GroupNexus has failed to almost address all the points that I raised in my appeal, and there is no doubt in my mind that the lack of effort that has been put into the response is a reflection of the quality of GroupNexus as a company.
They assert that their NtK is compliant with PoFA 2012 solely on the basis that the NtK itself states it is compliant. This is a clear example of circular reasoning. It is very disappointing that I raised multiple grounds upon which the NtK was not compliant, and they couldn’t even extend me the courtesy of attempting to dispute them.
It is inappropriate for GroupNexus to suggest that the onus is on me as the keeper of the vehicle to prove that they have landowner authority. As the claimant, the onus is clearly on them to prove the charge is owed. The only attempt they made to ‘prove’ their authority was to provide photos of the signage on the site (these are almost 3 year old). They may have had permission at some point, but fact that the signs are there say nothing about whether they have permission to form a valid contract at the time of the incident. If they had valid authority, it would have been trivial for them to produce it.
Evidence was shown that a reasonable attempt was made to make a payment. The fact that app payments were accepted during the duration of my cars stay says nothing about the performance of their app. I believe this could be predatory practise from GroupNexus, as it works in their interest for their app to function poorly - it gives them more opportunities to send out these PCNs which generate a lot more revenue.
They state that no mitigating circumstances were provided which would warrant cancellation of the charge. However a clear mitigating circumstance exists in that the driver made a reasonable attempt to pay for parking. It is wholly unreasonable to characterise a genuine attempt to comply with the terms as an absence of mitigation.
We can confirm that we have the authority to act on behalf of the landowner. The onus is on the appellant to provide
evidence to support their claim that we do not - if the appellant genuinely believes that we do not have such authority,
they are to go to the BPA to obtain this information. The photographs included in Section F show that signage and
equipment is in place at the site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the
landowner’s authority.
“GroupNexus” is not merely a trading style of CP Plus – it is a separate legal entity, making the NtK’s creditor position materially unclear (PoFA 9(2)(h))
The Notice to Keeper refers to “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” and then uses the undefined term “we” throughout, without ever identifying “the creditor”.
However, “GROUPNEXUS LIMITED” is itself a separately incorporated company (company number 15560549, incorporated 13 March 2024). Companies House records also show this entity previously existed under a different registered name (“CP NEWCO (TRADING) LIMITED”) before becoming “GROUPNEXUS LIMITED”.
CP PLUS LIMITED is a different legal person entirely (company number 02595379, incorporated 26 March 1991).
Accordingly, the wording “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” does not resolve the statutory requirement to “identify the creditor”. In the real-world corporate landscape, at least two plausible candidates exist for who might be asserting creditor status (CP PLUS LIMITED or GROUPNEXUS LIMITED), and the NtK does not expressly state which legal entity is entitled to recover the charge.
That is precisely why PoFA 9(2)(h) requires the creditor to be explicitly identified. Where the operator’s branding and corporate structure create ambiguity, POPLA cannot “assume” the creditor from letterheads, trading descriptions, or the pronoun “we”. This NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(h), and keeper liability cannot arise.
This is not a technicality; it is a substantive statutory safeguard, and the NtK fails it.
You actually have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection as they allow 5 days for service of the code. However, if they have started issuing debt recovery letters with the added fake Ł70, then it is usually too late to appeal.
So, are you still within the 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection?
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 Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations.
Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers that the maximum stay at this site is 3 hours between 8:00-22:00 with the option to extend with payment up to 5 hours. Please note that payment for parking is required outside of these times, 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 full driver details have not 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 Ł60.00 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. Should you appeal to POPLA, and your appeal is rejected for any reason, you will also lose your right to pay at the reduced rate.
Please find below the payment options:
Online: www.groupnexus.co.uk/pcn
By Telephone: Credit/Debit cards via our automated payment line: 0844 371 8784
By Post: Cheques or Postal Orders to: PO Box 1750, Northampton, NN1 9PN
----------
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 (please note this reference is for use only when appealing to POPLA): XXXXXXXXXX
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 Limited
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your “parking charge”. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be raising a formal complaint about your predatory conduct with your client landowner.
Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In particular, paragraph 9(2)(h) requires a Notice to Keeper to “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.” Your NtK does not identify any party as “the creditor” at all. The document merely bears the branding “GroupNexus” and small-print company details, but never states who the creditor actually is – e.g. whether it is CP Plus Ltd, GroupNexus Ltd, the landowner, or some other principal or agent.
Simply printing a trading name or company details somewhere on the notice is not compliance with 9(2)(h). The statute requires the creditor to be clearly and expressly identified. You have failed to do so. As a result, you cannot rely on PoFA to transfer any liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
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.