Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: MDJ9889 on August 25, 2025, 02:02:07 pm

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: b789 on September 29, 2025, 10:44:53 am

I have no idea where you go that old into from. You reference the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) v8 (Jan 2020) but that was superseded by v9 (Jan 2024), the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) v1 (Oct 2024) and v1.1 (Feb 2025).

Make sure you are referring to the correct CoP and any sections within it. Also, you are going on with PoFA references without explaining why each reference has been breached. For example, you say:

"The NtK must invite the keeper to pay or to name the driver in the prescribed form. [Explain any wording defect you can quote from your letter.]"

Do you know which paragraph you are referring to? Just stating that without understanding it and leading the PIOPLA assessor by the nose to your point is futile. Have a read of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

You go on about PoFA paragraphs 9(4)-9(5) and state the obvious without clearly understanding it. If you are going to quote that, is it clear that the NtK was not delivered (given) within the relevant period? Date of alleged contravention was 12/08/2025. Date of issue of the NtK was 18/08/2025. Presumption of delivery (given) is 2 working days after issue, = 20/08/2025 which is 8 days after the alleged contravention. The 'relevant period' is 14 days, so I don't understand the reason that point is even being mentioned unless you are rebutting the presumption of delivery, in which case you would have to put the operator to strict proof of posting or delivery.

Whilst the argument that the ANPR does not show the actual period of parking, only the time on site and you cannot add any consideration period to any grace period because once the contract is accepted (the vehicle remained parked for longer then the minimum consideration period), then the consideration period is no longer relevant. Also, the consideration period in a car park with >500 spaces is a minimum of 10 minutes, not 5, if it were even relevant.

You mention PoFA 9(2)(h) without explaining why it has failed that point. Yes, the NtK does fail that point but unless you lead the POPLA assessor by the nose as to exactly why, they will simply say "it's bleedin' obvious that the creditor is GroupNexus"! You have to show why it may not be (certainly is not) GroupNexus.

GroupNexus Ltd was registered as a separate company in March 2025. Before that, GroupNexus was just a trading name used by CP Plus Ltd. But by the time this notice was issued, there were two possible companies—CP Plus Ltd and GroupNexus Ltd.

PoFA (the law) says the notice MUST name the actual company (the creditor) that is owed the money. It must say either “CP Plus Ltd” or “GroupNexus Ltd.” Just saying “GroupNexus” is not enough. That’s a brand name, not a legal entity unless they clearly say “GroupNexus Ltd” and give the company details. They haven't.

Because the notice was issued after GroupNexus Ltd became a separate legal entity, the operator had a legal duty to be clear about which company was owed the money. If they didn’t do that, the notice breaks the rules and is, therefore, not PoFA compliant. That means they can’t hold the keeper of the vehicle responsible. They’d have to prove who the driver was, which they can’t unless the Keeper blabs it to them.

So the timing matters. After March 2025, they had to be specific. If they weren’t, you’re not liable as keeper. Make the POPLA assessor understand that point.

I could go on but I suggest you have a look at a few more recent POPLA appeals posted on the forum and try again.

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: MDJ9889 on September 28, 2025, 09:23:17 pm

See below draft POPLA appeal:



I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this charge. I have not identified the driver. The charge must be cancelled for the reasons below:

   1. No keeper liability – Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails PoFA Schedule 4
   2. No evidence of the “period of parking” – ANPR shows only entry/exit timestamps
   3. BPA Code: mandatory consideration & grace periods not allowed
   4. Inadequate/unclear signage – no contract formed / no ‘adequate notice’ of the charge
   5. ANPR: operator failed required manual quality checks & data reliability duties
   6. No proof of landowner authority (BPA CoP para 7)

1) No keeper liability – NtK fails Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

The operator is attempting to hold me liable as keeper under PoFA Schedule 4. To do so, every applicable condition in paragraph 9 must be met exactly for an ANPR case. Any defect means no keeper liability can arise. 

Typical GroupNexus NtKs have been shown to omit/garble PoFA wording (e.g., mis-stating the 9(2)(f) warning and/or failing 9(2)(e) “invitation to keeper”). POPLA has seen similar defects before. In one GN example, the NtK even claimed: “This charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012…”, while failing 9(2)(e). That is not compliant and cannot transfer liability.

In this case the NtK is non-compliant because:

• 9(2)(a) & 9(2)(b): It must specify the period of parking and inform that “the driver is required to pay parking charges” for that period. ANPR entry/exit times are not the “period of parking”.
• The NtK must invite the keeper to pay or to name the driver in the prescribed form. [Explain any wording defect you can quote from your letter.]
• 9(2)(f): The NtK must include the statutory warning that after 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is given, the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper, subject to PoFA conditions.
• 9(4)/(5): For ANPR (no windscreen ticket), the NtK must be delivered within 14 days of the parking event. If not, there is no keeper liability in law.
• 9(2)(h): The NtK must “identify the creditor”. If it doesn’t clearly state who the creditor is, it fails PoFA. 

Because PoFA requirements are strict and the NtK fails them, liability cannot pass from driver to keeper. POPLA must allow the appeal on this point alone.

2) No evidence of any “period of parking” – ANPR only records drive-through timestamps

PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to specify the period of parking. ANPR systems capture when a vehicle passed a camera, not when/if it parked. Time spent driving in/out, circling to find a bay, queueing, or stopping to read signs is not parking. Using only ANPR “entry/exit” deltas is not compliant with PoFA’s “period of parking” requirement.

3) BPA Code – consideration & grace periods must be allowed

The BPA Code of Practice (v8, Jan 2020) is clear:

• 13.1 – Consideration period (arrival): Drivers must have a reasonable period to read terms before being bound; minimum 5 minutes.
• 13.3 – Grace period (departure): At locations with limited/paid periods, an additional minimum 10 minutes must be added to the end before issuing a PCN.

At motorway services, GN’s ANPR times include arrival/exit driving time. The operator hasn’t shown it added both the 5-minute consideration period on arrival and the minimum 10-minute grace at the end on top of any free period. Absent clear proof of that, this PCN breaches the BPA Code and must be cancelled.

4) Signage was inadequate – no contract / no “adequate notice” of the charge

A contract can only arise if terms (including any parking charge) are clearly brought to the driver’s attention before parking. The BPA Code mandates:

• Proper entrance signs and specific terms throughout the site; signs must be conspicuous, legible, and at least 450mm x 450mm for detailed terms.
• If relying on PoFA keeper liability, operators must give “adequate notice” of the sum payable and bring charges to drivers’ attention

Moto Tamworth’s own pages and third-party site info state 2 hours free then payment by JustPark/location code 625157, etc. If signage failed to clearly communicate the charge, payment points, and how/when payment must be made (and that ANPR is monitoring), no contract was formed. The operator has not provided a dated, scaled site plan showing sign locations, sizes, heights, fonts, or nighttime visibility. Without that, they have not proved a contract.

5) ANPR reliability & data requirements not met


Under BPA CoP 22, operators must:

• Tell drivers ANPR is used and what the data is for;
• Perform manual quality checks before issuing PCNs;
• Keep equipment in good order; ensure data is accurate and secure; and comply with DVLA/ICO guidance. 

GN has provided only two images of a plate at entry/exit. That does not evidence a contravention within a defined parking bay nor that equipment and processes met the Code at the material time. POPLA should require proof of: ANPR maintenance logs, manual pre-issue checks, clock synchronisation records, and the full unredacted ANPR data audit trail for my VRM on the day. Absent that, the evidence is unreliable.

6) No landowner authority – BPA CoP para 7

If an operator does not own the land, they must hold written authority from the landholder that expressly authorises them to manage parking and to pursue charges and court action. The BPA CoP specifies what that contract must set out (site boundaries, restrictions, who maintains signs, etc.). I put GN to strict proof by producing their full, unredacted contract with Moto for Tamworth in force on the material date. A “witness statement” or heavily-redacted generic document is insufficient.

Context (not grounds): two hours free at Moto services

By policy, motorway service areas provide at least 2 hours free parking. That context is consistent with Tamworth’s published info and with Moto’s general policy pages. It doesn’t legitimise a defective PCN or non-compliant process.

Remedy sought

For the reasons above, POPLA is invited to allow this appeal and direct GroupNexus to cancel the charge. I am the keeper and I have not identified the driver. The operator has failed to establish keeper liability or a valid contract/breach.

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: b789 on September 19, 2025, 09:37:21 am

SO, what was their reason for rejecting the appeal? Have. search of the forum for other recent POPLA appeals to get an idea of how to put one together. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal, so no rush.

Show us what you can come up with and we will critique and advise on any changes etc. you may need before submitting it. Just remember, POPLA will not take any mitigation into account. Only breaches of law or the PPSCoP.

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: MDJ9889 on September 18, 2025, 06:22:41 pm

Hi,

They have come back and rejected the appeal. So next stage is an appeal to POPLA?

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: b789 on September 09, 2025, 06:33:00 pm

Quote from: MDJ9889 on September 09, 2025, 03:02:22 pm

Do I have to disclose the name & address of the driver at the time of the charge?

Are they the police? Is this a criminal prosecution? Absolutely not! They are an unregulated private parking firm with no statutory authority whatsoever. Why on earth would you want to give them the information they are bound to provide strict proof of if that is the only way they can win?

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: jfollows on September 09, 2025, 03:09:37 pm

Quote from: MDJ9889 on September 09, 2025, 03:02:22 pm

I have received the below response from them. Do I have to disclose the name & address of the driver at the time of the charge?

No

Plus you already told them you wouldn’t, they’re just fishing.

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: MDJ9889 on September 09, 2025, 03:02:22 pm

I have received the below response from them. Do I have to disclose the name & address of the driver at the time of the charge?

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,
 
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.
 
Please be advised that we ask for the details of the driver to ensure that we are corresponding with the correct person as the driver is liable for this Parking Charge.
 
Please forward to us the full name and address of the driver the time this Charge was incurred so that we can update our records accordingly.
 
We are placing this Charge on hold for 14 days from the date of this email to allow you to provide the details requested.
 
Yours faithfully,

CP Plus Ltd

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: b789 on September 02, 2025, 08:55:56 pm

Just wait for the initial appeal rejection. One step at a time.

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: MDJ9889 on September 02, 2025, 07:17:16 pm

Quote from: b789 on August 25, 2025, 06:12:38 pm

Yes, we know that. What we need to know is if they are using the name GroupNexus on the contractual signs. The entrance sign is showing CP Plus. GroupNexus is not a legal entity in its own right, it is just a trading name/style. I would place money on GroupNexus not even being mentioned in the contract CP Plus have with MOTO.

Hi B789, do the photos I've attached above change our appeal at all? Thanks in advance

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: MDJ9889 on August 27, 2025, 10:07:35 pm

Thanks for your reply - this is much appreciated. Please see photos from the car park taken the other day.

(https://i.imgur.com/X54Cz5p.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/nrqaZZ8.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/fvh8ZzU.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/qdgbx57.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/BB8bCeU.jpeg)

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: b789 on August 25, 2025, 06:12:38 pm

Yes, we know that. What we need to know is if they are using the name GroupNexus on the contractual signs. The entrance sign is showing CP Plus. GroupNexus is not a legal entity in its own right, it is just a trading name/style. I would place money on GroupNexus not even being mentioned in the contract CP Plus have with MOTO.

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: jfollows on August 25, 2025, 03:19:13 pm

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02595379 has information that CP Plus Ltd trades as GroupNexus.

Title: Re: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: b789 on August 25, 2025, 02:43:51 pm

There is an entrance sign as you drive in to the services which does cover all the requirements of the BPA CoP:

(https://i.imgur.com/0942Jx2.jpeg) (https://maps.app.goo.gl/iMLAVsoZUo7gR6QEA)

Although looking through the car park on GSV, the terms and conditions signs appear to be very sparse, which is often a winning point with POPLA.

However, it also depends on what name is on the contractual signs in the car park. GroupNexus is a trading name of CP Plus Ltd, not a separate legal entity. That’s fine in principle—but only if the signage and documentation make that relationship explicit and unambiguous.

f the signage at the point of contract formation (i.e., the entrance and throughout the site) refers only to CP Plus, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is issued under GroupNexus without clarifying that it is CP Plus trading as GroupNexus, then the driver or keeper could not reasonably be expected to know they were contracting with “GroupNexus”.

This creates ambiguity in the identity of the contracting party, which undermines the formation of a valid contract under basic principles of contract law. The NtK is issued under the name GroupNexus, which is a trading style, not a legal entity.

There is no explicit statement that the legal entity responsible is CP Plus Ltd, nor is CP Plus Ltd named as the creditor anywhere in the body of the notice. The footer mentions “CP Plus Ltd T/A GroupNexus”, but this is not sufficient to meet PoFA’s requirement unless it clearly states that CP Plus Ltd is the creditor.

As the Noice to Keeper (NtK) is not 100% compliant with PoFA and due to the signage failing to adequately bring the charge to the attention of the driver, you just send the following appeal to CP Plus (GroupNexus) and when they reject it, you can go for a full POPLA appeal:

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 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.

Once they reject, the POPLA appeal can go nuclear stating the BPA Code breach, POFA failure, signage ambiguity, and lack of standing. If the landowner contract names CP Plus Ltd (likely) as the party with enforcement rights, and GroupNexus is not mentioned at all, then GroupNexus has no contractual standing to issue or enforce parking charges.

Even if GroupNexus is a trading name of CP Plus, the absence of that clarification in the contract means GroupNexus is not party to the agreement. The operator must prove they have landowner authority to operate and issue charges. That authority must be explicit and current, and must name the entity issuing the PCN.

Let them waste £30 on a POPLA appeal!

Title: Group Nexus Parking PCN – Overstayed Free Period – MOTO Tamworth
Post by: MDJ9889 on August 25, 2025, 02:02:07 pm

Hi,

I am after some advice if possible.

Driver attended MOTO Tamworth and upon entering the car park, found a car parking space. Purpose of visit was to meet up with a friend and purchase coffee. This lasted for approximately 2 hours 30 minutes.

Driver arrived at 18:27 on 12th August 2025 and departed at 20:58, on the same day. Duration was 2 hrs 30 mins.

On Saturday 23rd August 2025, I, the registered keeper, received the attached Parking Charge Notice.

I am due to go to site in the next day or so to take photos of the signage.

Many thanks in advance!

(https://i.imgur.com/0sxpD7h.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/NjIN96B.jpeg)