DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99598--------------------------------------------------
GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: November 24, 2025, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I just wanted to ask for any advice on how to approach the
appeal for this NtK.
The driver was using the GroupNexus Parking App to get 2 hours
more parking on top of their 3 hours free parking at the park
outside of TK Maxx in Croydon. Unfortunately the app was not
working properly that day and the payment didn't go through,
this is hard to prove however as the driver didn't get a receipt
in the app or an attempted payment in his bank (it is worth
adding that they "successfully" paid last year using the app and
searching their bank statements shows that no payment was taken
there either). The driver does have evidence that he spent 7mins
in the Group Nexus app that day.
The infringement occurred on 08/11/25 and I suspect they sent it
after the issue date (17/11/25) as I received it on Saturday
22/11/25, but I suppose that isn't delayed enough to warrant
PoFA non-compliance.
Here is the NtK:
HTML https://ibb.co/nMhYh3nW
HTML https://ibb.co/xq7kDZ4d
To me there doesn't seem to be much grounds on which to
challenge the PoFA 2012 compliance of the NtK, so should I
appeal it on the grounds that the app doesn't work properly?
Thanks in advance,
Bob
#Post#: 99618--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: b789 Date: November 24, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Luckily for you the Notice to Keeper is no PoFA compliant, but
not for the reason you assumed. Under Paragraph 9(2)(h), a
compliant NtK must:
[indent]“identify the creditor and specify how and to whom
payment or notification to the creditor may be made.”[/indent]
In the document you’ve shown, the only named entity is “CP Plus
Ltd T/A GroupNexus”, but the notice never explicitly identifies
who the creditor is — it does not say, for example, “The
Creditor is CP Plus Ltd T/A GroupNexus”.
This omission is material because the recipient cannot know with
certainty whether CP Plus Ltd (GroupNexus) or the landowner is
the creditor. Simply printing the trading name in the letterhead
or footer does not meet the statutory requirement to “identify
the creditor”.
Therefore, the NtK does not satisfy 9(2)(h) and cannot be relied
upon to transfer liability from the driver to the registered
keeper under PoFA. 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 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 registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute
your “parking charge”. I deny any liability or contractual
agreement and will be raising a formal complaint about your
predatory conduct with your client landowner.
Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. In particular, paragraph 9(2)(h) requires a Notice to
Keeper to “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom
payment or notification to the creditor may be made.” Your NtK
does not identify any party as “the creditor” at all. The
document merely bears the branding “GroupNexus” and small-print
company details, but never states who the creditor actually is –
e.g. whether it is CP Plus Ltd, GroupNexus Ltd, the landowner,
or some other principal or agent.
Simply printing a trading name or company details somewhere on
the notice is not compliance with 9(2)(h). The statute requires
the creditor to be clearly and expressly identified. You have
failed to do so. As a result, you cannot rely on PoFA to
transfer any liability from the unknown driver to the registered
keeper.
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.[/quote]
#Post#: 99845--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: November 26, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you [member=26]b789[/member] I really appreciate it. I
have sent in the appeal and am currently waiting to hear back
from GroupNexus, I will update the thread when they respond.
#Post#: 99868--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: November 26, 2025, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I got the standard generic rejection by the look of things
[quote]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 between
8:00-22:00 with the option to extend with payment up to 5 hours.
Please note that payment for parking is required outside of
these times, 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 full driver details have not
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 Ł60.00 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. Should you appeal to POPLA, and
your appeal is rejected for any reason, you will also lose your
right to pay at the reduced rate.
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 (please note this reference is
for use only when appealing to POPLA): XXXXXXXXXX
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 Limited[/quote]
Does anyone have any recommendations as to how to appeal with
POPLA?
Once again, thanks in advance.
Bob
#Post#: 99875--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: b789 Date: November 26, 2025, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just do a forum search for other recent POPLA appeals to get a
flavour and then put one together yourself and show it to us
before you submit anything so we can advise on any edits/changes
you should make.
You always explain why their NtK is not PoFA compliant and that
the Keeper has not identified the driver. You also put them to
strict proof of a contemporaneous contract flowing from the
landowner that gives then standing to issue PCNs in their own
lanes at the location and you always explain why their signs do
not conform to the CoP standards etc.
#Post#: 99878--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: November 26, 2025, 6:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok thank you, I'll update the thread once I have my draft.
#Post#: 99881--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: b789 Date: November 26, 2025, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit your
popla appeal. No rush.
#Post#: 103849--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: December 27, 2025, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I got a little busy over Christmas and whatnot and only
now sat down to prepare my POPLA appeal, but reading the
correspondence from Group Nexus and looking online it looks like
I only had 28 days to submit my POPLA appeal? I'm going to draft
and submit my POPLA appeal ASAP (if my code still works) but
does anyone know if I do indeed have 33 days in which to appeal
to POPLA?
Thanks,
Bob
#Post#: 103850--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: December 27, 2025, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh wait I just saw this:
[quote author=b789 link=topic=6665.msg81697#msg81697
date=1752933204]
You actually have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection
as they allow 5 days for service of the code. However, if they
have started issuing debt recovery letters with the added fake
Ł70, then it is usually too late to appeal.
So, are you still within the 33 days from the date of the
initial appeal rejection?
[/quote]
Looks like I have a bit more time to sort this out.
#Post#: 103854--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: December 27, 2025, 10:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is my POPLA appeal, I am planning to send it in tomorrow
(day 32 of 33) so I welcome any feedback on it before then.
POPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]
GROUPNEXUS PCN Number: [PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Vehicle Registration]
Re: Appeal against GroupNexus Notice to Keeper
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and I am
appealing against the issue of this Parking Charge Notice on the
following grounds:
1. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify the creditor as
required by Paragraph 9(2)(h) of PoFA.
2. The NtK fails to clarify whether GroupNexus is acting as an
agent or principal
3. The operator has not identified the driver and cannot rely on
PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.
4. The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid
contract flowing from the landowner in accordance with PPSCoP
Section 14.
5. The Notice to Keeper fails to inform the keeper of the reason
behind the charge as per Paragraph 9(2)(a) and (b) of PoFA 2012
6. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
– no invitation to the keeper to pay.
7. The driver made a reasonable attempt to pay
1. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify the creditor, as
required by Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012
Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 states:
“The notice must—identify the creditor and specify how and to
whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.”
This is a mandatory statutory requirement, and one which this
NtK blatantly fails to meet. Nowhere in the Notice does it state
who the creditor actually is. There is no sentence—nor even a
vague attempt—to say: “The creditor is GroupNexus,” or any other
entity to this effect, as required by law.
Instead, the Notice merely refers to “we” throughout, without
defining who “we” actually is in a legal context. If the
operator intends to rely on this ambiguous term to signify the
creditor, then at the very least the Notice must state “we, the
creditor” or “we, GroupNexus as the creditor.” It does not. The
word “creditor” is not in fact even mentioned in the document.
The failure to explicitly identify the creditor means the NtK is
not compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(h), and therefore the operator
cannot hold the keeper liable. As keeper, I cannot be expected
to respond to a notice that fails to state, even once, who is
legally entitled to the charge.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal
and instruct the operator to cancel the charge.


2. The NtK fails to clarify whether Groupnexus is acting as an
agent or principal
Further compounding the breach of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of PoFA, the
Notice to Keeper also fails to state whether GroupNexus is
acting:
• as the principal, issuing the parking charge in its own name
and right (in which case it must be clearly named as the
creditor), or
• as an agent of the landowner, in which case the actual
creditor is the landowner and must be identified.
There is no information in the NtK to clarify the capacity in
which GroupNexus is acting. This creates a situation where the
keeper is being pursued for a payment allegedly owed to an
unknown party. This undermines the basic requirements of legal
certainty and transparency.
POPLA and courts have consistently held that the operator must
identify the creditor and clarify their legal standing in
relation to the land. Without such clarification, the Notice is
materially non-compliant, and keeper liability cannot be
established.
Given these failures, GroupNexus has not complied with the
requirements of PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to
the keeper. Without strict compliance with PoFA, GroupNexus
cannot hold the keeper liable, and this charge is therefore
unenforceable.
3. The operator has not identified the driver and cannot rely on
PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.
As GroupNexus cannot rely on PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 to transfer
liability to the keeper, they must provide evidence that the
keeper was the driver at the time of the alleged parking
contravention.
GroupNexus have not provided any evidence to suggest that the
registered keeper was the driver.
GroupNexus has made no attempt to prove the identity of the
driver, and they have not demonstrated why they believe the
registered keeper should be held liable without PoFA compliance.
As there is no evidence that I, as the registered keeper, was
the driver, GroupNexus has no legal grounds to pursue this
charge against me.
4. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority to
issue PCNs in their own name
It is a well-established requirement under the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and longstanding POPLA
precedent that a private parking operator must have clear,
current, and contractual authority flowing from the landowner to
manage parking and issue PCNs in their own name.
GroupNexus is therefore put to strict proof. The operator must
produce, but not limited to:
• A contemporaneous, unredacted contract or agreement with the
landowner (or the landowner’s agent, with written proof of such
agency),
• Confirmation that the contract permits the operator to issue
PCNs in their own name and to pursue unpaid charges,
• Proof that the contract is still valid and in force as of the
date of the alleged contravention,
• Identification of the exact land covered (including “New
Street Retail Park”),
• Disclosure of all material terms, including the scope,
duration, enforcement conditions, and authority limits,
• Confirmation of any variations agreed since the contract was
first executed.
Importantly, any redactions of critical parts of the
contract—such as the validity term, the agreed parking
conditions, the times of enforcement, or the names, signatures,
and dates of the signatories—renders the evidence incomplete and
unreliable. These elements are essential to proving that a
valid, enforceable contract existed at the material time.
Excessive or unnecessary redactions serve only to raise
suspicion that the operator has something to hide. It is not
sufficient for an operator to say “there is a contract” or to
supply a heavily redacted version that fails to meet the
standards set out in Section 14 of the PPSCoP. That section sets
clear expectations about what a compliant contract must contain.
A simple assumption that “there must be a contract because signs
are in place” is not acceptable. That position shows a total
disregard for the PPSCoP and POPLA’s evidential standards.
Signage presence is not proof of legal authority. If the
operator cannot prove that all required contractual points under
Section 14 have been satisfied, then any suggestion that they
have a valid contract must be treated as null and void.
Unless GroupNexus produces full, unredacted contractual proof
meeting all the criteria of the PPSCoP, they cannot demonstrate
any legal standing to issue or pursue this charge. The appeal
must therefore be upheld.
5. The Notice to Keeper fails to inform the keeper of the reason
behind the charge as per Paragraphs 9(2)(a) & (c) of PoFA 2012
Schedule 4
GroupNexus’ NtK also fails PoFA on the following points:
Paragraph 9(2)(a): The NtK must specify the relevant land on
which the vehicle was parked. GroupNexus’ vague description of
the location is insufficient under PoFA, as it does not clearly
identify where the vehicle was allegedly parked, nor does it
specify a defined area.
Paragraph 9(2)(c): PoFA requires that the NtK must inform the
keeper of the reason for issuing the charge. In this case,
GroupNexus fails to make the alleged breach of contract clear in
their NtK. There is merely a vague reference to the “free
parking period”. The NtK must inform the keeper why the parking
terms were allegedly breached. Thus, this is not sufficiently
communicated.
6. Notice to Keeper does not comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of
Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – no
invitation to the keeper to pay.
It is important to emphasise that PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) sets out a mandatory and unambiguous requirement. It
states that the Notice to Keeper must:
“state that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver and
invite the keeper — (A) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(B) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to provide
the creditor with a statement...”
The key phrase here is “invite the keeper...to pay the unpaid
parking charges.”
This requirement is not optional, and there is no allowance in
law for this obligation to be met by implication or assumption.
The law does not say that a notice may merely “imply” that the
keeper is being invited to pay, nor does it say that the fact
the NtK is addressed to the keeper is somehow enough. The
statute uses the word MUST—meaning that an explicit, unambiguous
invitation must be present within the wording of the notice
itself.
In this case, the Notice to Keeper fails to meet that condition.
It does not state anywhere that the keeper is invited to pay the
charge. The only references made are to the effect that the
keeper should either provide the driver’s details or pass the
notice to the driver. There is no direct, clear statement
inviting the keeper themselves to make payment. That is a
fundamental omission.
To be absolutely clear for the avoidance of doubt:
• The Notice is not compliant simply because it is addressed to
the keeper.
• It is not compliant because it implies that someone should
take action.
• It is only compliant if it specifically and expressly invites
the keeper to pay.
Adjudicators cannot rewrite or gloss over statutory language.
Parliament deliberately included this requirement in Schedule 4
to ensure that the transition of liability from the unknown
driver to the registered keeper only occurs when all strict
statutory safeguards are met. These safeguards are not
technicalities—they are legal thresholds.
Whilst some assessors choose to simply gloss over PoFA 9(2)(e),
they fail to take into account that sub paragraph (i) is also
required to be considered. It is a binary matter and here it is
clear that it has not been complied with.
In failing to include the required wording, the operator has not
met the requirements of PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). It is
irrelevant what the operator intended to imply. What matters is
whether the statutory wording is present on the face of the
notice. It is not.
Therefore, POPLA must find that the NtK does not comply with
PoFA and that keeper liability has not been established. The
charge cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.
7. The driver made a reasonable attempt to pay

Although this is not the main grounds upon which I am disputing
this NtK, I believe it is worth noting that the driver (who I am
under no obligation to identify) made a reasonable attempt to
pay to extend their parking. The driver spent 7 minutes inside
the parking app which is longer than almost any modern app would
require to make a simple payment, but was inhibited in doing so
by the app malfunctioning. If GroupNexus wants customers to use
their app and not provide payment machines surely it would be in
their interest to provide a good user experience in the app that
makes making payments simple and
quick.




The Parking Charge Notice fails on multiple substantive grounds,
both statutory and procedural. GroupNexus has not complied with
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice or the BPA code of practice. As the
operator has failed to establish keeper liability and has not
evidenced a valid authority to issue the charge, I respectfully
request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct the operator
to cancel the PCN.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page