Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: scooter72 on February 01, 2025, 03:44:14 pm

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: fightinjustice on June 12, 2025, 03:13:01 pm
Great news - well done to you and all contributors! (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji122.png)
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on June 11, 2025, 05:53:26 pm
G'day all.
Just to let eveyone know, my appeal against Group Nexus has been upheld by POPLA and the charge has been dropped.
The reply from POPLA is below:

--------------------------------------------------------

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
--------
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • No evidence of a contract between the operator and the landowner. • Inadequately positioned, unclear and unlit signs. • The accuracy of the ANPR system. • Vehicle images on the PCN are not BPA compliant. • A notice to keeper submitted by the operator, which does not comply with PoFA. The appellant has provided Evidence 1. A copy of the letter of appeal. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has raised new grounds of appeal. • The responsibility of liability as the registered keeper. • Referral to outdated and misrepresentative images of the signage and the site itself. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have not been met. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for exceeding the maximum stay. • No evidence of a contract between the operator and the landowner. • Referral to outdated and misrepresentative images of the signage and the site itself. 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 after reviewing the evidence pack provided by the operator, no confirmation of landowner authority could be located. Also upon further review of the images provided by the operator, they are dated 01 July 2021 and cannot confirm without the avoidance of doubt that the landowner has not changed. As a result of this I am not satisfied that the operators rebuttal is sufficient. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

A gargantuan thank you to
DWMB2
b789
HC Anderson

Great comments, guidance and support.

S

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: b789 on June 06, 2025, 11:35:01 am
Quote from: scooter72 on June 05, 2025, 08:01:32 pm
@Moderators, am I contravening or risking anything if I post the letters (redacted) that I received from the parking operator?

Absolutely not. We need to see all correspondence, except useless debt recovery letters, which can be safely ignored.

As long as you redact your personal info, any VRMs (although not essential), PCN ref numbers or claim numbers and MCOL passwords, then every thing else is good. You MUST leave all dates and times showing.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: fightinjustice on June 05, 2025, 09:12:27 pm
Thank you so much @Scotter72
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on June 05, 2025, 08:01:32 pm
Hi fightinjustice
As DWMB2 mentions, nothing has passed to me from POPLA yet.
It is still at APPEAL STAGE.

I'll update when anything changes.

If you were at the same parkking area, the signage that the Operator thinks is there, is not.

@Moderators, am I contravening or risking anything if I post the letters (redacted) that I received from the parking operator?

TIA
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: fightinjustice on June 05, 2025, 02:29:24 pm
Thanks very much for your reply.  I will start a new thread.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: DWMB2 on June 05, 2025, 01:53:50 pm
Very unlikely to have heard back on their POPLA appeal yet, they typically take at least 8 weeks.

If you would like advice on your case please start a new thread.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: fightinjustice on June 05, 2025, 01:04:14 pm
Hello,

Apologies if this is the wrong thread but I've got a similar case with GroupNexus and was wondering if your appeal was successful please?

I wanted to use the same argument put forward by @b798 PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) has not been complied with.

I am the registered keeper of the car but was not even in the country at the time.

Many Thanks in advance
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on April 22, 2025, 02:23:49 pm
For the POPLA appeal (a response to the Operators response...)






[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on April 22, 2025, 02:18:46 pm
Hi sorry for the late response...work has got in the way!

HC Anderson -
1) The creditor has not provided entitlement to demand charges - only the issue of a NtK.
2) Yes, I note that in their response, Group Nexus has 'assumed' I am the driver. There has been no information from me to state who the driver was...so it is only their assumption
3) I am not sure why the Operator stated that I was a customer. I had said that after receiving their NtK I diod visit the site to check the signage. I visited at night. I have not said I was a customer at any time.

I have drawn up a response which I will add in a message below.
Thank you!
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: H C Andersen on April 18, 2025, 01:38:57 pm
OP, has the creditor provided evidence to prove their entitlement to demand parking charges and issue parking charge notices in their own name?

Absent this, the following should see you through:

Para. 8; asserts 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.'


Yeah right!

Also, are they referring to you as the driver beneath your redactions?

Where does them referring to [blank] as driver based upon them claiming to have been a customer come from?

PoFA is irrelevant if they're claiming you were the driver. Their evidence is incoherent on this point.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: b789 on April 17, 2025, 04:49:20 pm
Have a search for other POPLA appeals where we have advised on the response to an operators evidence pack. All you have to do is highlight any of your appeal points that they have not responded to or rebutted and also go through their evidence and highlight/rebut anything they claim.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on April 17, 2025, 02:31:49 pm
Good afternoon all

I am at a stage with POPLA where Group Nexus has responded to my appeal.

They did not address my point (5, in my letter) that the NtK did not invite me, as the keeper, to be able to pay the charge. Only that the driver was liable.

Also, their details of the parking area are old (2021) - since then there is another exit to the parking area. Group Nexus do reference a 'rear exit' not being developed in their reply. However, it is in operation.(Red circle in park.pdf)

GN have also indicated that there is signage installed along the southern boundary of the car parking area between Starbucks and McDonalds. This is incorrect. There is only one GDP sign (very small) on this chainlink fence. There are no other signs along this section.

I have 6 days to respond to POPLA.

Any suggestions? I will check the Newbies Thread again.:-)
Thank you
S

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 26, 2025, 09:11:40 pm
Hi all.
thanks for the guidance so far - and the info in the various threads.
I have finalised my POPLA appeal - attached...

Any additions/removals suggested?

TIA

S

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 26, 2025, 08:50:32 am
Understood - I'll remove. Many thanks
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: DWMB2 on March 26, 2025, 06:36:47 am
Personally I wouldn't include the planning consent point. POPLA won't go for it, and a lack of such consent doesn't necessarily mean that no contract can be formed
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 26, 2025, 12:39:34 am
This was  going to be my final letter to send to POPLA
Many thanks
S

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 26, 2025, 12:33:08 am
I will upload my POPLA appeal letter now..
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 25, 2025, 10:59:37 pm
I do note that nowhere in the NtK is there an offer for me, as the keeper, to make a payment for the charge.
Only that after 28 days of the charge is not paid, then I would be held liable for the costs.

I received a follow up letter a couple days ago, saying that an offer was made to me to pay a reduced amount within 14 day and as that had lapsed I was now liable for the full amount to be paid within another 2 weeks.

After that they can employ a debt recovery company.
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 25, 2025, 10:56:23 pm
It still needs tidying up...


APPEAL RE:
Group Nexus Parking Charge Ref No.
CAR PARK  on 16 Jan 2024,
VEHICLE REG:


Dear Sirs

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge; nor is it enforcable on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

2. There is no evidence that the parking company has a contract with the landowner which permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

3.The signage at the car park is not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and as such there is no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4.Group Nexus signage states that an ANPR System ‘may’ be used in the car park and is therefore ambiguous. The Operator is actually trying to allege a 32 minute overstay (above the alleged 180 minute 'Grace Period'). I call into question the ANPR system accuracy.

5.The Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) .


Here are the detailed appeal points.

1.No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.


2.No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority:  I request that the parking company produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they have, indeed been granted such authority.

I note from the Group Nexus Signage that the parking is ‘managed and operated on behalf of Savills by CP Plus’ - and therefore not directly by the landowner, but by a lessee / tenant of the land. I request proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I request that if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

3.The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read and understand when driving into this car park.
There is one small sign at the entrance which indicates that there are parking restrictions - but this informatiuon is not specific or definitive.
The remaining signage is sparesely located high up on lamp posts. There are a 6 lamp posts having these signs covering an area roughly 5,500sq.m.
There are no signs along the periphery of this section of parking area - the boundary with the main road.   I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B.
I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.


4.ANPR Accuracy and Compliance is questionable and needs to be proven as accurate and in compliance.

So I require the Operator to present records which prove:


- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.


- the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.


This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times and this Operator is are expecting me to believe their system has a zero failure rate and zero buffering delay.


The Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image.

Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped accurately. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:

''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. The signs at the car park are not clear about how this technology is employed nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used.
As such, this means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case).

This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.


5.The Notice to Keeper that I received does not follow the requirements of PoFA - specifically Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
This states that 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.

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).


The NtK from Group Nexus was not clear in this regard. There is no mention in the NtK that I, as the Keeper, have any opportunity to pay the charge. There is merely a request for me to identify the driver.
The NtK states that after a 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the Charge is given, they have the right to recover any unpaid Parking Charge from the Keeper.
This period extends past the period in which the reduced amount may be paid.

Group Nexus cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). 


Group Nexus cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA because they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). 





This concludes my appeal.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: DWMB2 on March 25, 2025, 10:51:07 pm
Take a look at other POPLA appeals on the forum and draft something up for us to comment on.

Re. signage - if one of your points is that the signage was poor, then your appeal should include photos to support this. Any photos they have will of course be taken from angles that are picked to make the signage appear prominent.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 25, 2025, 10:19:01 pm
Hi. A quick question - within my POPLA appeal, should I include photos of the parking area and signage? The template I have seems to indicate that this should be presented by the Parking Enforcement Company.
Thanks
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 03, 2025, 09:02:11 pm
...a gentle bump - I have not submitted the application to POPLA yet. Just wanted to check from the experts should there be anmything to add to earlier suggestions?
Thank you!
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 02, 2025, 09:21:36 pm
Hi jfollows
Understood - thanks for the info.

I fail to see how 'customer satisfaction' means sending parking charges out to their customers...
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: jfollows on March 02, 2025, 09:15:11 pm
They are one and the same from 1 May 2019
https://groupnexus.co.uk/cp-plus-and-ranger-services-merger-groupnexus
Quote
GroupNexus is a powerful new force in the parking industry. Bringing together top talent, technology and expertise from two of the biggest names in the sector – CP Plus and Ranger Services – to deliver pioneering parking products for clients and motorists.

CP Plus and Ranger Services have merged to become GroupNexus, providing market-leading products and services with a clear mission: to deliver cutting-edge technology that provides landowners with the insight to better serve their customers and to build stronger customer connections.

GroupNexus was born from an ambition to develop a different approach to parking and linked services. Ranger has been pioneering innovative technology solutions within the car park industry since 2003. CP Plus was set up in 1991 to supply customer-focused car park management and FM services. Together, they operate 1,200 sites across the UK within the private and public sector, including Healthcare, Retail, Education and Rail.

GroupNexus offers an end-to-end solution, from technology that allows you to track, monitor and gather data on car park usage, to the best in parking services and facilities management. GroupNexus handles installation of ANPR linked car park management systems, barriers, parking permit applications, paid for parking options, including machine, cashless and online, concessions and loyalty rewards, vehicle alerting, data insight and on the ground FM service, parking assistants, security and maintenance.

GroupNexus believes that the car park is an integral part of a customers’ journey and is committed to helping their Clients understand customer behaviour and to build technology to help them better respond to their customers’ needs.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 02, 2025, 09:05:31 pm
I started the POPLA appeal process - and note that the company is not Group Nexus - but CP Plus?
Is this something of note?
Brgds
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 02, 2025, 09:01:45 pm
Hi b789  thanks - I will pursue through POPLA.
I will do this using details in the "Reply #12 on: February 03, 2025, 11:33:40 pm" - unless anything else to add?
brgds
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: b789 on March 02, 2025, 12:39:57 am
No one who is here receiving advice and following it pays a penny to GroupNexus.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on March 01, 2025, 11:49:36 pm
Hi. Wondered if this letter allows for me to push for POPLA with any success?  Thanks!
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 27, 2025, 10:48:08 pm
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 of the 3-hour limit, 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, 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 £60 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.


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 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: 888888888888


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 Ltd     
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: DWMB2 on February 27, 2025, 10:22:26 pm
Let's see their response please.

The POPLA appeal will be more detailed. Once we've seen their rejection we can advise.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 27, 2025, 09:44:30 pm
Hi all,
I received - by email - a response from Nexus who informed me that their PCN did follow the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
A lengthy letter - but principally informed me that after their internal review,  they reject my appeal and maintain that the charge is applicable.

A POPLA reference has been given to me.

I would like to push this forward through the POPLA appeal...
I presume use the standard letter for this?

Thank you
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 06, 2025, 11:33:37 am
Hi
Thanks for the guidance.
Just to update - I put an appeal in to Group Nexus.
Interestingly, there were two check boxes on the first page - to confirm if I was either the driver or if I was accepting liability (I think..) as the keeper. 

I left them both blank....

S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: b789 on February 04, 2025, 10:32:22 am
I wouldn't bother changing anything in the initial appeal. They will reject any appeal, no matter what. There is no money in it for them if they accept appeals.

The whole point of the initial appeal is to get a POPLA code (if they are BPA members) for the secondary appeal. Even if the secondary, supposedly "independent" (not) appeal is rejected, it is not binding on the keeper and often these cases are not resolved until they go to litigation. Invariably, they end up being discontinued or get stuck out.

Very few, that we advise on, ever go all the way to hearing.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 04, 2025, 12:38:26 am
Lovely - got it, thanks.

1) GN's letter has not offered me, as the keeper, to settle their charge. Its not stated in their letter, therefore their letter is not compliant with PoFA.
2) As the letter is not compliant, the keeper cannot be held liable
3) I, as keeper, have no obligation to offer up the details of the driver
4) driver is, and remains, liable.

Sounds 'relatively' straightforward.

I'll try and contact the Retail Park again, but also put in a simple letter stating the lack of invite to settle; also that the period of free parking was not stated in the letter - only that I had exceeded the maximum time.

Thanks
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: b789 on February 03, 2025, 11:33:40 pm
Quote from: scooter72 on February 03, 2025, 06:55:45 pm

Is there anything in POFA which would indicate that the keeper is not responsible in this instance?


Yes... PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) has not been complied with. Here is the reason:

Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) states that 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 PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). 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.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 03, 2025, 06:55:45 pm
Hi b789, DWMB2
Sorry - just looking for some clarification....I looked through POFA Section 9:

Looking at POFA Section 9 (2) (f) - there is indication that if after 28 days the fine is not paid, then the Creditor has the 'right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid'

Is there anything in POFA which would indicate that the keeper is not responsible in this instance?
Thanks in advance
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 02, 2025, 12:53:33 pm
and a photo of one of their signs - photo taken from approx 2m-3m away in bright conditions.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 02, 2025, 10:09:59 am
@DWMB - thanks for the input.

I'm going to approach a one of the stores at the retail park (a chain) I use very regularly - see if they are able to contact Nexus and retract the PCN.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 02, 2025, 08:24:01 am
re-adding the PCN with redacted details
Thanks
S

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: DWMB2 on February 02, 2025, 07:50:22 am
There's no material advantage to be gained from when you send your appeal, as long as you do so within the deadline set by the parking company.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 01, 2025, 11:13:20 pm
Understood. Thank you.
And should I send the appeal through asap - or leave it towards the end of the 14 days of lower payment date?
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: b789 on February 01, 2025, 07:04:17 pm
Not in any initial appeal. Whatever you put will be rejected. Save everything else for the POPLA appeal.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 01, 2025, 07:03:20 pm
Hi b789
Understood - thanks.
Is it worth mentioning the size/visibility of the signage? Weather/visbility was poor that night with drizzle.
Brgds
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: b789 on February 01, 2025, 06:52:44 pm
My bad and I apologise. I was looking at my February calendar. Never mind. GroupNexus are are still not issuing PCNs that are fully compliant with PoFA. Here is the amended version of the appeal you should submit as the Keeper only:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, including paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), 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.
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 01, 2025, 06:38:54 pm
Hi b789 - thanks for the very quick reply!

Not sure the dates are quite correct - but still I understand your description.
Issued Monday 27th Jan.
Assumed receipt was 29/30 Jan.

Actual receipt of letter Saturday 01 Feb.

Would I need to have proof that I received it today?
I have the envelope, but there is no postage stamp on it.
Brgds
S
Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: b789 on February 01, 2025, 06:15:45 pm
Good that you have not appealed yet. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with PoFA.

Easy one to deal with... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. 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 appealing the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued to me as the registered keeper. The alleged contravention occurred on Sunday, 16th January, and the NtK was issued on Thursday, 27th January.

Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), a Notice to Keeper must be delivered within 14 days if no Notice to Driver was issued. In this case:

• The 14-day deadline for delivery was Saturday, 30th January.

• The NtK was issued on 27th January, meaning the presumed delivery date (two working days later) was Monday, 1st February—outside the legal timeframe.

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
Title: Group Nexus Parking Charge - Luton Gypsy Lane
Post by: scooter72 on February 01, 2025, 03:44:14 pm
Hi,

I am seeking guidance on if I should pay this Parking Charge, or am I in a position to appeal?

I received a Parking Charge for a vehicle of which I am the registered keeper.

The driver doesn't contest that they entered the car park Luton Retail Park, Gypsy Lane:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.873086,-0.3994319,3a,75y,45.63h,73.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siKDYWma4H1e9YBBrj8Y_KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D16.65918320550655%26panoid%3DiKDYWma4H1e9YBBrj8Y_KQ%26yaw%3D45.63371731222053!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEyOS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Time of entry was 1947hrs and departure was 2320hrs - duration 3hrs 32mins.
I am aware that the driver was under considerable emotional stress having just had an argument with his family and didnt know where to go - decided on some quiet time in an assumed safe area.

From 2000hrs all shops associated with this car park are closed - aside from a McDonalds.

The signage in the car park is not particularly visible ( I can get photos later) and there was no awareness by the driver that there was a 3hr time limit for parking in this area.

May I ask for some guidance - or, as registered keeper, just accept this (in my view) extortion!
Thank you in advance.
(n.b., no correspondence has been started with Group Nexus at this stage)


[attachurl=1]