Subject: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference Number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in relation to the Parking Charge Notice referenced above. The charge must be cancelled on the following grounds:
1. No Breach Occurred – The Driver Attempted to Pay but Was Prevented Due to Machine Malfunction
The parking charge is unfair and unenforceable due to a
failure of your payment system, which prevented the driver from making payment despite multiple good-faith attempts.
The vehicle was parked by
Driver 1 within the
2-hour free parking limit.
Driver 2 (a different person) later returned to the car, unaware of the exact time the vehicle was first parked.
Driver 2
attempted to pay at the payment machine but encountered a
system failure where:
• The machine failed to recognise the vehicle registration.
• The system repeatedly restarted the process, preventing payment from being completed.
• Multiple users in the queue faced similar issues, confirming this was not an isolated incident.
The machine eventually prompted Driver 2 to select a parking duration.
As they were unsure of the exact time the vehicle had been parked, they selected "<2 hours" based on the machine’s guidance, which then instructed them that no payment was required.Your equipment
failed to function correctly, and the driver acted in complete reliance on the machine’s instructions.
The parking charge arose solely due to your own system failure, not due to any deliberate breach of terms. It is wholly unreasonable to enforce a charge under these circumstances.
2. As There Were Two Separate Drivers, Who Would Be Liable?
Since two different individuals were involved—one who parked the car and another who attempted to pay—the situation is unclear.
You are alleging an overstay, but which driver do you claim to be liable?
I, as the registered keeper, am under no legal obligation to identify either driver, and I will not be doing so.
If you intend to pursue this charge, you must provide a clear and substantiated explanation of whom you believe is liable. Any continued pursuit against the keeper would only be valid if full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) is demonstrated—which, as shown below, is not the case.
3. The Notice to Keeper Fails to Comply with PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e))
Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not contain the required invitation for the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the driver’s details.
Paragraph 9(2)(e) of PoFA explicitly requires that the NtK "must state that the creditor does not know the name or address of the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges".
Your NtK does not contain such an invitation. Instead, it misrepresents the legal position by stating that the driver is required to pay.
Since your notice fails to meet this statutory requirement, you cannot hold the registered keeper liable, and the charge must be cancelled.
4. The Notice to Keeper Fails to Identify the Creditor (PoFA 9(2)(h)) & Misrepresents Keeper Liability (PoFA 9(2)(f))
Your NtK
fails to name the creditor, which is a mandatory requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h). Instead, it is issued by
CP Plus Ltd. t/a GroupNexus. However:
• PoFA requires that the NtK must explicitly identify the party that is legally entitled to recover the charge.
• CP Plus Ltd. t/a GroupNexus is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner. As an agent, you cannot claim to be the creditor or have the legal right to enforce this charge.
• Nowhere in your NtK do you specify who the actual principal (creditor) is.
Additionally, your NtK misrepresents
keeper liability under PoFA
9(2)(f) by stating:
“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 is a
misrepresentation of PoFA 9(2)(f).
PoFA does
not grant an automatic right to recover the charge from the keeper.
Instead, PoFA states that the
creditor will have the right to recover the charge—but only if
full compliance with all PoFA conditions is met.
Since your NtK
fails to name the creditor and
fails to meet other PoFA requirements,
keeper liability does not apply.
Since the NtK does not establish compliance with PoFA, you
cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper, and the charge must be cancelled.
Formal Request for Evidence
If you refuse this appeal, I require the following evidence:
1. A full, timestamped log of all payment machine transactions on the date in question, showing attempted and failed payments.
2. Confirmation of whether any technical faults were reported at the payment machines on this date.
3. A copy of your contract with the landowner confirming your legal standing to issue and enforce charges.
4. Confirmation of the identity of the creditor to whom the charge is owed.
If you cannot provide this evidence, it will be assumed that no valid charge exists, and any further pursuit will be considered vexatious.
I expect confirmation of cancellation or a valid POPLA code should you reject this appeal.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper