Well done. However, you should also send the following complaint to POPLA at info@popla.co.uk and CC enquiries@flexibleresolutionservices.co.uk; info@trustalliancegroup.org:
Subject: Formal Complaint – Incoherent and Unprofessional “Appeal Withdrawn” Correspondence
Dear POPLA Team,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint about the extraordinarily poor standard of the template email issued when an operator cancels a Parking Charge Notice before an appeal is assessed. The communication I received is so lacking in clarity, logic, and basic literacy that it calls into question the intellectual capability and procedural understanding of the person or team responsible for drafting it.
The phrase “the operator has withdrawn your appeal” is, on its face, nonsensical. An operator cannot withdraw an appellant’s submission, and no competent writer would use wording that implies otherwise. The fact that this has been adopted as standard text suggests that whoever authored it did not understand the process they were meant to be describing, or lacked the linguistic ability to articulate it accurately. Either possibility is deeply concerning.
The rest of the letter is equally inelegant. It is clumsily structured, contradictory in places, and written in such a muddled fashion that it reads like a hastily assembled paragraph from someone intellectually out of their depth. Basic sequencing, grammatical consistency, and coherence are all missing. The message lurches between confused hypotheticals and ill-fitting explanations, none of which reflect how the process actually works.
It is not merely embarrassing; it is an indictment of the level of internal oversight within POPLA. Any halfway competent professional would have sent this back for correction. Instead, it has been allowed to stand as an official communication from an organisation that claims to assess evidence, interpret procedures, and apply reasoning in a quasi-judicial setting.
If the standard of written communication is this poor, it raises a legitimate question: how can the public have confidence that POPLA is capable of the analytical, evidential, and reasoning-based work expected of an appeals service? A body that cannot draft a coherent template letter cannot reasonably be assumed to possess the competence required to evaluate appeals with fairness and intellectual rigour.
I request confirmation that this complaint will be logged and reviewed, and I expect a response addressing:
1. How this wording was approved;
2. Whether POPLA acknowledges that the current text is inaccurate, misleading, and grammatically deficient; and
3. What steps will be taken to correct the template and improve internal quality control.
I look forward to your prompt and considered response.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
Just puts on record how inept they are.
The Notice to Keeper simply says that it has been issued because the vehicle remained for longer than the free parking period and they have no record of payment. The contractual terms require that a payment of Ł2 be made if the driver wants to extend the stay to 6 hours, which is the maximum allowed. Also, any parking "overnight" which appears to be between the hours of 2200 and 0430 can be purchased for Ł5.
You say the driver did not realise that it was a managed car park. However, you have show an entrance sign that clearly states the car park is private land and that tariffs apply etc. The fact that he driver did not read the signs is not really relevant, especially if the signs are conspicuous.
Do you have a breakdown report from the mechanic? You will require that, even if only to try and mitigate any claim.
The initial appeal will never be accepted but it may be won at POPLA. If that does not work, this would be won if they issue a claim. These are technicalities which would likely win:
1. No keeper liability – PoFA 9(2)(h) not met:
• NtK is headed/issued by “GroupNexus”.
• Signage footer names “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”.
• “GroupNexus” also exists as a separate limited company.
• The creditor is not identified with the required clarity and certainty.
2. No enforceable driver contract due to ambiguity of the contracting party:
• The identity of the principal/creditor on the signs conflicts with the NtK.
• Contra proferentem applies; any ambiguity is construed against the drafter.
• An agreement cannot be enforced where the contracting party is not clear.
3. No standing:
• Put to strict proof of a contemporaneous landowner contract expressly granting the named legal entity (the same entity identified as creditor) the right to enter contracts and to pursue charges in its own name.
• A contract in the wrong entity’s name, or relying on a trading style without clarity, is insufficient.
Evidence required:
• Photo of the NtK showing “GroupNexus” as issuer and the absence of a clear creditor identification.
• Photos of the signs showing “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” in the footer.
Why the creditor is not identified:
• GroupNexus Limited — Company No. 15560549, incorporated 13 March 2024.
• CP Plus Limited — Company No. 02595379 (long-standing entity used on signage as “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”).
The NtK is branded ‘GroupNexus’, whilst the signage states ‘CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus’. ‘GroupNexus Limited’ (company number 15560549) was incorporated on 13 March 2024. The creditor is not identified as required by PoFA para 9(2)(h), and the contracting party is ambiguous.
For now, simply appeal with the following:
Subject: PCN [reference] – Vehicle [VRM] – Castle Marina Retail Park, NG7 – 02/09/2025
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, specifically paragraph 9(2)(h), because it fails to identify the creditor, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. The NtK is branded “GroupNexus”, whereas the site signage states “Managed and operated by CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”. GroupNexus Limited (company no. 15560549) is a separate legal entity, incorporated on 13 March 2024. Your paperwork and signage do not make clear which legal person is the creditor to whom any sum would be owed.
This ambiguity is fatal to 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 and cannot transfer liability to the keeper where PoFA is not strictly met.
As keeper, I will not be identifying the driver. No adverse inference can be drawn. You have relied on alleged contract breach against the driver only and cannot transfer liability to the keeper where PoFA is not strictly met.
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. [Operator] have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Separately, any alleged contract was frustrated. The vehicle suffered an unexpected immobilising fault and could not be moved while assistance was arranged. A mechanic attended the site the same day and restored the vehicle without recovery. A copy of the mechanic’s report is enclosed. A Blue Badge was displayed. Penalising unavoidable breakdown time is unreasonable and inconsistent with your duty to make reasonable adjustments.
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.
Come back when that appeal is rejected.