a boffin down the pub next time
someone says they've got an unlawful parking charge.
Peace ✌🏼
HTML https://i.ibb.co/s91pfSpr/Screenshot-2026-01-25-at-19-11-15.png
HTML https://ibb.co/TM0DfXD5
#Post#: 107319--------------------------------------------------
Re: How does the PCN deadline work while transferring liability
from Hertz to hirer/keeper?
DIR By: jfollows
Date: January 25, 2026, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good, thank you for letting us know.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page