Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: docklander on October 25, 2024, 04:54:38 pm

Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: DWMB2 on January 14, 2026, 11:30:45 am
They probably don't take every case to LoC stage, but they seem to take a good portion of them. At any rate, the best advice is to always proceed with a case as if it is going to go all the way to a court hearing, and if it does not, great.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: jfollows on January 14, 2026, 08:16:40 am
Yes

Search the forum for
Nexus DCB
if you want to know more.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: JulianV on January 14, 2026, 07:44:39 am
In your experience, do they always proceed to legal?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: jfollows on January 14, 2026, 06:28:59 am
It’s not a Letter of Claim, everything from DCBL should be ignored, the Letter of Claim will come from DCB Legal, which is not the same company.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: JulianV on January 13, 2026, 10:18:01 pm
Here it is:

https://cdn.imgpile.com/p/MUlauzV
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: DWMB2 on January 09, 2026, 07:31:31 pm
Can you show us that letter, just to check it isn't a LoC?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: JulianV on January 09, 2026, 06:59:34 pm
Hey all and happy new year.

Just checking, received a Notice of Intended Legal Action letter today. Just ignore right?

Do they always go to the LoC stage?

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on October 24, 2025, 07:02:31 pm
No change. Come back when you receive an LoC. Nothing to do until then.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: JulianV on October 24, 2025, 07:00:07 pm
Apologies for bringing this back from the dead! But, we are now at this stage:

You will now start receiving useless debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. Ignore all debt recovery letters. We do not need to know about them.

Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and subsequently an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. We do need to know about those as there are important deadlines that must not be missed. What I can tell you is that the most probable outcome is that once a claim is made and defended with our advice, it will either be struck out or discontinued.


The date of contravention was 06.10.2024. Letter from DCBL received today, dated 16.10.2025.

Is the advice above still valid? Ignore until LoC and N1SDT?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on March 15, 2025, 05:41:25 pm
You need to also post the full POPLA appeal you sent - assuming it differs from the first draft you posted in December.

It did not.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: G6PRK on March 14, 2025, 07:42:27 pm
You need to also post the full POPLA appeal you sent - assuming it differs from the first draft you posted in December.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on March 14, 2025, 04:39:27 pm
As requested:

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Heidi Brown
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to the motorist parking without a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). - The appellant requests evidence of a contract between the operator and landowner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state vehicles must be registered for a valid permit. The parking operator has provided a permit report which shows no record of permit against the vehicle in question. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. The appellant was identified as the registered keeper and no driver details were provided, therefore I must assess if the Notice to Keeper is compliant with PoFA. Upon reviewing the PCN, I am satisfied that it was issued within the permitted timeframe and contains the relevant information outlined in PoFA. Please note that there is no requirement to name the creditor on the PCN as the operator is acting on behalf of the PCN. Having reviewed the PCN, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements of PoFA and the operator is permitted to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper. - The appellant requests evidence of a contract between the operator and landowner. 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. The operator has provided a signed witness statement to demonstrate that it has landowner authorization. Although the Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked without a valid permit 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.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on March 14, 2025, 04:13:33 pm
A POPLA decision is not binding on you, even the feckwit assessor is completely wrong. Do not pay.

You never showed us the final appeal you sent to POPLA.

Please show us the complete POPLA decision, including the name of the assessor. This not private information and is in the public domain. I will put together a formal complaint to POPLA you can send. Not that it will change the decision of the assessor but it puts them on notice that their assessors are nut sufficiently trained in the law and they must acknowledge your complaint.

You will now start receiving useless debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. Ignore all debt recovery letters. We do not need to know about them.

Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and subsequently an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC. We do need to know about those as there are important deadlines that must not be missed. What I can tell you is that the most probable outcome is that once a claim is made and defended with our advice, it will either be struck out or discontinued.

So, please show us the full response from POPLA with the assessors name and the POPLA reference number so that a formal complaint can be made and let us know if you are prepared to fight this all the way.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: G6PRK on March 14, 2025, 10:17:09 am
It would seem you got a mentally deficient POPLA assessor.

I imagine next steps are ignore debt collectors and don't worry until you get a letter of claim - but someone more experienced than me will pipe up if not.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on March 14, 2025, 07:48:06 am
I had the email notification last night. My appeal has been declined:

Assessor supporting rational for decision.

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state vehicles must be registered for a valid permit. The parking operator has provided a permit report which shows no record of permit against the vehicle in question. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA). The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. The appellant was identified as the registered keeper and no driver details were provided, therefore I must assess if the Notice to Keeper is compliant with PoFA. Upon reviewing the PCN, I am satisfied that it was issued within the permitted timeframe and contains the relevant information outlined in PoFA. Please note that there is no requirement to name the creditor on the PCN as the operator is acting on behalf of the PCN. Having reviewed the PCN, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements of PoFA and the operator is permitted to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper. - The appellant requests evidence of a contract between the operator and landowner. 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. The operator has provided a signed witness statement to demonstrate that it has landowner authorization. Although the Code of Practice outlines what authorisation must set out my observations extend beyond checking documentation; it includes consideration of the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. I am sure that if the parking operator was not allowed to issue charges on site the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site nor would the landowner allow motorists to park on its land without authorisation. Based on the information supplied by the parking operator I am satisfied that it meets with the minimum standards set out by the Code of Practice and is compliant. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked without a valid permit 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.

So, is there anything else I can do?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on January 10, 2025, 11:47:35 am
I have heard from POPLA that my appeal should be heard within 6 to 8 weeks from today. I will update you in due course.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on December 12, 2024, 12:31:16 pm
What you have shown is good but you need to remember that you are trying to lead the POPLA assessor by the nose through each point. What you have shown covers the PoFA failures which means that they cannot hold you liable as the Keeper.

You should always add as many points to a POPLA appeal as you only need to win on a single point and the operator has to rebut each of your points. You should also include other points about the signage and the operators contract with the landowner. With a Group Nexus PCN, always include the landowner contract validity.

Search for other POPLA appeals on here to get a flavour of what you need to add to what you already have.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on December 11, 2024, 06:39:30 pm
Any advice on the above post would be much appreciated...
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on December 07, 2024, 02:12:41 pm
So this is my 1st draft appeal:

I am writing to appeal correspondence received from GroupNexus, reference XXX.

Paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) states that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must specify the name of the creditor who is entitled to recover the parking charge. This is a strict requirement, and failure to comply renders the NtK invalid under PoFA for keeper liability purposes.

The notice states that "payment of the charge amount is required when parked on our client’s property". However, it does not explicitly identify who the "creditor" is. Simply stating "our client" or referring to the parking company itself is not sufficient. PoFA requires the explicit naming of the creditor so the recipient knows exactly who is owed the alleged debt.

If the NtK does not clearly identify the creditor, it fails to meet the requirement under Paragraph 9(2)(e). This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the parking company cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.

Also, under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.

They cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:

• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).

This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.

PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.

If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.

The parking company cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.

GroupNexus has failed to show a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at this location.

With the above in mind, I respectfully request you uphold my appeal and void this matter.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on December 07, 2024, 11:07:21 am
You have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit an appeal to POPLA. Your POPLA appeal, only as the Keeper, should include the fact that the NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA.

Paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) states that the NtK must specify the name of the creditor who is entitled to recover the parking charge. This is a strict requirement, and failure to comply renders the NtK invalid under PoFA for keeper liability purposes.

The notice states that "payment of the charge amount is required when parked on our client’s property". However, it does not explicitly identify who the "creditor" is. Simply stating "our client" or referring to the parking company itself is not sufficient. PoFA requires the explicit naming of the creditor so the recipient knows exactly who is owed the alleged debt.

If the NtK does not clearly identify the creditor, it fails to meet the requirement under Paragraph 9(2)(e). This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the parking company cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.

Also, under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.

They cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:

• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).

This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.

PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.

If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.

The parking company cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.

You should also put the operator to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at the location. A statement that they hold a contract is not sufficient and you need evidence of a valid contract.

Why did the driver not realise that they had to purchase a permit to stay at the location? Was the signage sufficiently prominent and legible or not? That is also a valid appeal point. Have a read of the new Single Code of Practice (SCoP) and v9 of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) about signs and how they must be set out.

Put together something that you think you would like to send and we will review and make any constructive criticism as necessary.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on December 06, 2024, 05:57:25 pm
I have had a reply from Group Nexus. Thoughts on next step?

Dated 27.11, received 06.12

Thank you for your correspondence elating to your Parking Charge. The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations. Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the terms and conditions that apply there, 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 no driver details have been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable. In light of this, n this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected. We can confirm that We will hold the charge at the current rate for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

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 letter. POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge. vehicle was To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website 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: XXX P

lease 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.

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 sincerely
CP Plus Limited GNI
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on November 07, 2024, 09:35:51 am
It would have been around 26 or 27 October

Was it 26th or 27th October. Your "Proof of Posting" certificate will tell you.

They have 28 days to respond to your appeal. According to you, it's only been about 11 or 12 days!

Don't get your hopes up anyway. You have more chance of winning the lottery than an initial appealing upheld.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on November 06, 2024, 06:31:07 pm
It would have been around 26 or 27 October
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: DWMB2 on November 06, 2024, 06:13:10 pm
When did you send the appeal?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on November 06, 2024, 06:00:27 pm
I sent the letter with the suggested text and have had no reply.

Today I received a letter dated 31/10/2024 saying that as they have had no payment, I now need to pay £100. If  I do not pay within 14 days, they "may" ask a debt recovery agent, etc.

Whats the next step please gang?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: H C Andersen on October 27, 2024, 12:26:26 pm
does the £50 charge stay for over 14 days if I lodge the appeal within that time?

By virtue of their Code of Practice, in the event of an unsuccessful appeal the creditor is obliged to offer a further 14 days to pay at the rate  prevailing when the appeal was ???

The actual wording is:

..if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge...

The discount is available as follows:
'..payment of the charge is required within 28 days from the date of this charge..we will accept the reduced sum if payment is received within 14 days.'

14 days of when??

To maintain the discount in accordance with their written terms, then IMO as the parking charge * is dated 14th then 28th, tomorrow, would be the last day for them to receive any appeal. This would seem to preclude sending by post.

*- they still don't get this! The 'parking charge' is payable by the driver upon breach of the parking contract i.e. the date of the breach. But operators continually refer to the 'parking charge' as if it's the parking charge notice, which of course it isn't.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: DWMB2 on October 26, 2024, 11:19:53 pm
Send it by post would be my view, getting a free certificate of posting as described.

It might not be a statement of truth, but this forum won't advise choosing an option that may involve stating something that isn't true.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on October 26, 2024, 04:01:28 pm
If you're considering the "mugs discount" then just go ahead and pay it. If you want to appeal, then just select you were not the driver, even if you were. It's not a statement of truth and it is the only option they have given you which removes your right to not disclose the drivers identity, which is entrapment... or just post it to them by snail mail but ideally, get a free "certificate of posting" from any post office.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on October 26, 2024, 03:48:26 pm
There is no option to appeal by email. In fact their website says:

For appeals, please use the green button, top right, or visit the PCN and Appeals Contact page.
An appeal sent to the ‘Info’ or ‘media’ email addresses, or via the form below, will not go to the correct department. Therefore it will not be accepted as an appeal and will not be processed.

Does anyone have an email for them or does this mean I have to write to them? If this doesnt work, does the £50 charge stay for over 14 days if I lodge the appeal within that time?

Thanks
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on October 26, 2024, 02:57:13 pm
You're appealing as the keeper only. Unless there's an option to select other or keeper only, don't use their online appeals. Send your appeal as an email attachment to them or post it. Your choice.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on October 26, 2024, 02:33:17 pm
On the appeal page, which option as I have to choose one:

Tick here to confirm that you were the driver and that the PCN you have received contains the correct information
Tick here to confirm that you were not the driver or that the PCN you have received contains incorrect information
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on October 26, 2024, 01:49:18 pm
What do the signs say at the car park? Not sure, sorry.

The signs are what form the "contract" that the driver is alleged to have breached. It doesn't matter whether the driver bothered to read them or not. It is a contract formed by conduct.

Why did the driver think they were exempt from any permit requirements? Because they were not parking and leaving the vehicle unattended

The contract will say something such as "by remaining on the private property the driver agrees..." Just because the vehicle was not left unattended does not mean that it wasn't allowed to remain on private property.

GroupNexus will not accept any appeal but you will be able to try and appeal to POPLA after the initial rejection although, it is also very unlikely that POPLA will be successful either. The most likely way this will be concluded is if it goes to court.

For now, simply appeal as the keeper only with the following:

Quote
This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not fully comply with PoFA. As there is no keeper liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on October 26, 2024, 01:32:43 pm
What do the signs say at the car park? Not sure, sorry.

Why did the driver think they were exempt from any permit requirements? Because they were not parking and leaving the vehicle unattended
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on October 26, 2024, 01:23:30 pm
https://imgur.com/a/BV1FkLA

that ok?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on October 26, 2024, 01:12:17 pm
I didnt want to clog up the site or faff with downloads but will do now.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: DWMB2 on October 26, 2024, 12:46:51 pm
Is there a reason you can't just show us the actual document?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on October 26, 2024, 12:46:39 pm
You can only verify if they have a valid contract by putting them to strict proof that they do.

Please, just post pictures of the NtK so we can review it. You are not helping by failing to provide the visual evidence we require.

I still don't know exactly where this alleged contravention took place. Entering Millwall Dock car park into Google maps shows at least 5 different car parks.

You haven't answered this earlier question either:

What do the signs say at the car park? Why did the driver think they were exempt from any permit requirements?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on October 26, 2024, 12:08:11 pm
So the location says " Millwall Dock"

Arrived 06/10/2024 14:20

Departed 06/10/2024 15:16

Duration 0hrs 55mins

Are you sure that Group Nexus have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) at the location? Not sure how I would verify this?

Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on October 26, 2024, 10:51:32 am
Either post a photo of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) or else provide all the dates and times showing on the NtK. Show us exactly how the address of the location is shown on the NtK.

What do the signs say at the car park? Why did the driver think they were exempt from any permit requirements? Are you sure that Group Nexus have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) at the location?

If you want help and advice, please provide the requested information. Nobody pays GroupNexus if they are getting advice here.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on October 26, 2024, 09:46:24 am
Here is the text scanned from the letter:

Dear Sir/Madam. 
When your vehicle remained at this location, our cameras recorded it arriving and leaving  at the dates and times stated on the right hand side. This car park is for permit holders  only and- as we have no record of an elecironic permit being registered for your-vehicie,  having checked the vehicle details with Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), we  are writing to you because you were the registered keeper at the time of parking. 
In accordance with the Terms and Conditions clearly and prominently displayed and  agreed to when your vehicle parked on our Client's property, the payment of the Charge  amount is required within 28 days from the date of this Charge. We will accept the  reduced sum if payment is received within 14 days. 
You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 that the driver of the vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge in full. As we do  not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the  time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this  to them. Once this information is received, we will pursue the driver. 
You are advised that if, after a period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on  which the Charge is given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the  Date Issued) the Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the  name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of  the Parking Charge from you. This Charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of  Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with  the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act. 
Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we may pursue you for any Parking  Charge amount that remains unpaid Should you identify someone who denies they were  the driver, we may pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid.  Failure to pay the full amount within 28 days may result in the proceeding of debt  recovery action and/or issuing court proceedings against you. Additional costs may be  incurred. 
If the vehicle was hired, please provide a signed statement confirming the hirer's name  and address and a copy of the hire agreement 
CP Plus Ltd. T/A GroupNexus  Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice.  PLEASE SEE OVERLEAF FOR DETAILS ON HOW TO PAY OR APPEAL.  REGISTERED OFFICE
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: DWMB2 on October 25, 2024, 10:44:33 pm
Indeed - we can't comment on whether a proposed appeal is suitable, without seeing the parking charge notice it is appealing.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on October 25, 2024, 07:09:48 pm
Without seeing the NtK, we have no idea whether what you are suggesting is even relevant.

Which PPC?
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on October 25, 2024, 06:10:17 pm
Looks like I should use this defence?:

Subject: Formal Appeal – PCN Ref No. [Insert Reference Number]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle: [Registration Number]

This is a formal appeal for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Group Nexus has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and as such, I am not liable for the charge. I will outline the key failures below:

1. Incorrect Assumption of Ownership:

In the Notice to Keeper (NtK), Group Nexus has relied on PoFA 9(2)(f) and incorrectly stated:

"We have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you, the vehicle’s owner, under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012..."

This is a clear breach of PoFA. The law allows for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper, not the owner, unless the conditions outlined in PoFA Schedule 4 are met. Moreover, the V5C Registration Certificate explicitly states on its front page that it is not proof of ownership. Group Nexus has therefore made an incorrect assumption that the registered keeper is automatically the owner, which is both factually and legally incorrect, resulting in a breach of the Act.

2. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice:

The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) also requires that operators follow the legal framework (PoFA) and use clear, unambiguous language in their communication with the registered keeper. By using "owner" instead of "registered keeper" or "driver," Group Nexus has breached Section 21 of the BPA CoP, which requires that any Notice to Keeper sent to the registered keeper must comply with PoFA 2012 if they intend to hold me liable.

3. Failure to Include an Invitation to Pay [PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)]:

The NtK fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, which requires the NtK to include an explicit invitation for the keeper to either pay the charge or, if they were not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver. Group Nexus has omitted this key requirement. Without such an invitation, the NtK is non-compliant, and therefore, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to me, the registered keeper.

4. No Keeper Liability:

Since Group Nexus has failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, there can be no keeper liability in this case. As the registered keeper, I am under no legal obligation to provide the identity of the driver to an unregulated private company and I decline to do so.

Expectation of Cancellation or POPLA Code:

Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA. As there is no keeper liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to me, the keeper, and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw.
Title: Re: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: b789 on October 25, 2024, 05:11:52 pm
Not enough info. Read this and then post images of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) and give a bit more background detail and why you think that being there on a "photo shoot" is not parking unless it was on behalf of the landowner or their agent.

READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
Title: Used Millwall Dock for a photo shoot, Group Nexus, but was I parked?
Post by: docklander on October 25, 2024, 04:54:38 pm
Used Millwall Dock for a car photo shoot on 06 October.

Entered 14:20, left 15:16.

I never left the car and have photos from the shoot to prove the shoot happened.

Does this count as "parking"? Should I appeal?

Any help greatly appreciated.