Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: almac47 on November 17, 2025, 11:09:59 am
-
Thank you B789. Very much appreciated. We will sit tight.
-
Oh dear. All you had to do was appeal as the Keeper and decline to identify the driver. Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with PoFA 2012 because it was not "given" within the relevant period. What that means that they can't transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.
Too late now. That defence has been flushed because the driver has been identified.
You've gone through the appeals process and are under the false impression that you must now pay. Why?
A POPLA decision is not binding on you. You don't just pay unless you are fool and your money. If you believe that you have been issue the PCN unfairly, then you fight it all the way. If you follow the advice you get here, you will not have to pay a penny to GroupNexus.
As you have exhausted the appeals process without using the winning PoFA/Keeper argument, you can still win this because they will take it all the way to a county court claim but will never go all the way to an actual hearing.
For now, you must ignore all the useless debt recovery letters that are going to come your way. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you eventually receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will advise on how to respond and defend.
-
Hi everyone
I was about to pay via the POPLA decision outcome site, however the link they provided didn't work. In the meantime I've read some of the posts here and thought I would outline the facts in case anyone has some advice:
POPLA Examiner Summary:
The appellant has raised the following points in their grounds of appeal:
- They entered the car park at 11:24, and downloaded the Nexus app
- The car park location code wasn’t recognised by the app
- Other motorists experienced the same issue
- On phoning the number on the signs, an automated message said the office was closed
- They gave up and left the car park at 11:51 In their comments, they say the operator’s information isn’t accurate, they advise there was no signage that they could easily see that explained the payment machines were in the bingo hall. No alternative payment app was advertised, and the bingo hall was closed. They also re-iterate their appeal grounds.
- To support their appeal, the appellant has provided: 1. Their O2 phone bill 2. Their paybyphone receipt 3. Two screenshots of the Nexus app
Assessors Summary
- This decision relates to PCN: XXXXXX When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided photographs of the signs in place in the car park, which confirm this is a paid site, but that bingo customers can register for free parking, with a £100 PCN being issued for not complying.
- The operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), which uses a code of practice detailing the standards that it needs to uphold as a part of its membership - the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. Evidence has been provided by the operator to show that the appellant remained onsite for 27 minutes without paying. The appellant explains they spent their time onsite trying to pay via the app or calling the numbers on the sign, and they have provided screenshots of the Nexus app and their O2 phone bill.
- I have no reason to doubt that the location code wouldn’t work, as this appears to be confirmed by the screenshots. However, if a motorist cannot pay, for whatever reason, they need to leave within a reasonable time. T
- he Code of Practice allows motorists a minimum of 5 minutes to determine whether they can park under the offered terms and leave the site, and this operator appears to allow double that time. This means the appellant had 10 minutes to discover that they couldn’t pay, and to leave the site, but they exceeded that time frame. In their comments, the appellant says the operator’s evidence isn’t correct, and they challenge the signage. They didn’t challenge the signage initially, and they haven’t provided any of their own photos of the site to back-up their signage dispute.
- I accept that the bingo hall was closed, so the appellant wouldn’t have been able to register in there, but that is why payment was required for them to park there.
- The appellant has provided a paybyphone receipt of a parking session purchased for a site, after they left the car park in question. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear and that the appellant broke them by not making payment. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly, and refuse this appeal.
Attachments
Buzz Bingo Parking (https://ibb.co/j9xf6SSJ) Sign 1
Buzz Bingo Parking Sign 2 (https://ibb.co/j9xf6SSJ)
PCN 1 (https://ibb.co/7xVjSLKv)
PCN 2 (https://ibb.co/0y64ns05)
Any advice gratefully appreciated.
Thank you all