DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103856--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: b789 Date: December 27, 2025, 10:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That is a very good and well formatted POPLA appeal. However, I
would add the following to it:
[quote]“GroupNexus” is not merely a trading style of CP Plus –
it is a separate legal entity, making the NtK’s creditor
position materially unclear (PoFA 9(2)(h))
The Notice to Keeper refers to “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” and
then uses the undefined term “we” throughout, without ever
identifying “the creditor”.
However, “GROUPNEXUS LIMITED” is itself a separately
incorporated company (company number 15560549, incorporated 13
March 2024). Companies House records also show this entity
previously existed under a different registered name (“CP NEWCO
(TRADING) LIMITED”) before becoming “GROUPNEXUS LIMITED”.
CP PLUS LIMITED is a different legal person entirely (company
number 02595379, incorporated 26 March 1991).
Accordingly, the wording “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” does not
resolve the statutory requirement to “identify the creditor”. In
the real-world corporate landscape, at least two plausible
candidates exist for who might be asserting creditor status (CP
PLUS LIMITED or GROUPNEXUS LIMITED), and the NtK does not
expressly state which legal entity is entitled to recover the
charge.
That is precisely why PoFA 9(2)(h) requires the creditor to be
explicitly identified. Where the operator’s branding and
corporate structure create ambiguity, POPLA cannot “assume” the
creditor from letterheads, trading descriptions, or the pronoun
“we”. This NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(h), and keeper liability cannot
arise.[/quote]
If you want to keep your numbering as-is, you can fold that
wording into your existing Ground 1 (after the PoFA quote) and
end it with:
[quote]This is not a technicality; it is a substantive statutory
safeguard, and the NtK fails it.[/quote]
#Post#: 106232--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: January 16, 2026, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
GroupNexus finally responded to the POPLA appeal with their
evidence pack... and it looks completely copied and pasted. They
barely responded to any of the points that I actually raised in
my appeal.
Here's the main dispute page from the 40 page evidence pack:
HTML https://ibb.co/4w5Gc5qf
The rest was mostly photos of their signage which I didn't
dispute.
Does anyone have any recommendations on how to respond to their
evidence?
I suppose I should focus on challenging this point:
[quote]We can confirm that we have the authority to act on
behalf of the landowner. The onus is on the appellant to provide
evidence to support their claim that we do not - if the
appellant genuinely believes that we do not have such authority,
they are to go to the BPA to obtain this information. The
photographs included in Section F show that signage and
equipment is in place at the site to manage the function of
enforcement and this cannot happen without the
landowner’s authority.[/quote]
#Post#: 106254--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: DWMB2 Date: January 17, 2026, 3:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They've tried this "if we put up signs that means we have
permission" trick a few times recently.
If you have a search on here for some recent Nexus threads you
might find an example of how we recommended challenging this.
If not I should have time to help tomorrow. The first point is
that whilst the existence of signs might suggest they had
permission at some point, it doesn't demonstrate they still had
permission in the form of a valid contract at the time of the
incident. Further, as the claimant, the onus is on them to prove
the charge is owed, not on you to prove it is not. If they had
valid authority, it would have been trivial for them to produce
it.
#Post#: 106983--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: January 22, 2026, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your response DWMB2, I used some if to build my
comment below. Apologies for the late response by the way, I was
sick over the weekend.
Here's what I came up with, I'm planning to submit it soon (the
deadline is tomorrow), but I welcome any feedback if anyone sees
this in time and would care to comment.
[quote]GroupNexus has failed to almost address all the points
that I raised in my appeal, and there is no doubt in my mind
that the lack of effort that has been put into the response is a
reflection of the quality of GroupNexus as a company.
They assert that their NtK is compliant with PoFA 2012 solely on
the basis that the NtK itself states it is compliant. This is a
clear example of circular reasoning. It is very disappointing
that I raised multiple grounds upon which the NtK was not
compliant, and they couldn’t even extend me the courtesy of
attempting to dispute them.
It is inappropriate for GroupNexus to suggest that the onus is
on me as the keeper of the vehicle to prove that they have
landowner authority. As the claimant, the onus is clearly on
them to prove the charge is owed. The only attempt they made to
‘prove’ their authority was to provide photos of the signage on
the site (these are almost 3 year old). They may have had
permission at some point, but fact that the signs are there say
nothing about whether they have permission to form a valid
contract at the time of the incident. If they had valid
authority, it would have been trivial for them to produce it.
Evidence was shown that a reasonable attempt was made to make a
payment. The fact that app payments were accepted during the
duration of my cars stay says nothing about the performance of
their app. I believe this could be predatory practise from
GroupNexus, as it works in their interest for their app to
function poorly - it gives them more opportunities to send out
these PCNs which generate a lot more revenue.
They state that no mitigating circumstances were provided which
would warrant cancellation of the charge. However a clear
mitigating circumstance exists in that the driver made a
reasonable attempt to pay for parking. It is wholly unreasonable
to characterise a genuine attempt to comply with the terms as an
absence of mitigation.
[/quote]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page