Ask your employer why they rushed to pay a speculative invoice? I'd love to know who the firm is, as I can easily print out some speculative invoices and tempt the gullible into paying them with a discount they can't refuse.
This was the second POPLA appeal where they agreed that there was no Keeper liability or evidence of a contract formed with the driver because they failed to state a period of parking.
I'm assuming all three appeals were identical. If so, you can't make up the kind of reasoning used by some POPLA assessors. No standardisation. Government regulation of this corrupt industry can't come soon enough.
Are all the assessors this bad?I think you were particularly unlucky - some are bad, some are alright.
I'd be tempted to complain to POPLA - they won't reverse the decision under any circumstances, but they might (if you're lucky) admit that the assessor made a mistake.
There's often a certain amount of interpretation involved with PoFA, so their conclusion on that is unsurprising, but the idea that the vehicle being "unattended" means that no consideration period required is a baffling conclusion to reach - how is a driver meant to consider the terms on offer without leaving his vehicle unattended to go to the nearest sign and read said terms?
Are all the assessors this bad?I think you were particularly unlucky - some are bad, some are alright.
Doesn't matter. They have no evidence that the vehicle wasn't parked for longer than the minimum consideration period for a contract to have been made with the driver.
The operator’s online portal does not provide additional evidence.
I am acting as the authorised agent of the registered keeper of the vehicle. The keeper was not the driver and is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. The Keeper has a fleet that includes over 700 vehicles and more than 900 drivers. Vehicles regularly have multiple drivers each day, especially on motorway routes. Without any indication of the time of the alleged contravention, it was impossible for the keeper to investigate or determine who the driver was. This is entirely due to the operator’s failure to include the required details in the Notice to Keeper.
This appeal is made on the following grounds:1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), meaning keeper liability does not arise.
2. The NtK breaches the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) due to the absence of a time of contravention and the failure to specify a period of parking.
3. The operator has failed to provide decipherable timestamped evidence or demonstrate that the minimum consideration period was exceeded.
4. The NtK is fundamentally invalid and does not establish a contravention.
1. The NtK fails to comply with PoFA 2012
Under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to PoFA, a Notice to Keeper must “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” GroupNexus’s NtK fails to do this. It merely provides a date and includes two undated photographs. A single moment in time or a single date is not a period of parking. This point was confirmed in the persuasive appellate decision of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions [2023] H6DP632H, in which the judge ruled that PoFA requires more than a single moment in time recorded and this NtK does not even have that. A period must be stated.
Because this requirement has not been met, the operator cannot hold the keeper liable.
2. The NtK breaches the PPSCoP
Under section 2.24 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), it states that a "parking period is:"the length of time that a vehicle remains on controlled land, which includes the consideration period.
NOTE: A parking charge must not be enforced where the consideration period has not expired."
Therefore, a parking charge notice must not only include both the date and time of the alleged contravention but also at least the minimum period of the alleged contravention. The NtK in this case includes neither a time of contravention nor a period of parking. This is a direct breach of the Code.
Section 8 of the PPSCoP confirms that in order to pursue keeper liability, operators must comply fully with PoFA. The NtK does not meet these requirements and therefore fails both the statutory and code-based obligations.
Additionally, Section B1 of the PPSCoP requires a minimum consideration period to be allowed before any parking charge is issued. For car parks with over 500 spaces, the minimum is 10 minutes. No evidence has been provided to show that this 10-minute period was exceeded and that a contract could have been formed with the driver.
3. No timestamped evidence and no proof the consideration period expired
The NtK contains two photographs of the vehicle, allegedly in a coach bay, with no evidence to back that assertion. However, neither photo has a decipherable timestamp. There is no entry time, no exit time, and no ANPR data showing duration. The operator’s online portal does not provide additional evidence.
There is simply no way to determine whether the vehicle was parked where they claim or at all, or whether it was just stationary briefly. No elapsed time has been demonstrated. Without this, the operator has failed to prove that the minimum 10-minute consideration period was exceeded.
4. The NtK is not a valid PCN
A valid Parking Charge Notice must contain enough information to allow either the keeper or the driver to understand what is being alleged. This NtK fails to state a time of contravention, does not specify any period of parking, and does not include timestamped evidence to support any claim of breach.
The absence of these basic elements renders the NtK fundamentally invalid.
Conclusion:
This NtK fails to comply with PoFA, breaches the PPSCoP, lacks evidence, and does not show that the consideration period was exceeded. The operator has not established that any contravention occurred, and keeper liability does not arise. The appeal must be upheld.
POPLA decisions are only binding on the operator. So, if your appeal is successful, the operator must cancel the PCN. If not, then the POPLA appeal is not binding on you.
POPLA is not some authority and have very little respect from myself or anyone else who assists in these matters. They are a company that exists because of the funding they get from the BPA members, the very same ones they are supposed to adjudicating on. Do you see the conflict of interest here?
If your POPLA appeal is unsuccessful... so what? You move on to the next phase which is ignoring all the useless debt collector demands and wait for a Letter of Claim (LoC) and subsequent N1SDT Claim Form where you will be able to defend the claim with our assistance. The odds of an actual claim ever reaching an actual hearing are very low as almost all claims are either struck out or discontinued. The very few that make it as far as an actual hearing in the ultimate dispute resolution service which is with a judge, are won.
Just wait for the inevitable appeal rejection and the POPLA code. You will have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to make your POPLA appeal.
Just wait for the inevitable appeal rejection and the POPLA code. You will have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to make your POPLA appeal.
Personally, I would respond to that as follows:QuoteDear CP Plus Ltd,
Thank you for your letter.
The contents are noted. Your request is refused.
I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram [1971] (https://prunescape.fandom.com/wiki/The_Reply_Given_in_Arkell_v_Pressdram_(1971)).
Yours,
[Your name or initials]
Dear CP Plus Ltd,
Thank you for your letter.
The contents are noted. Your request is refused.
I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram [1971] (https://prunescape.fandom.com/wiki/The_Reply_Given_in_Arkell_v_Pressdram_(1971)).
Yours,
[Your name or initials]
GroupNexus, or any other unregulated parking company will never accept an initial appeal. No money in that for them.
However, as this verminous company are BPA members, any rejection will be accompanied by a POPLA code, which should give you a much better chance at a successful appeal. Even if unsuccessful at POPLA, that decision is not binding on you and has no effect on anything going forward.
Looking at your NtK, those images do have a timestamp on them so that part of any argument is out of the window. Have you gone on to their website as though to appeal and seen what other photographic evidence they have?
Just send the basic appeal provided earlier for now. Anything more than that is a wasted effort at this stage.
GroupNexus, or any other unregulated parking company will never accept an initial appeal. No money in that for them.
However, as this verminous company are BPA members, any rejection will be accompanied by a POPLA code, which should give you a much better chance at a successful appeal. Even if unsuccessful at POPLA, that decision is not binding on you and has no effect on anything going forward.
Looking at your NtK, those images do have a timestamp on them so that part of any argument is out of the window. Have you gone on to their website as though to appeal and seen what other photographic evidence they have?
Just send the basic appeal provided earlier for now. Anything more than that is a wasted effort at this stage.
So, your employer is the RK. You will need to explain the situation to them. There is persuasive case law as I have shown you that confirms that a Parking Charge Notice, whether issued as a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) or a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) or postal Notice to Hirer (NtH) that does not show a "period of parking" as an actual period of time, then it is not PoFA compliant.
Simply stating the period as "the period prior to..." or "the period after..." a single point in time is not enough to satisfy the requirements of PoFA. For the Keeper to be liable under PoFA, ALL the requirements of PoFA must be met. Just like pregnancy, you either are or you aren't. GroupNexus cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. They either are or they aren't and, as you can see and read from the persuasive case law, they aren't.
As there is no legal obligation on the Keeper (or Hirer) to identify the driver, who is the only entity that can be liable, then they have nowhere to go with this. Yes, they may try to take it all the way to a court claim but that is simply because most people are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and they expect all this low-hanging fruit to pay up once litigation starts, out of ignorance and fear.
As we know here. from years of experience in dealing with this rogue industry that as long as a claim is defenced, the odds of them going all the way are very slim and of the few that do, most are won.
As for the "consideration period" that is quoted in Table B.1 of the PPSCoP:
(https://i.imgur.com/k4Fsgn9.png)
Pffft! I'm not sure what your "experience" with the BPA is, but in mine, which is long and extensive, I would not agree with you. The BPA are not fit for purpose. Why would they be? They are a Limited Company and their income is from their membership. They are loath to bite the hand that feeds them in my experience.
QuoteAnd atleast in my experience BPA do seem to take complaints seriously, especially where the parking firm have unequivocally violated the code of practice.
Pffft! I'm not sure what your "experience" with the BPA is, but in mine, which is long and extensive, I would not agree with you. The BPA are not fit for purpose. Why would they be? They are a Limited Company and their income is from their membership. They are loath to bite the hand that feeds them in my experience.
If you are the registered keeper of the vehicle as per the DVLA's records then what does your employer have to do with it? The notice is addressed to you, not them.
Essentially yes - the period covered by the photos or stated on the notice would, at the very least, need to be long enough to show that the vehicle was there long enough to conclude that a contract has been formed giving rise to a charge.
Contract law (and to an extent, common sense) says that a person cannot be bound by contract terms he has not had the opportunity to read and acquaint himself with. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice sets out some defined 'consideration periods' which are what they consider to be suitable minimum times allowed for this. The Code of Practice is not law, but is a useful starting point.
My concern is my employer may not let me make a POPLA appeal.If you are the registered keeper of the vehicle as per the DVLA's records then what does your employer have to do with it? The notice is addressed to you, not them.
In the case you mentioned it was determined that a single point in time is not a "period of parking" and that whilst it does not have to be the whole period of parking, there must be a minimum period stated.Essentially yes - the period covered by the photos or stated on the notice would, at the very least, need to be long enough to show that the vehicle was there long enough to conclude that a contract has been formed giving rise to a charge.
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, 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.