DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Just received this charge from group nexus
DIR By: Redspark
Date: December 18, 2025, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA Appeal – Registered Keeper
Operator: CP Plus Ltd t/a Group Nexus
Parking Charge Ref: 2000014598821
Location: Kirkstall Bridge Shopping Park, Leeds
---
1. No keeper liability – failure to comply with POFA 2012
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. The operator has
failed to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The driver has not been identified, and I am under no obligation
to name the driver.
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory
requirements of paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
The operator has failed to provide the prescribed statutory
warning in the required form and wording. As a result, the
operator cannot transfer liability from the driver to the
registered keeper.
As the operator has not met the strict requirements of POFA
2012, the charge must be cancelled.
---
2. Inadequate and unclear signage, particularly at night
The alleged parking event occurred during hours of darkness. The
operator has not demonstrated that the signage was sufficiently
prominent, clear, or illuminated to bring the terms and
conditions to the attention of the driver at night.
Any alleged change from free parking to a paid parking regime
after 9pm was not clearly highlighted in a manner capable of
forming a contract. The signage fails the requirements of
prominence and transparency required by the BPA Code of
Practice.
---
3. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator has not provided evidence that it has the required
written authority from the landowner to issue and enforce
parking charges at this site in its own name.
I put the operator to strict proof that such authority exists
and that it complies with the BPA Code of Practice.
---
4. ANPR evidence does not establish a parking period
The operator relies solely on ANPR images, which record vehicle
entry and exit times only. These do not establish the actual
period of parking and do not account for time spent driving
within the site, locating a space, or exiting.
This evidence is insufficient to establish a breach of terms.
#Post#: 106712--------------------------------------------------
Re: Just received this charge from group nexus
DIR By: Redspark
Date: January 20, 2026, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How long does it take for you to get a response to your POPLA
appeal ?
Thanks
Dave
#Post#: 106714--------------------------------------------------
Re: Just received this charge from group nexus
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 20, 2026, 1:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Once you have successfully submitted, you'll generally get an
email from POPLA advising that the case has been sent to the
parking operator for them to comment on. They have (from memory)
21 days to do this. Once they do, you'll then have 7 days to
review any evidence they have submitted and offer comment on it.
Once you comment (or once the 7 days expires if you fail to
comment), it'll be put in a queue for assessment. At this point
you generally get another email from POPLA which advises of the
rough timescales for a response. This is often between 8-12
weeks.
You can check the status of your appeal using your POPLA code
and the password given when you first registered on the portal.
#Post#: 112572--------------------------------------------------
Re: Just received this charge from group nexus
DIR By: Redspark
Date: March 9, 2026, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/RnSzmtc
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to
no record of payment being made.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal: • They are the keeper of the vehicle, and the driver
has not been identified. • The terms and conditions were not
clearly or prominently displayed at the site, especially during
hours of darkness. • The parking operator has not demonstrated
they have landowner authority to issue and enforce parking
charges. • ANPR images do not show the period of parking, they
only show the vehicles movements.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
By issuing a parking charge notice to the appellant the operator
has implied that a breach of the terms and conditions has
occurred. When an appeal comes to POPLA, the burden of proof
begins with a parking operator to demonstrate that the appellant
has breached the restrictions of the car park as they claim. I
am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The
appellant has raised that the parking operator does not have
landowner authority. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators
need to comply with. 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 parking operator has not
provided a copy of a contract or made any statements relating to
having a valid contract from the landowner to manage the land
and enforce the terms and conditions. As no evidence has been
provided I am not satisfied the appellants grounds of appeal
have been rebutted by the parking operator and I cannot be sure
the PCN has been issued correctly as no evidence has been
provided of complying with section 14.1 of The Code. I note the
appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal,
however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for this reason,
I did not feel they required further consideration.
Thanks everyone 🙂
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page