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]
#Post#: 112428--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: March 8, 2026, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My POPLA claim was unsuccessful. I'll copy the result below. I
am wondering what I can expect next, I suppose I will start
getting debt collection letters and eventually a letter of
claim? Also one factor that might complicate things is that I
have been appealing on behalf of my elderly mother so far (she
is the registered keeper so all correspondence has been through
her). For things like mediation would my mother need to join the
mediation call or could I do that on her behalf?
Thanks in advance.
POPLA result:
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Nazia Mohammed
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN)
for no record of a payment being made or for remaining on site
for longer than the free parking period.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal and they state: • The notice to keeper doesn’t clearly
identify the creditor, causing confusion between "CP Plus Ltd"
and "GroupNexus." • The notice to keep fails to state whether
GroupNexus is acting as an agent or principal. • The notice to
keeper doesn’t specify the exact parking location or reason for
the charge. • The notice to keeper doesn’t explicitly invite the
keeper to pay the charge • GroupNexus hasn’t provided evidence
that the keeper was the driver. • GroupNexus hasn’t shown proof
of having landowner authority to issue PCNs. • After reviewing
the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their
grounds of appeal / expands on their grounds of appeal / raises
new grounds of appeal in relation to … • They claim their NtK
follows PoFA 2012 because it says it does, which is circular
reasoning. • The photos they provided are nearly three years old
and do not prove permission at the time • They made a genuine
attempt to pay using their app otther apps accepting payments
does not show their app worked correctly. • It seems their app
may fail on purpose, allowing them to issue more PCNs. • Their
attempt to pay is a clear mitigating circumstance and unfair to
claim otherwise • It seems their app may fail on purpose,
allowing them to issue more PCNs. • • They operator did not
properly respond to most of the points in their appeal. In
support of their appeal, the appellant has submitted the
following evidence: • Image of downloading app. • Image of the
front and back of the PCN. • Their appeal with POPLA. This
evidence has been considered in making my determination.
POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and
independent of the sector. When assessing an appeal, POPLA
considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge
notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and
conditions for the use of the car park on the day. Our remit
only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking
operator has submitted photographic images of the signage
displayed throughout the car park together with a site map
confirming the locations of the signage. The signage states at
Ł100 PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to adhere to the
stated terms and conditions. Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR) images of the signage displayed throughout the car park
have been submitted together with a site map confirming the
locations of the signage. The signage states that a Ł100 PCN
will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the stated
terms and conditions. I acknowledge all the grounds raised by
the appellant. I note that they have raised four grounds in
relation to the Notice to Keeper regarding identifying the
creditor, whether the operator is acting as an agent or
principal, the location and reason for parking, and whether the
notice invites the keeper to pay the charge. The Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards
that parking operators are required to comply with. A Notice to
Keeper must include clear information so that the vehicle owner
understands the parking charge. It should show the vehicle
registration number and the make or model of the car. The notice
must also state the exact location of the car park or land where
the parking event occurred. It should include the date and the
period of parking. The notice must clearly explain why the
charge was issued, such as overstaying, not displaying a ticket,
or breaching permit rules. It should show the total amount of
the parking charge and explain if there is a discount for paying
within a certain time, for example within 14 days. The notice
must also name the company that is legally entitled to recover
the charge. It should state that the driver is responsible for
the charge but also warn that the vehicle keeper may become
responsible if the driver is not named. The keeper must be given
the opportunity to provide the driver’s name and address. It
should also explain how to pay or appeal the charge, including
payment options and details of the appeals process. The PCN must
include the date it was issued and the contact details of the
parking company. Upon checking the Notice to Keeper, I am
satisfied that it is fully compliant with The Code, and the
operator’s claim that they are PoFA compliant is correct. With
reference to the appellant’s claim that the operator has not
provided evidence that the keeper was the driver: Section 14.1
of The Code states that where controlled land is being managed
on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained
before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the
operator, within its evidence pack, has advised that it has
authority to act on behalf of the landowner. The evidence
provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria that
POPLA requires. Although the Single Sector Code of Practice
requires us to review landowner authority, our observations
should extend beyond simply checking documentation. POPLA must
consider the fact that there is equipment, signage and, on
occasion, personnel on site to manage enforcement. This would
not occur without the landowner’s authority. If the parking
operator were not allowed to issue charges on site, the
landowner would not permit the operator to keep its signage on
the land. As such, I am satisfied that a valid contract is in
place in accordance with Section 14 of The Code and that the
parking operator has sufficient authority to issue charges.
Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely
that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time.
Not many landowners would quietly allow someone to operate on
their land without their permission. In addition, the appellant
has not provided any evidence to suggest that the operator does
not have authority over the land in question. Therefore, there
is nothing that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the operator’s
contract with the landowner. The Protection of Freedoms Act
(PoFA) 2012 is legislation that allows parking operators to
transfer liability to the registered keeper in the event that
the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must
follow certain rules, including warning the registered keeper
that they will become liable if the operator is not provided
with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN
contains the necessary information, and the parking operator has
therefore successfully transferred liability to the registered
keeper. The appellant claims that the pictures provided are
three years old. However, the date of the signage photographs
will not have an impact on the outcome, as they are deemed to
represent the signage currently in place unless evidence is
provided to dispute this. No evidence has been provided to
suggest otherwise. I acknowledge that the appellant made an
attempt to pay. However, there were other payment methods
available that they could have chosen. If those options were not
suitable, they could have chosen to find alternative suitable
parking. After considering the evidence from both parties, the
motorist no record of a payment being made or for remaining on
site for longer than the free parking period and therefore did
not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I
am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I
must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved with the financial
aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding
payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking
operator directly.
#Post#: 112435--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: InterCity125 Date: March 8, 2026, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The assessor deliberately skips over the failure to "invite the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges".
They skip over this because it is not possible to rebut your
appeal point and they are keen to find in the operators favour.
We've seen this before where the assessor deliberately doctors
your appeal point in order to provide a rebuttal.
POPLA have promised that they were tightening up on assessors
training on PoFA compliance.
You should now write a complaint and submit to POPLA - make the
complaint purely on the basis that keeper liability was wrongly
established and that paragraph 9(2)(e) was not complied with.
I can scribble an complaint if that would help?
#Post#: 112471--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: March 8, 2026, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes please :)
#Post#: 112498--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: InterCity125 Date: March 9, 2026, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=Georgia]POPLA Complaint - Clear Procedural Error.
POPLA Code -
POPLA Assessor - Nazia Mohammed.
FAO Lead Assessor,
This is a complaint relating to the incorrect assertion of
Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012 by your Assessor Nazia
Mohammed.
Unfortunately, in their assessment, Nazia wrongly establishes
keeper liability when the required mandatory wording / choices
are not present in the parking operators NtK.
To make things simple (and totally objective) this complaint
purely relates to the assessor's error when examining the NtK
for compliance under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e).
You will see from my submitted appeal that I specifically raised
the non compliance with this paragraph in my statement.
As you will be aware, the wording of PoFA is legally very tight
and total compliance with 9(2) is needed in order for a parking
operator to transfer liability onto a Registered Keeper.
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) states the following;
The notice MUST
(e)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—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
So, in order to be compliant with 9(2)(e) we must examine the
precise wording of the operators NtK - in the case of the
mandatory requirements of 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) we
are looking for a section of mandatory wording immediately
followed by the presentation of a two limbed legal choice which
must be directed to the vehicle keeper (and not the driver).
This should therefore be something along the lines of the
following;
==============================================
At the current time, Group Nexus (the creditor) does not know
both the name and a current address for service for the driver.
The keeper is therefore invited to
(i) PAY THE UNPAID PARKING CHARGES
or
(ii) If the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass this notice onto the driver.
==============================================
The required paragraph is clearly missing from the operators
NtK.
The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant
ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved by, for
example, placing the information at random points throughout the
NtK since this would not present the keeper with the text
followed by the two limbed legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires -
this point is clearly backed up by the precise wording of
9(2)(e) - the mandatory text which must be immediately followed
by the invitation to the keeper to pay the charges or nominate
another driver.
So you will see, from the examination of the operators NtK, that
there is no 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking
charges' and nor is there a two limbed legal choice correctly
setting out the keepers options as required by 9(2)(e).
As a result the NtK is clearly not compliant with the
requirements of PoFA and liability cannot be transferred to the
keeper.
I notice in the assessor's response that the assessor is very
careful to avoid the issue of this missing wording - it appears
that clarity on the precise requirements of 9(2)(e) is
deliberately avoided since such clarity would not favour the
parking operator.
I understand from various consumer groups (on the internet) that
POPLA have recently stated that assessors were to undergo
"further intense training in an effort to avoid future failures
when assessing keeper liability under PoFA" - Can you please
explain why such basic errors (such as this one) are still being
made?
I look forward with interest to your views.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxx[/font]
#Post#: 113769--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: bob_salamander Date: March 19, 2026, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that InterCity, I'll get that sent in soon.
Does anyone have any guidance on my earlier question:
[quote]Also one factor that might complicate things is that I
have been appealing on behalf of my elderly mother so far (she
is the registered keeper so all correspondence has been through
her). For things like mediation would my mother need to join the
mediation call or could I do that on her behalf?[/quote]
Thanks in advance,
Bob
#Post#: 113791--------------------------------------------------
Re: GroupNexus NtK - Overstay - Purley Way Retail Park
By: InterCity125 Date: March 20, 2026, 2:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's a long way off - don't worry about this for now.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page