POPLA verification number: [1753445551]
Parking Charge Notice: [2000064523643]
Operator: CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus
Vehicle: OY26 VKY
Site: Moto Blyth Services
Date of event: 27/10/2025
I am the Hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability. This appeal is made on the following grounds.
1. No Hirer/keeper liability under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 (hire vehicles) – fatal to the charge
GroupNexus has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
What I received is plainly just a re-addressed copy of the original Notice to Keeper sent to Hertz, still purporting to rely on PoFA paragraph 9 (a notice to the registered keeper) rather than a compliant Notice to Hirer under PoFA paragraph 14. For a hire vehicle, a valid Notice to Hirer must:• be served on the Hirer within the mandatory timescale at paragraph 14(2)(a); and
• be accompanied by all of the prescribed documents at paragraph 13(2), namely:– a copy of the hire agreement,
– a statement of liability signed by the Hirer, and
– a copy of the original notice.
None of these documents were enclosed with the notice sent to me. The operator has also provided no evidence that any fully compliant Notice to Hirer with all enclosures was ever delivered within the statutory deadline.
Further, in their rejection letter GroupNexus state that they are “holding the registered keeper liable”. The registered keeper at the time of the event was Hertz, not me. I am the Hirer only. PoFA Schedule 4 creates a very narrow exception to the general rule that only the driver can be liable. For a hire vehicle, that exception only applies if the operator strictly complies with paragraphs 13 and 14. If they do not, then only the unknown driver could be liable and there is no lawful route to transfer liability to the Hirer.
I am under no obligation to name the driver and I will not be doing so. In the absence of full and strict compliance with Schedule 4 paragraphs 13–14, GroupNexus cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Hirer and cannot rely on any presumption, inference or “assumption” that the Hirer was also the driver. That is precisely what PoFA was enacted to prevent.
Because the operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012 for a hire vehicle, there is no Hirer or keeper liability. This point alone is fatal to their case and this appeal must be allowed.
2. No evidence of landowner authority and mismatch of contracting entity
The operator is put to strict proof of their standing. They must produce a current, unredacted written agreement with the landholder (not merely an agreement with an agent) that:• identifies the land to which it applies (including Moto Blyth Services and this EV charging area);
• is in force for the material period; and
• expressly authorises the same legal entity that issued this PCN to:– manage parking on the land,
– issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name, and
– pursue those charges through POPLA and, if they choose, the courts.
The PCN and correspondence are issued in the name “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”. However, GroupNexus is now itself a separate limited company. CP Plus Ltd and GroupNexus Ltd are distinct legal entities. “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” is not, in itself, a company that can hold a contract with the landowner. Any landholder agreement will be with either CP Plus Ltd or GroupNexus Ltd (or some other entity), not with a hybrid trading description.
The operator is therefore put to strict proof that:• the landowner contract is with the same legal person that issued this PCN; and
• if the contract is with a different entity (for example CP Plus Ltd only, or GroupNexus Ltd only), there has been a clear, properly executed assignment or novation of rights that permits the PCN-issuing entity to enforce charges in its own name.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires operators to have written authorisation from the landholder covering the relevant land and specifying the correct operator identity. If the operator cannot produce such authority, or if the agreement is with a different company to the one issuing this PCN, then they have no locus standi and the charge cannot be enforced.
3. Inadequate and non-prominent signage, including at the EV charging bays
The terms relied upon (a “free” 2-hour limit and tariff thereafter) were not clearly and prominently brought to the attention of motorists using the EV charging area.
The operator is put to strict proof, with contemporaneous evidence, of:• a site plan showing the locations of all signs,
• dated photographs of each sign in situ at the material time,
• the text on those signs, and
• the font sizes of the “core” terms (time limit, charge level) on any signs visible from the EV bay used.
In particular, they must show that:• there is a clear and legible entrance sign that can be read from a moving vehicle; and
• there are clear, prominent tariff/terms signs positioned at or immediately adjacent to the EV chargers, such that a driver using the chargers would have the key terms drawn to their attention before or while parking.
Under the BPA Code of Practice (for signage) core terms must be clear and prominent. In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court stressed that charges are only enforceable where the signage is “clear and prominent” so that the motorist is fully informed. That standard is not met if the EV-area terms are buried in small print or not clearly displayed at all.
4. No evidence of a compliant “period of parking” and failure to allow the mandatory grace period
The operator appears to rely solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. Those record only the times the vehicle drove past the cameras (time on site), not the “period of parking” required by PoFA Schedule 4.
These timestamps will inevitably include non-parking time such as:• circulation while looking for a space or charger,
• any queueing for a charger to become free,
• time spent manoeuvring, connecting and disconnecting the vehicle, and
• driving to the exit and waiting to leave.
PoFA Schedule 4 requires that the operator identifies a “period of parking”, not merely the total time between passing cameras. The operator is put to strict proof that they have:• identified a true period of parking in accordance with PoFA, excluding all non-parking time; and
• then applied the mandatory post-parking grace period required by the applicable Code of Practice before issuing a charge.
If they cannot demonstrate both a properly defined period of parking and a correctly applied grace period at the end, they cannot show that any breach of a parking term has actually occurred.
5. Unfair and unclear consumer terms
If the operator seeks to rely on any contractual term requiring payment of £100, that term must be transparent, prominent, and fairly incorporated into any alleged contract with the driver, particularly in the specific context of EV charging.
Given:• the EV-specific layout,
• the lack of clearly-prominent warnings at the chargers themselves, and
• the operator’s failure (to date) to show that any driver using the EV charger would have seen and accepted a clear offer to pay £100,
any purported agreement to pay this sum is not transparent or fairly incorporated, and is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The operator is put to strict proof that the alleged contractual term satisfies the requirements of transparency and prominence.
Conclusion
GroupNexus has failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 for hire vehicles and therefore cannot transfer liability to me as Hirer. The driver is not identified, and without strict PoFA compliance there is no lawful basis to hold the Hirer or keeper liable or to presume that the Hirer was the driver. That is a complete defence and this appeal should be allowed on that ground alone.
In the alternative, even if POPLA were to look beyond that fatal defect, the operator has also failed to demonstrate landowner authority, adequate and prominent signage (especially at the EV chargers), a properly defined “period of parking” with a mandatory post-parking grace period, or fair and transparent consumer terms.
For all of these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct the operator to cancel the Parking Charge.
Dear Hertz Collections,
I dispute invoice 24366916 for £42 and do not authorise payment. Please place this account on hold while you review.
This is not a fine or a penalty. It is a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company. GroupNexus is not an authority and no statutory penalty has been incurred. As Keeper, Hertz elected to transfer liability to me as Hirer under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Once that transfer has been made, GroupNexus cannot pursue Hertz under any circumstance and no liability can revert to you. Hertz has paid nothing and is not at risk of any future liability.
Your administration fee is unsupported. Your correspondence and website contain inconsistent amounts and misleading references to “authorities” and “fines”, none of which apply. Passing on the hirer’s details is minimal administration and does not justify a £42 fee. The underlying speculative invoice is being actively contested with GroupNexus and will be escalated to POPLA. Pursuing an administration fee at this stage is premature.
I require the following:1. Cancellation of the £42 administration fee.
2. Written confirmation that the account is on hold and will not be referred to any third party while this dispute is open.
3. If you refuse cancellation, the exact rental agreement clause relied upon and an itemised breakdown of the actual time and cost incurred to justify £42.
4. Your formal complaints procedure and confirmation that this email is logged as a formal complaint.
I look forward to confirmation that the administration fee has been cancelled or, alternatively, a full response to each point above.
Yours faithfully,
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.
The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations.
Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the requirement to pay for parking in excess of the free 2 hour period, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal.
We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As no driver details have been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable.
In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.
We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If no payment is received within this period, and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate and further costs may be added.
Please find below the payment options: [Payment details]
----------
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This correspondence represents our final stance on the matter and we will therefore not enter into any further correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR EXTEND THE DATE IN WHICH PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE.
Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this correspondence. POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge. To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website http://www.popla.co.uk and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.
Your POPLA reference number is: [Reference number]
Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. POPLA will not consider any cases where payment has been made. You must pay the charge or appeal to POPLA, you cannot do both.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
Yours faithfully,
CP Plus Ltd
Dear CP Plus / GroupNexus,
Thank you for your template request that I “forward the full name and address of the driver”. The fact that you sent this at all confirms that nobody at your organisation has actually read – let alone understood – my appeal or Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
To spell it out in simple words of one syllable, where possible: you did not send a compliant Notice to Hirer. You simply re-addressed the original Notice to Keeper to me, still waffling on about paragraph 9, and failed to comply with the strict requirements of paragraphs 13 and 14, including the provision of the prescribed hire documents and a proper statement of liability. That is fatal to any attempt to transfer liability from the unknown driver to me as hirer/keeper.
In law, therefore:- You have no Hirer liability;
- I have no obligation whatsoever to name the driver; and
- Your “14 days on hold” is as meaningless as the rest of your boilerplate.
I decline your invitation to assist you in pursuing a claim you have no legal basis to enforce. You already have my position. You are now put to strict choice:- Cancel the Parking Charge; or
- Treat this as a reference to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971) and act accordingly.
There will be no further correspondence on this nonsense unless it contains either a cancellation or a POPLA code.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Hirer of the vehicle
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.
The representations stated in your correspondence have been noted and considered. Please forward to us the full name and address of the driver at 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
I am the hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your Parking Charge. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client, Moto Blyth.
What you have sent me is not a compliant Notice to Hirer (NtH) under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is plainly just a copy of the Notice to Keeper previously sent to Hertz, re-addressed to me and still purporting to rely on paragraph 9. That is not how liability is transferred to a Hirer.
You have failed to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraphs 13 and 14. As your NtH does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer 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 Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH 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
That’s a Notice to Keeper, not to Hirer. You were not the Registered Keeper at the time of parking, as claimed.
Seriously? Take your tin-foil hat off and show us all the dates and times on that Notice. These firms issue over 40,000+ PCNs every single day of the year. Even if your perverted fantasy about some team of hooded "Yoofs" in a dark room somewhere scouring the internet for posts about a specific PCN were founded, so bloody what? They cannot change anything because the unlawful behaviour is exposed. What on earth do you imagine they could do if they were able to identify your PCN?
For completeness can you show us the Notice to Hirer?
I am the Hirer 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 Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer 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 Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH 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.
As per our rental conditions, if Hertz is required to pay any road tolls, fines, charges, or associated costs, we reserve the right to charge you an administration fee.
Upon reviewing our records, I can confirm that the amount of £42.00 was initially billed to your account. However, we received a chargeback from your credit card company, which placed the invoice on force charge. As a result, payment was required within 90 days before the matter was transferred to our external debt collection agency.
I am the hirer/keeper of vehicle [REG]. Hertz has passed my details as the hirer/keeper. This is not an admission as to the identity of the driver. I will not be naming the driver.
You cannot transfer liability because you have not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 for hire vehicles (paras 13–14). A valid Notice to Hirer must be accompanied by:
1. a copy of the hire agreement
2. a statement of liability signed by the hirer
3. a copy of the original notice
These documents were not enclosed with your notice. Therefore there is no hirer/keeper liability and the charge must be cancelled.
Without prejudice to the above, signage at the EV charging area did not make any 2-hour limit prominent or clear, the vehicle was actively charging, and any overstay calculation must include the consideration and grace periods required by the BPA Code.
Please cancel this charge. If you refuse, please supply a POPLA verification code.