-
I got a decision for one of the two today that I appealed to POPLA 85 days ago. It was unsuccessful. It is incredibly frustrating how they just skip over raised points or just side with the operator and frankly, just make **** up.
Turns out you can pay £33 for parking and still get shafted because they didnt provide the parking service paid for. Surely that £33 should be coming out of the charge. But nooo MOTO claim to have no relation to GroupNexus/CP Plus, as they operate entirely independently on their own car park according to MOTO.
The assessor can't even identify the **** creditor correctly.
Also says: "In this case, the driver has not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Therefore, the consideration period has ended." Sooo, are the signs meant to be read whilst driving then? Wtf?
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Gemma West
Assessor supporting rational For decision:
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal.
The terms and conditions of the car park state a £100 PCN will be issued when causing an obstruction to the site, other vehicles and/or car park users. The appellant explains the driver paid the parking tariff, which was a payment of £33 for overnight parking. The receipt was provided within their appeal. The HGV area was full, and the contract was frustrated as no lawful parking services were available. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, and I do not dispute the driver has made a payment.
However, the terms and conditions are clear that vehicles must park within a marked bay and not cause an obstruction. I note these comments, I must state for there to be a frustration of contract, the contract had to be impossible to continue, or the contract be radically changed.
However, in this instance the requirement was for the motorist to park within a marked bay and not park causing an obstruction. Whilst I appreciate the appellant has advised there were no parking bays, the driver could have left the car park to avoid the issuance of the parking charge. As such, I do not consider there was a frustration of contract as the driver could have left the car park.
The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge is unfair contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations and the amount of the PCN is disproportionate . The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The fairness of parking charges was considered more broadly by the Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. The court found that the charge was not unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations because the charge was no higher than to achieve the operator's objective of effectively managing the car park. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. The Court made it clear that the same considerations that means it was not a penalty also mean it is not unfair. With that in mind, to conclude whether it is unfair according to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, I have to take into account the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable.
The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The company *********** has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the ***********’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. I note the appellant’s comments regarding the identification of the creditor. The operator has provided a copy of its contract with CP Plus of which Group Nexus is a trading name of. In this case, the signs and the PCN identify Group Nexus as the creditor and as they are a trading name of CP Plus, I consider they are a single legal entity. Therefore, I am satisfied the creditor is clear on the signs and the PCN.
The appellant states the allegation of obstruction is prohibitive, not contractual. No evidence of obstruction or reasonable mitigation. In this case, the parking operator has provided images of the signs, which outline the contractual terms and conditions. The signs advise vehicles must be parked within a designated bay but also not parked causing an obstruction. I am satisfied the terms and conditions are a contractual agreement. As the vehicle was observed parked causing an obstruction the terms and conditions were not met. I acknowledge the appellant has provided images to show there were no road markings or signage advising no parking. However, when parking on private land it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. I am satisfied the signs are clear to drivers not to park causing an obstruction. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Within the parking operator’s evidence pack, the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout. Having reviewed this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park. 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, the parking operator has provided copies of its witness statements.
Upon review of the statements, I am satisfied it demonstrates the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land. The appellant states manual taken photographs do not prove the breach. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, the driver has not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Therefore, the consideration period has ended.
The parking operator has provided date and time-stamped images of the vehicle parked which clearly show the vehicle parked causing an obstruction. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked causing an obstruction and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
-
Thanks both, I added in those points to my additional comments
-
But the contract has not been evidenced. It says the contract is with CP Plus Ltd. Nowhere on the NtK does it state who the actual creditor is. The creditor must be identified.
You don’t know whether the creditor is the operator (CP Plus Ltd or GroupNexus Ltd), MOTO as the leaseholder or the landowner. That is a failure of PoFA 9(2)(h).
They state in their evidence that the date that the NtK was deemed to have been delivered is a fact unless “the contrary has been proven”. The “contrary” is “proven” if the presumption of delivery is rebutted. In other words, if you rebut that the NtK was given on the date they claim, the burden of proof shifts to them to prove that it was posted first class in time for it to have been delivered (served) in accordance with the Interpretation Act.
So, without a Proof of Posting certificate or equivalent evidence from a mail consolidator of the date it was entered into the postal system, “the contrary” is proven. Not that POPLA moron would understand that.
It’s only POPLA and this would never reach a hearing in court so I wouldn’t expend too much energy or time with the response. Just try and lead the assessor to the main facts that no PoFA Keeper liability, no evidence of standing, and that Beavis does not even apply to this case.
Let a proper judge decide on the facts. They won’t want this going near a courtroom.
-
They haven't provided the contract that gives them authority to operate on the site.
They provide two "witness statements" that claim such an authority, and say "this authority was in effect was in effect during the time the PCN was issued", but both of these are dated in 2023, two years prior to this incident. One point to make is that they haven't provided their contract, and a "witness statement" is not a suitable alternative.
You could also make the point that even if a "witness statement" was sufficient, they have failed to provide a contemporaneous one. The fact that they were able to produce witness statements for a PCN issued in 2023, but have not been able to produce one now, creates significant doubt that the authority that existed then still exists now.
Thanks for that. I'm just writing a draft currently, does this seem okay:
In response to the parking operators submitted evidence, I would first like to address an incorrect statement made in ‘Section B’. The operator states, “By allowing his vehicle to be parked on the site Mr [My Name] entered into a valid contract and agreed to abide by its terms and conditions.” I, Mr [My Name], was not driving the vehicle and did not enter into any contract with the parking operator nor do I personally own the vehicle.
I maintain all 10 grounds for appeal, particularly the fatal legal defects under Points 1, 2, 5, and 8 of our appeal. The Operator's evidence is insufficient, misleading, and fails to meet the strict burden of proof required.
1. Payment & Contract Failure (Point 1 & 9): The Operator confirms the £33.00 payment but fails to rebut the core argument: the charge is a punitive penalty imposed upon a paying customer when the service failed. The Operator's reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis is misplaced, as that case concerned free parking deterrence; it is irrelevant to a paid, frustrated contract.
2. Fatal PoFA Failure (Point 2 & 4): The Operator has failed to provide a copy of the served NtK showing a legible "period of parking" as required by PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a). Their evidence focuses only on the date of issue, ignoring the mandatory content requirements. The failure to clearly identify the "creditor" (point 4) remains a fatal defect.
3. Prohibitive Contravention (Point 5): The Operator confirms the charge is for "obstruction," which is a prohibitive term that cannot legally form the basis of a private parking contract that claims damages.
4. Failure to Prove Contravention (Points 6 & 10): Furthermore, the Operator has provided no evidence to substantiate the core claim that the vehicle was "causing an obstruction." Their submitted photos merely show the vehicle's position; they do not show any blocked road users, blocked access, or an unsafe situation. The Operator failed to mitigate by asking the driver to move. Given the lack of reliable timestamps (Point 2) and the absence of any photographic evidence of genuine impedance, the Operator has failed to meet the factual burden of proof necessary to establish a breach of terms. This evidential insufficiency alone necessitates the allowance of the appeal.
5. Landowner Authority is Unproven (Point 8): The Operator has submitted two generic “witness statements”, which is not the strict proof (the unredacted, contemporaneous contract) required by POPLA to confirm their authority over the specific locus (HGV area) or to enforce this specific contravention ("obstruction"). Both “Witness Statements” are dated 2023, two years prior to this incident. They haven’t provided their contract, and a “witness statement” is not a suitable alternative.
Even if a “witness statement” was sufficient, they have failed to provide a contemporaneous one. The fact they were able to produce witness statements for a PCN issued in 2023, but have not been able to produce one now, creates significant doubt that the authority that existed then still exists now.
-
They haven't provided the contract that gives them authority to operate on the site.
They provide two "witness statements" that claim such an authority, and say "this authority was in effect was in effect during the time the PCN was issued", but both of these are dated in 2023, two years prior to this incident. One point to make is that they haven't provided their contract, and a "witness statement" is not a suitable alternative.
You could also make the point that even if a "witness statement" was sufficient, they have failed to provide a contemporaneous one. The fact that they were able to produce witness statements for a PCN issued in 2023, but have not been able to produce one now, creates significant doubt that the authority that existed then still exists now.
-
GroupNexus uploaded their evidence - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BlBlv9V3a2Z331I2429bX2LbFJinSzKf/view?usp=drivesdk
I'm not too sure what to respond with, besides some basic points like clarifying that I did not enter a contract with anyone as they claim, as I wasn't driving. The operator confirms the £33 payment, and their reliance on Beavis is misplaced as that case concerns free parking deterrence and charge here is a punitive penalty imposed on a paying customer, providing a failure of consideration and breaching CRA 2015.
-
But these are NOT “fines”. They are speculative invoices.
If you or anyone receives an “invoice” for an alleged breach of contract by me and you simply decide to pay it and then try and charge me for it, I would simply refer you to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
If the management are recovering this unlawful payment by docking the drivers wages, they can be sued under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Wages Act 1986 (now Part II ERA 1996).
If an employer or fleet manager pays a speculative private parking invoice (it is not a statutory fine) and then deducts that sum from a worker’s pay, they are almost certainly making an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996. The deduction is lawful only if:
• It is required by statute (e.g. PAYE, NI, attachment of earnings);
• It is authorised by a written term of the worker’s contract and the worker has been given a copy of that term before the deduction; or
• The worker has given prior written consent to that specific deduction.
Private parking invoices do not fall under any statutory category, and very few employment contracts authorise blanket deductions for such civil “debts”. Therefore docking pay to recover a speculative parking demand is unlawful. The worker can:
• Raise a formal grievance to recover the deducted sum;
• Write a “letter before claim” demanding repayment within 14 days; and
• If ignored, issue a small-claims action in the county court for unlawful deduction of wages under s.23 ERA 1996 (time-limit: 3 months less 1 day from the deduction, or up to 6 years if sued as a simple debt claim).
Where the payment was made by a manager or finance department “on behalf of” the driver, the legal relationship is between the parking company and the driver only. The employer has no authority to admit liability or to pay a civil invoice on another’s behalf unless specifically authorised. Any attempt to recover that payment later is a private matter between employer and employee and must comply with employment-law safeguards.
If such deductions are systematic across a workforce, Trading Standards, HMRC (NMW compliance) or ACAS can be notified. The union—if one exists—should also be informed immediately.
-
Also, the driver contract has a list of monies recoverable by deductions to wages the relevent one here:
any fines, charges, penalties or other monies paid or payable by the Employer to any third party for any act or omission on your part for which the Employer may be held vicariously liable (for example, speeding fines, parking tickets and congestion charges)
Handbook says:
Fines:
Drivers are responsible for all fines, including parking, customer fines etc. These will be deducted from your weekly wage.
-
they'd say we can't pass on driver details because of GDPR (they throw that one around a lot)
They might want to re-read the UK GDPR, particularly the lawful basis for processing. 1(b) of Article 6 springs to mind...
That said, it often would not be beneficial to the driver for them to be named as the driver. More beneficial than simply having their wages garnished, though.
Tell me about it.
We got a letter from Trading Standards of a county council in October asking for details of a driver that supposedly drove through a 7.5t weight restriction two and half months earlier. I was reluctant to even respond because the dashcam footage is long gone and the drivers recollection is diminished. Driver only recalled the day because he had an undiagnosed broken wrist. Anywho, I explained that there was no legal obligation to give the details, and that we simply ignore it. Higher management sent emails to my manager telling him to call the council and say we can't because of GDPR ??? He spoke to me about it thankfully and we agreed to not do that and to ignore it (of course if the Police request it under Section 172 of RTA 1988 thats another matter). But that certainly would have been a good way to **** of the council :-\
-
they'd say we can't pass on driver details because of GDPR (they throw that one around a lot)
They might want to re-read the UK GDPR, particularly the lawful basis for processing. 1(b) of Article 6 springs to mind...
That said, it often would not be beneficial to the driver for them to be named as the driver. More beneficial than simply having their wages garnished, though.
-
What EXACTLY does the drivers contract say about parking charges from an unregulated private parking firm? PCNs are NOT "fines" or "penalties" as they are not issued for a breach of statutory law by any form of statutory authority. They are merely speculative invoices issued by unregulated private parking firms for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.
If the company are paying these "invoices" without any lawful authority to do so because they think they are "fines" or "penalties" then they are probably breaching the drivers contract. By paying these "invoices", the driver then has no route to appeal them.
Please show us the wording of any contract that the drivers sign that authorises the company to pay speculative invoices as opposed to any statutory fines or penalties, which are a completely separate matter.
Never really considered the wording of the drivers contract, I'm not a driver so I don't think it's in mine. I'll have a look tomorrow at what it says exactly though. It always seemed wrong to me though, they'd say we can't pass on driver details because of GDPR (they throw that one around a lot), but then would deny drivers the right to appeal. Especially my old manager who has fcked off now thank god, he would have the drivers pay anything and everything that came in and laugh about it, absolute pos.
-
I'd say that once a lorry is parked for the night, the tacho card is taken out or put to "rest", then Rest means Rest. That driver could not legally move the lorry once it's parked ithout breaking the drivers hours regulations and a fine of up to £1000.
Absolutely, that should be a factor to consider, and definitely would be in court. But GroupNexus are f'ing dicks and the majority of POPLA assessors are morons. There's more chance of pigs flying than them having the first clue about tachographs and drivers hours regulations. Contract law and POFA 2012 will be hard enough for them to compute without factoring in more stuff to get their empty heads around, else they may just say **** it and reject the appeal because they can't understand it. Because afterall, POPLA assessors can give whatever decision they like aslong as they can give reasoning for it, even if the reasoning is completely illogical and contrary to PPSSCoP and the law.
-
What EXACTLY does the drivers contract say about parking charges from an unregulated private parking firm? PCNs are NOT "fines" or "penalties" as they are not issued for a breach of statutory law by any form of statutory authority. They are merely speculative invoices issued by unregulated private parking firms for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.
If the company are paying these "invoices" without any lawful authority to do so because they think they are "fines" or "penalties" then they are probably breaching the drivers contract. By paying these "invoices", the driver then has no route to appeal them.
Please show us the wording of any contract that the drivers sign that authorises the company to pay speculative invoices as opposed to any statutory fines or penalties, which are a completely separate matter.
-
You still haven't answered in wise name are the PCNs issued? Is it a named individual, just the company name or a 'position' within the company, such as "The Company Secretary"?
If it is not your personal money at risk and the company management are too thick to understand the law and whether they are liable or not, then what do you care?
It is precisely this gullibility about "debt collectors" and their dent recovery letters that feeds this scam. Perhaps explain to the management that a debt collector is completely powerless in these situations. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver and so have zero standing to actually do anything. I tis not the debt collectors that take anyone to court. They can't.
IN most of these GroupNexus cases, it would only be at court at a small claims hearing that they would be exposed as having no valid contract with the landowner and therefore no standing to bring the claim. Then again, it would never reach a hearing as once they realise that the claim is being defended by someone who is not low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that can be intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear, they discontinue before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.
I cannot see any way you can get these "cancelled" if MOTO do not do their duty. Just paying them is a crime in itself because all you are doing is finding these ex-clamper scammers.
My bad. The letters are issued to the company and addressed to "the company secretary".
In the Driver employee contracts it says drivers are liable for all fines incurred whilst in control of the vehicle. The fine is paid by the company and deducted from the drivers wages. So, no it's not really the company's money at risk. Despite being employed by the company, I see it as protecting drivers from the scamming parking companies, but also from the company taking the **** and making them pay charges that are not owed and fines for contraventions that didnt occur. If the company wants to freak out and pay £170 because of a fudging debt collector letter, then they can go ahead, but they ain't charging the driver for it I'll make damn sure of it.
I've explained and put it in writing, the process, step by step, laying out the options giving the advantages and disadvantages of taking it to court to them last time, when I had those six GroupNexus PCNs a few months back, that were non-compliant with POFA 2012 and PPSSCoP. At POPLA, the first 2 were rejected, third was accepted, fourth was accepted, but then the debt collector letters came for the first two, which is when I laid out the options to management, but they chose an alternate option. To freak the f out and pay the two debt collector letters, (2x£170), and paid the 2 remaining PCNs at POPLA (2x£100) AND PAID THE F'ING FOURTH ONE THAT WAS F'ING ACCEPTED AT POPLA (1x£100). Do you know why they did that? Because it hadn't been cancelled online and they didn't want the charges to go up! Couldn't make this **** up! >:( I'm sure you can imagine how much I was pissed! Pisses me off writing it! Like give me that forkin money and I'll make sure you don't pay a penny to the scammers. But no, they'd rather take a cut to our Xmas bonus to go towards there's! :'(
I also imagine that if we had been prepared to take it to court last time and paid nothing, then we wouldn't have a problem with GroupNexus right now. They wouldnt try the same **** twice right? Right? ???
I do think I may have a better chance of convincing management to be prepared to go to court this time as the drivers paid for overnight parking, and as you say, the chances of this going to court are very unlikely. Maybe it is an opportunity to finally convince them. I do also have a London Tribunal decision next week for a PCN, which I'm 98.765% sure will be in our favour, so maybe that will give management some faith in me to get the job done. We'll see.
-
You still haven't answered in wise name are the PCNs issued? Is it a named individual, just the company name or a 'position' within the company, such as "The Company Secretary"?
If it is not your personal money at risk and the company management are too thick to understand the law and whether they are liable or not, then what do you care?
It is precisely this gullibility about "debt collectors" and their dent recovery letters that feeds this scam. Perhaps explain to the management that a debt collector is completely powerless in these situations. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver and so have zero standing to actually do anything. I tis not the debt collectors that take anyone to court. They can't.
IN most of these GroupNexus cases, it would only be at court at a small claims hearing that they would be exposed as having no valid contract with the landowner and therefore no standing to bring the claim. Then again, it would never reach a hearing as once they realise that the claim is being defended by someone who is not low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that can be intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear, they discontinue before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.
I cannot see any way you can get these "cancelled" if MOTO do not do their duty. Just paying them is a crime in itself because all you are doing is finding these ex-clamper scammers.
-
I'd say that once a lorry is parked for the night, the tacho card is taken out or put to "rest", then Rest means Rest. That driver could not legally move the lorry once it's parked ithout breaking the drivers hours regulations and a fine of up to £1000.
-
Good appeal. However, I don't understand in what capacity you appealed. The NtK would have been addressed to the Keeper. If you were not the Keeper or the driver, how come you appealed?
Only the driver could be liable and as there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver, the only thing the keeper needed to say in the appeal is thatchy are the keeper and they decline to identify the driver. End of!
We do not need to know who was driving and all the Keeper has to do is order to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".
So, before we try and appeal to POPLA, are you or are you not the vehicle Keeper? If not, then how com you are appealing?
I am an employee of the company the vehicle is registered too.
I know that's all that needed to be said, however, I have to get the PCNs cancelled before court, as my employer won't take these to court. Seems weird saying it but my life would be 10 times easier and less stressful if they allowed it to go to court, but they get the debt collector letters and freak out. It doesn't matter how many times I explain it or try convincing them :-\ So I have the added stress of having to get them cancelled by whatever means necessary before they start getting those letters, whether that's reporting them to BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards, Action Fraud, ITV Tonight Show for Parking Problems Part 2 (which did actually work with PPM) or reasoning with the landowner, whether that's GLA or MOTO or whoever.
Also, generally other Motorway services would accept appeals like these in my experience, Roadchef and Welcome Break. It's always MOTO Services that are the problem. I hoped they would accept it from the fact the drivers acted in good faith and paid. But nah, they'll take that, not provide the service and then try and charge an extra £100 for good measure.
Thanks very much for all the POPLA appeal points, I had about about half of them, but it was very thorough so I am grateful. I also had never noticed they don't state who is creditor, they haven't on previous ones either looking back at them.
-
Agreed, but the NtK would be addressed to the Keeper, even if it is a company. Of course, this is even better than if the Keeper is a named individual.
-
If you were not the Keeper or the driver, how come you appealed?
As this is a HGV I'd wager that the keeper is a company, and that ParkingMeister is appealing on their behalf as an authorised representative, but it would be good for this to be confirmed.
-
Good appeal. However, I don't understand in what capacity you appealed. The NtK would have been addressed to the Keeper. If you were not the Keeper or the driver, how come you appealed?
Only the driver could be liable and as there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver, the only thing the keeper needed to say in the appeal is thatchy are the keeper and they decline to identify the driver. End of!
We do not need to know who was driving and all the Keeper has to do is order to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".
So, before we try and appeal to POPLA, are you or are you not the vehicle Keeper? If not, then how com you are appealing?
-
What EXACTLY did you put in your appeal to GroupNexus? Has the driver been identified, inadvertently or otherwise?
Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) clearly fails on two of the mandatory requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified:
1. Paragraph 9(2)(a): Specification of the vehicle, relevant land, and the period of parking
The NtK does specify the location: “MOTO Wetherby Services”. However, it does not specify any ‘period of parking’ — only that the vehicle “remained at MOTO Wetherby Services on 24/09/2025”.
Simply stating a date (without start and end times) is insufficient to meet para 9(2)(a). PoFA requires a period, not a single date or moment. Therefore non-compliant with 9(2)(a).
2. Paragraph 9(2)(g): Identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made
The creditor is not explicitly identified by name as “the creditor”. The letter is headed “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”, but PoFA requires the NtK to state who the creditor is — not merely display a company name.
In addition to this, GroupNexus Ltd was registered as a completely separate legal entity over a year ago. There is no clarification in the NtK s to which legal entity is the creditor. Non-compliant with 9(2)(g).
Of course, all that is irrelevant if the Keeper has been identified as the driver.
So, please show us the content of your initial appeal and we can then advise further on your POPLA appeal.
I have not identified the driver.
My appeal to GroupNexus said:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the issued Parking Charge Notice concerning our vehicle <vehicle reg redacted>, at MOTO Wetherby Services on 24/09/2025.
The registered keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, and neither was I.
Under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a Notice to Keeper must “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” The NtK fails to do this. It merely provides a date and includes two photographs with illegible time stamps (i.e. can’t be read without visual aid or digital enhancement. This means, if a Judge can’t read it without a microscope, it is not legible). 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 on the Notice to Keeper (for example “Parked from [hh:mm dd/mm/yyyy] to [hh:mm dd/mm/yyyy]” in normal-sized, readable font).
Therefore, the NtK is not compliant with PoFA 2012, and liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper, and we are under no obligation to provide the drivers details.
Additionally, the four time stamped images provided as evidence online are timestamped between 20:48:29 and 20:49:32, a time period of 1 minute and 3 whole seconds. Section B1 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, which as a member of the BPA approved operator scheme you are obliged to honour, 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. There was an additional 8 minutes and 57 seconds observation period that should have been exceeded and evidenced before a PCN was issued. The significance of whether the consideration has expired is fundamental as it is the point the driver has accepted the terms and conditions attached to the controlled land in question.
Furthermore, the vehicle is clearly not obstructing anything, else the driver would have been told to move the vehicle, which would have been the courteous thing for the parking warden to do if the parking was indeed an issue. The photographic evidence does not show any obstruction of traffic flow, access, or other vehicles.
A valid HGV parking ticket was purchased for £33, for <vrm>. If the contract was conditional and the vehicle was “causing an obstruction to other road users” then you should not have accepted payment and should have refused service.
The vehicle was parked there because the HGV bays were full. Therefore, you should have either: 1. Refused payment as you had no parking services available. 2. Warned the driver before taking the money that no valid parking was available.
By accepting payment for overnight parking, GroupNexus/MOTO confirmed that parking services were provided. If bays were unavailable, then the contract was frustrated at your end. You cannot continue selling HGV parking while failing to provide adequate space, and then attempt to penalise drivers for circumstances entirely outside their control. This amounts to an unfair commercial practice and renders the Parking Charge unenforceable.
Consumer Rights Act 2015 considers any term that attempts to impose a penalty despite payment is an unfair term and unenforceable under CRA 2015. A term requiring “must park in bay” is ineffective if no bays are available and yet payment is still accepted.
Lastly, Motorway Service Areas are special land under planning rules. Their main purpose being safety, giving drivers rest and not making money from parking “fines”.
I note there is no individual HGV bays, just a HGV area, that is basically a free for all, which our vehicle was parked alongside, not obstructing anything and no signs or visible directions saying they couldn't park there.
-
Here are a list of points you can argue at POPLA:
1. PoFA Sch. 4 ¶9(2)(a) – No specified “period of parking”
The Notice to Keeper merely states that the vehicle “remained at MOTO Wetherby Services on 24/09/2025.” It relies on a single still image taken by an individual rather than any timed record of when the vehicle was parked or for how long.
PoFA ¶9(2)(a) requires the notice to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” A lone photograph evidences only a moment in time when the picture was taken; it cannot establish a parking period. Without start-and-finish times, or any observation record showing that the vehicle was stationary for a measurable duration, the statutory requirement is not met.
This failure is particularly significant where the allegation concerns “causing an obstruction.” To prove such a claim, the operator must show that the vehicle was stationary and obstructing for a sustained period, not just present momentarily. The absence of any recorded timeframe means the operator cannot prove the essential facts of the alleged contravention, nor can it invoke keeper liability under PoFA.
2. PoFA Sch.4 ¶9(2)(g) – Creditor not identified
The NtK nowhere states who “the creditor” is. Merely displaying a trading style (“CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”) is insufficient. POPLA and courts have repeatedly held that the creditor must be clearly identified as the legal entity entitled to recover the charge. Without this identification, the Notice is defective and fails to transfer liability to the keeper.
3. Corporate identity defect – Inconsistent and misleading legal entity
The NtK purports to be issued by “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus.” However, GroupNexus Ltd was incorporated as a separate legal entity more than a year ago. A limited company cannot simultaneously be the trading style of another. Consumers are entitled to know which legal person is the contracting party and the alleged creditor. This fundamental confusion renders the NtK invalid under PoFA ¶9(2)(g) and breaches consumer law transparency requirements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. POPLA must consider that if “GroupNexus” now exists as its own company, CP Plus Ltd cannot lawfully describe itself as “trading as” that separate entity, nor can POPLA ascertain who owns the alleged debt or contractual rights.
4. No keeper liability – Driver not identified; PoFA non-compliant
You, as the registered keeper, have not admitted who the driver was (hopefully), and the operator has no evidence. Since the NtK fails key PoFA conditions (no parking period and unclear creditor), it cannot hold the keeper liable. Only the driver could be pursued, and their identity remains unknown. POPLA has no lawful basis to assume keeper liability.
5. Paid-for service not delivered – Failure of consideration and unfair term
The driver paid £33 to MOTO for overnight HGV parking, which MOTO accepted. However, the HGV area was full, forcing the driver to park immediately adjacent to it, without causing obstruction. The service paid for — a lawful place to park overnight — was not provided. Penalising a paying customer constitutes a failure of consideration and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires traders to act fairly and transparently. The fair remedy for MOTO’s capacity failure would be to allocate a space or offer a refund, not impose a £100 penalty through its agent.
6. Allegation of “obstruction” is prohibitive, not contractual
Signage that prohibits obstructive parking cannot form the basis of a contract. It is a prohibition (“do not obstruct”), not an offer (“you may park here for £100 if you obstruct”). This means no contract was formed, and no parking charge can be due. Any alleged obstruction would at most constitute trespass, for which only the landowner (not the parking company) could seek nominal damages. POPLA has routinely allowed appeals on this basis where the signage is prohibitive.
7. No evidence of obstruction or reasonable mitigation
The photos simply show the vehicle parked near the HGV area and do not depict any actual obstruction to other road users. There is no record of complaints or of any attempt by staff to ask the driver to move — the reasonable first step if obstruction truly existed. In contract law, parties must mitigate alleged loss. Since no such action occurred, the operator’s claim of obstruction is unsubstantiated.
8. Consideration and grace periods – Non-compliance with PPSCoP
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP, v1.1, Feb 2025) requires:
• A consideration period to allow drivers to read the terms before deciding whether to park; and
• A grace period at the end to allow time to leave.
With manually taken photos spanning roughly 90 seconds, the operator cannot show that these Code requirements were respected. This failure supports cancellation on procedural and fairness grounds.
9. Inadequate signage – Lack of clarity at overflow or adjacent areas
The operator must demonstrate that the exact area where the vehicle was parked had clear, prominent, and legible signage explaining that parking there was prohibited and would incur a £100 charge, even for paying customers. If signs are ambiguous, unlit, or fail to specify overflow restrictions, no binding contract can exist. Under the contra proferentem rule and CRA 2015, unclear or hidden terms cannot be enforced against consumers.
10. Landowner authority – Strict proof required for the locus and alleged “obstruction”
The operator must provide an unredacted, contemporaneous contract showing:
• That they are authorised by the landowner (MOTO or the landholding entity);
• That this authority extends to the precise area where the vehicle was photographed; and
• That it covers enforcement for “obstruction” (a non-standard contravention).
A generic or redacted witness statement is insufficient under BPA and PPSCoP rules. POPLA often upholds appeals where operators cannot produce the full landowner agreement.
11. Charge disproportionate and not commercially justified (Beavis distinguished)
Unlike ParkingEye v Beavis, this is not a free car park where deterrence serves a legitimate commercial interest. The driver paid £33, and MOTO’s capacity failure forced alternative parking. Imposing an additional £100 charge is punitive and bears no relation to any loss. The Beavis rationale does not apply, and the charge remains a penalty.
12. Evidential insufficiency – Manually taken photos do not prove breach
Because the images were taken by a person rather than an automated system, there is no timestamp audit trail, no proof of observation period, and no independent record of obstruction or duration. POPLA should reject such unverified photographic evidence as insufficient to meet the civil standard of proof.
13. Lack of fairness and proportionality – Better alternative remedy available
The fair response would have been to relocate the vehicle or issue a refund, not to pursue a penalty charge. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, disproportionate remedies that penalise rather than rectify are unenforceable. POPLA may consider fairness in the round, particularly where the motorist acted reasonably and paid for the service in good faith.
14. Misleading representation and data accuracy
The Notice to Keeper names “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”. However, GroupNexus Ltd has been incorporated as a distinct legal entity for over a year. A limited company cannot lawfully “trade as” a name that is itself the registered name of another incorporated company. This creates material uncertainty as to who the contracting party and creditor actually are, and whether CP Plus Ltd has any current right to use “GroupNexus” as a trading style.
PoFA ¶9(2)(g) requires the Notice to identify the creditor—that is, the legal person entitled to recover the unpaid parking charge. Where two different corporate entities exist (CP Plus Ltd and GroupNexus Ltd) but the Notice uses a hybrid of the two, the creditor is not properly identified. The operator must prove which company holds the landowner contract and which is authorised to pursue payment. Absent that proof, the Notice fails PoFA and no keeper liability can arise.
Additionally, this ambiguity breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.68 requirement for transparency: consumers must be clearly told who they are contracting with and to whom money is owed. The combination of an obsolete trading style and a separately incorporated company name is inherently misleading.
15. Strict compliance burden
Under PoFA, the burden of proof rests entirely on the operator. Every required element must be met exactly. Since this NtK fails multiple mandatory paragraphs (no period of parking, unclear creditor, confused entity identity), and the alleged contravention is unproven, POPLA must conclude that the operator has not met the statutory standard for keeper liability or contractual enforcement.
-
What EXACTLY did you put in your appeal to GroupNexus? Has the driver been identified, inadvertently or otherwise?
Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) clearly fails on two of the mandatory requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified:
1. Paragraph 9(2)(a): Specification of the vehicle, relevant land, and the period of parking
The NtK does specify the location: “MOTO Wetherby Services”. However, it does not specify any ‘period of parking’ — only that the vehicle “remained at MOTO Wetherby Services on 24/09/2025”.
Simply stating a date (without start and end times) is insufficient to meet para 9(2)(a). PoFA requires a period, not a single date or moment. Therefore non-compliant with 9(2)(a).
2. Paragraph 9(2)(g): Identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made
The creditor is not explicitly identified by name as “the creditor”. The letter is headed “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”, but PoFA requires the NtK to state who the creditor is — not merely display a company name.
In addition to this, GroupNexus Ltd was registered as a completely separate legal entity over a year ago. There is no clarification in the NtK s to which legal entity is the creditor. Non-compliant with 9(2)(g).
Of course, all that is irrelevant if the Keeper has been identified as the driver.
So, please show us the content of your initial appeal and we can then advise further on your POPLA appeal.
-
I have 2 PCNs like this 1 at MOTO Wetherby one at MOTO Lymm. The facts are the same.
Driver has parked next to the HGV parking area at MOTO Wetherby and has paid £33 for overnight HGV parking which MOTO accepted.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lAo9sjSQamiP7NfMH2P-CuDY-dhpVPom/view?usp=drivesdk
The Parking Charge Notice says it is for causing an obstruction. But the driver was never asked to move and clearly wasn't obstructing anything.
The driver parked there as there was no space in the HGV area (there is not specific bays for HGVs), surely the courteous thing to do for a paying customer is to ask them to move if the parking is a problem and better yet, find them a valid space.
I appealed to GroupNexus with the parking receipt and explaining contract law. I also included the lack of a parking period stated on the Notice as not POFA compliant, and the photos online span like 1 minute 30 seconds, which does not evidence a consideration period having elapsed I'm breach of the Code of Practice. GroupNexus rejected both.
I have contacted MOTO numerous times and they won't help by instructing their agent, GroupNexus to cancel the charge. They also will not give a refund for the parking services paid for and evidently not received.
I need to do a POPLA appeal for both, but the assessor's are forkin morons and I hate leaving these things to chance. Any advice to near guarantee a win would be much appreciated (ofc you can never guarantee a win with these idiots)
I have made a complaint to Trading Standards but don't expect that will be a quick resolution.
Location: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Moto+Wetherby/@53.9453388,-1.3705215,3a,75y,309.76h,67.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3Espli4jOTCya70jRu3sKQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D22.908518833930387%26panoid%3D3Espli4jOTCya70jRu3sKQ%26yaw%3D309.7603572444251!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x48794ed8a905b9ff:0x7af6a7fd791c6516!8m2!3d53.9469521!4d-1.3687323!16s%2Fm%2F04mx4xz?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTAyOS4yIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D