Show Posts - Jammy

POPLA did not properly address my key appeal points concerning creditor identity and the absence of a compliant invitation for the keeper to pay the charge. I am now expecting the usual series of threatening debt collection letters to start arriving soon.

POPLA Decision: UnsuccessfulAssessor summary of your case:The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The PCN does not comply with PoFA, does not invite the keeper to pay the charge and does not name the creditor. • GroupNexus is not a trading name of CP Plus Ltd and GroupNexus is a separate legal entity. • There is no evidence that the keeper was the driver. • The signs upon entry fail to comply with Clause 3 of the Code. • They would like to see evidence the operator has authority to issue PCN’s. • The PCN amount is unfair and excessive. • The PCN provides no proper complaint procedure which is a breach of clause 11. The appellant has re-iterated their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • A copy of the PCN and images of the site. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.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. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided of the PCN and images of the site. I note that there are signs in place, but the appellant has stated they are not compliant. I must make it clear that the operator does not need to comply with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code,) in relation to signs until the end of 2026, but it must comply with the Code in relation to all other manner of operations from October 2024. The operator has not confirmed it is compliant with the new code in relation to signage and as such, they must comply with Version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice 9th February 2024. I note the appellant has not confirmed they were the driver at the time of the breach and as such, I need to establish if the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA must be adhered to. I have reviewed the PCN and note that the breach occurred on 15th September 2025, and the PCN was issued on 23rd September 2025, well within the 14 days specified in PoFA. The Notice to Keeper goes on to state that if after 28 days the full amount has not been paid and they do not know the name and address of the driver, they have the right to purse the registered keeper. As such, I must conclude that the operator has complied with the requirements of PoFA and can transfer liability to the appellant, the keeper. I must add that the operator is not suggesting the appellant was the driver, but the wording is compliant with PoFA and the operator has made it clear they will pursue the keeper for payment if no driver details are provided. The creditor is GroupNexus and this is displayed throughout the PCN and on page 2 explaining how to pay. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with it’s Code of Practice which sets out minimum guidelines for private parking operators. Section 19.2 of the Code relates to entrance signs and states: Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section 19.3 relates to specific terms signs and states: Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack, and it has provided images of signs throughout the site and upon entry which specify that terms apply, and use of the site is for Gym Customers only and console validation is required. The entrance sign does not need to advise motorists of the terms, just that terms apply. Again, the entrance sign advises motorists to see signs with the car park for the full terms. I note that the site is lit during the hours of darkness and has been in place since December 2022. It’s the responsibility of the motorist to review the terms once parked and decide if they wish to remain. If they do not want to accept the terms, they can leave. I note the driver remained on site for 53 minutes without validation. POPLA must assess the validity of the PCN against the terms and conditions. I must conclude that the operator has fully complied with the Code above and the terms are set out on the signs and the PCN amount for any breaches of those terms. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code,) which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Clause 14.1 relates to relationship with landowner and states: Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s). The operator has provided a witness statement which stipulates the site in question, provides a start date of July 2025, which runs for 6 months and is signed by the Gym Group. I find this statement more than reasonable to demonstrate the operator has authority to issue PCN’s on the land in question. In relation to Clause 11 of the Code, the appellant will need to raise a complaint directly with GroupNexus info@groupnexus.co.uk. POPLA can only assess the validity of the PCN against the terms. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is unfair and excessive. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. 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 itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of 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. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that the driver broke them by failing to validate their stay. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Yes, I did, and now I’m in the long wait for the POPLA response.

I have uploaded the The Gym Group witness statement here https://ibb.co/4wgwTzyL

GroupNexus have uploaded their Operator Information and Evidence — a 57-page PDF, mostly photos of the car park. They still haven’t addressed the key points I raised (with the help of  b789), that there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge and the creditor is not identified.Should I mention this again in the "My Comments on the operator evidence" box?The file contains   Evidence checklist   Case summary (pasted below)   Original PCN   Appeal rejection   Parking layout and image locations   Lots of photos dated 15/12/2022 (yes, 2022!) and 08/04/2025   Other Evidence – a permit-search showing whether the registration was entered into the terminal   A witness statement from the Head of Estate Management for The Gym Group, confirming that CP Plus Ltd has authority from The Gym Group to carry out parking management and enforcementWhat’s interesting is that when I previously asked The Gym Group to help cancel the PCN, they told me they didn’t have a contract with the parking operator and that it was the landowner instead. This evidence now proves that was not true.Section B: Case Summary and rules/conditionsCase SummaryThe Parking Charge was issued under POFA. Mr <Name>, who we are holding liable as the Registered Keeperappealed stating that he will not name the driver.Rejecting his appeal, we advised that clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of theneed to validate their vehicle registration, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passingmultiple signs.As the keeper did not provide us with details of the driver within 28 days of the Charge being issued we arepursuing them as the registered keeper. We can confirm that the Notice to Keeper advises that if the amountrequested in the Notice has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver's name and currentaddress), the registered keeper, will, subject to the conditions of, and under the terms of Schedule 4 of theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012, be liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge.By parking the vehicle on the site the driver entered into a valid contract and agreed to abide by its terms andconditions. The ample signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and conditions of use. One of theconditions is that there is free parking for customers who have registered on the console inside the gym. Thesignage advises that a Parking Charge of £100 will be issued when allowing your vehicle to remain on site withoutregistering your vehicle at the touchscreen console inside the gym.It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they comply with the terms and conditions of the site. In this case, byallowing the vehicle to remain on site for 53 minutes without the driver registering the vehicle at the touchscreenconsole inside the gym, the driver breached those terms and conditions.Registering your vehicle at the touchscreen console inside the gym generates an electronic permit. We haveincluded in Section G a copy of the search which confirms that this vehicle did not hold a valid permit for this siteon the day in question which means that the driver did not register the vehicle at the touchscreen console insidethe gym. We highlight that Mr <Name> does not claim that the driver correctly registered his vehicle registrationat the site on the date in question.We can confirm that the signage is displayed in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations – please seeimages and photographs provided in Section F which support this.In Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis, it was found at County Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court level, thatappealing a Parking Charge on the basis that the amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss is not a successfuldefence in law.In the Court of Appeal judgement, Sir Timothy Lloyd held that “for the law to prohibit a provision such as theoverstaying charge, on the basis that it bears no relationship to the loss suffered…would fail to take account ofthe nature of the contract, with its gratuitous but valuable benefit of two hours’ free parking, and of the entirelylegitimate reason for limiting that facility to a two hour period.”The Judges considered whether a Parking Charge could be invalidated on the grounds that the overstay was agenuine mistake, that the Parking Charge is a penalty, that the Operator has no commercial interest or shouldcharge a more modest amount and that the charge was a deterrent to the motorist. In the Court of Appealjudgement, these legal arguments were analysed and it was unanimously agreed that not one of thempresented a legally valid basis for invalidating the charge.Instead, it was found that the provision of a free parking facility on a retail park is a useful service for motoristsand shopkeepers alike. In the Judges’ estimation, a driver who overstays the allowed time period inconveniencesthe former group and causes a material loss to the latter.It was found that, in order to facilitate a turnover of visitors, the Terms and Conditions of a car park shouldprovide a “disincentive to drivers.” The imposition of such charges was deemed to be “not extravagant orunconscionable and the contract was therefore enforceable at common law.”The Court of Appeal also explained that municipal parking charges are identical in nature and that only thismethod of enforcement, rather than a graduated system of charges where motorists pay a fee proportionate tothe length of the time they have overstayed, can deter widespread abuse of car parks.The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a majority of six to one, declaring that the charge does notcontravene the penalty rule or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and reiterating theconclusions of the Court of Appeal.We note that the judgments passed down by the County Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court haveprovided a clear endorsement of Operators’ rights to issue a Parking Charge and established a legal precedentrebutting drivers who appeal a Parking Charge on grounds that the charge does not reflect a genuinepre-estimate of loss.We therefore seek to rely on the authority of the higher Courts and would submit that the appellant in this caseshould not be afforded a defence in law that has been rejected by the judiciary.We can confirm that we have the authority to act on behalf of the landowner – please see the signed witnessstatement provided in Section G that confirms this. The onus is on the appellant to provide evidence to supporttheir claim that we do not – if the appellant genuinely believes that we do not have such authority, they shouldhave gone to the BPA to obtain this information.We highlight that The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice 2024 section F.3 states that Parking Chargesshould be reduced to £20 for 14 days when the appellant has provided evidence that “the vehicle would havebeen permitted to park at the location, but the driver failed to enter their registration into a terminal/device asspecified in the terms & conditions.”.We did not offer Mr <Name> the opportunity to pay the reduced fee of £20, as he did not provide us with theevidence to show that he was a legitimate user of the site on the date in question. We have included in section Ga screenshot taken from our appeals portal which shows that the appellant was asked to provide evidence tosupport their claim when submitting their appeal.Our position remains that we have received no mitigating circumstances or evidence for which we shouldcancel the Parking Charge. We maintain the registered keeper entered into a valid contract and should paythe valid parking charges as per the signage on the site.

That’s a brilliant! I’ve added it in my appeal. does everything look good? ok to submit?This is a story about a parking ticket.The Keeper received a Parking Charge Notice from GroupNexus dated 23 September 2025 for a car parked at The Gym Group Northampton. After reading it carefully, the Keeper realised the notice does not follow the law, so this appeal is being made.There is a law called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, known as PoFA. It sets strict rules a parking company must follow if it wants to make the keeper pay instead of the driver. One rule says the notice must invite the keeper to pay the charge or name the driver (Schedule 4, para 9(2)(e)(i)). GroupNexus’s letter says, “The driver of the vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge in full… If you were not the driver, you should tell us the name and address of the driver.” It never once invites the keeper to pay. That wording is required by law. Because it is missing, the notice does not comply with PoFA.The law also says the notice must clearly name the creditor entitled to recover the money. The notice that the Keeper received claims that GroupNexus is “a trading name of CP Plus Ltd.” However, this is factually incorrect and misleading.According to Companies House records:CP Plus Ltd is registered company number 02595379, incorporated on 26 March 1991, with a registered office at Jack Straw’s Castle, 12 North End Way, London, England, NW3 7ES.GroupNexus Ltd is a completely separate legal entity, registered company number 15560549, incorporated on 13 March 2024, and registered at Jack Straw’s Castle, North End Way, London, England, NW3 7ES.GroupNexus Ltd is therefore not just a trading name of CP Plus Ltd, but an independent limited company. The Notice to Keeper does not make clear whether the alleged creditor is CP Plus Ltd, GroupNexus Ltd, or another entity entirely.PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(h) requires that a notice must identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification may be made. The notice does not identify which legal entity is the creditor, and is therefore in breach of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(h). Without knowing who the creditor actually is, the Keeper cannot know who is lawfully entitled to recover the charge. This failure alone means keeper liability cannot apply.When a parking company does not follow PoFA, it cannot transfer liability to the keeper. It can only pursue the driver. GroupNexus admits it does not know who the driver was, and the Keeper has not said. Therefore, keeper liability does not apply and the charge must be cancelled.Even if we look past that, GroupNexus has provided no evidence that the Keeper was the driver. The law does not allow them to assume this. They have no proof—only a guess.At the entrance to the car park, there is a small sign that reads:“Gym Customers Only – Console Validation Required. Please see signage within car park for full terms and conditions.”That is all. It does not show any parking charge amount, enforcement warning, or clear explanation of terms. The sign is small, set back from the road, and difficult to read while driving in. Under Clause 3 (Signs and Surface Markings) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, February 2025), entrance signs must be visible, legible, and unambiguous to drivers. They must make it clear that terms and conditions apply, show the parking operator’s name, and, where relevant, display the maximum parking charge that could be applied.This site’s sign fails those rules completely. A driver entering the car park would have no idea that a £100 charge might later be issued. The key terms were not displayed at the point where any parking contract would begin. Because those essential terms were missing, no valid contract could have been formed, and no charge is enforceable.GroupNexus must also have written permission from the landowner to issue tickets. The PPSCoP requires this. Unless GroupNexus produces an unredacted contract showing they have this authority, they cannot lawfully issue or pursue parking charges.The £100 charge is unfair and excessive. The Supreme Court case ParkingEye v Beavis only allowed a charge where all signs were clear, PoFA was followed, and a legitimate interest was shown. None of that applies here. This is an unenforceable penalty.Finally, the notice provides no proper complaints procedure, which breaches Clause 11 of the Private Parking Sector Code of Practice (v1.1 – February 2025). This shows further unfairness in how GroupNexus operates.To put it simply: the notice does not invite the Keeper to pay, does not name the creditor, and does not comply with PoFA. The driver has not been identified, the signs are unclear, there is no proof of landowner authority, and the charge is unfair.Thank you for taking the time to consider this appeal. The Keeper respectfully asks that POPLA upholds it and instructs GroupNexus to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

I followed a suggestion from one of your earlier posts (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/total-car-parks-gorleston-high-street-paid-less-than-displayed-tariff/msg89858/#msg89858) and compiled the following draft.This is a story about a parking ticket.The Keeper received a Parking Charge Notice from GroupNexus dated 23 September 2025 for a car parked at The Gym Group Northampton. After reading it carefully, the Keeper realised the notice does not follow the law, so this appeal is being made.There is a law called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, known as PoFA. It sets strict rules a parking company must follow if it wants to make the keeper pay instead of the driver. One rule says the notice must invite the keeper to pay the charge or name the driver (Schedule 4, para 9(2)(e)(i)). GroupNexus’s letter says, “The driver of the vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge in full… If you were not the driver, you should tell us the name and address of the driver.” It never once invites the keeper to pay. That wording is required by law. Because it is missing, the notice does not comply with PoFA.The law also says the notice must clearly name the creditor entitled to recover the money (PoFA para 9(2)(h)). This letter does not. It just refers to GroupNexus without identifying who the creditor actually is. That is another failure.When a parking company does not follow PoFA, it cannot transfer liability to the keeper. It can only pursue the driver. GroupNexus admits it does not know who the driver was, and the Keeper has not said. Therefore, keeper liability does not apply and the charge must be cancelled.Even if we look past that, GroupNexus has provided no evidence that the Keeper was the driver. The law does not allow them to assume this. They have no proof—only a guess.At the entrance to the car park, there is a small sign that reads:“Gym Customers Only – Console Validation Required. Please see signage within car park for full terms and conditions.”That is all. It does not show any parking charge amount, enforcement warning, or clear explanation of terms. The sign is small, set back from the road, and difficult to read while driving in. Under Clause 3 (Signs and Surface Markings) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1, February 2025), entrance signs must be visible, legible, and unambiguous to drivers. They must make it clear that terms and conditions apply, show the parking operator’s name, and, where relevant, display the maximum parking charge that could be applied.This site’s sign fails those rules completely. A driver entering the car park would have no idea that a £100 charge might later be issued. The key terms were not displayed at the point where any parking contract would begin. Because those essential terms were missing, no valid contract could have been formed, and no charge is enforceable.GroupNexus must also have written permission from the landowner to issue tickets. The PPSCoP requires this. Unless GroupNexus produces an unredacted contract showing they have this authority, they cannot lawfully issue or pursue parking charges.The £100 charge is unfair and excessive. The Supreme Court case ParkingEye v Beavis only allowed a charge where all signs were clear, PoFA was followed, and a legitimate interest was shown. None of that applies here. This is an unenforceable penalty.Finally, the notice provides no proper complaints procedure, which breaches Clause 11 of the Private Parking Sector Code of Practice (v1.1 – February 2025). This shows further unfairness in how GroupNexus operates.To put it simply: the notice does not invite the Keeper to pay, does not name the creditor, and does not comply with PoFA. The driver has not been identified, the signs are unclear, there is no proof of landowner authority, and the charge is unfair.Thank you for taking the time to consider this appeal. The Keeper respectfully asks that POPLA upholds it and instructs GroupNexus to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

I’ve gathered information from the forum and put together my POPLA appeal. Please let me know if anything needs to be changed. I don't have the pictures of the parking signs at the site and the driver has also moved away from Nottingham so I'll have to rely on google images. If you don't recommend #4, I will remove it. Thanks. https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME16WV1Y https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Gym+Group+Northampton+Central/@52.2407804,-0.8875742,3a,75y,61.64h,88.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMEZNWjlxdEggvkUuyuJ9Fg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.4786296185740042%26panoid%3DMEZNWjlxdEggvkUuyuJ9Fg%26yaw%3D61.64458222546785!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x48770fa63a1d7999:0x51dbfa92a28b8295!8m2!3d52.2408805!4d-0.8872588!16s%2Fg%2F11t4c6_9d_?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTAwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3DPOPLA Verification Code: [Verification Code]GroupNexus PCN Number: [PCN Number]Re: Appeal against GroupNexus Parking Charge NoticeI am the registered keeper of vehicle [Car Reg Number] and am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by GroupNexus on 23/09/2025. This appeal is based on the following detailed grounds, which demonstrate that the charge is invalid, unfair, and unenforceable:1. No Keeper Liability – Non-Compliant Notice to KeeperThe Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by GroupNexus does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), therefore the operator cannot hold the keeper liable.•   Breach of Para 9(2)(e)(i): The NtK does not include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the charge or to name the driver.•   Breach of Para 9(2)(h): The NtK fails to identify the creditor entitled to recover the parking charge.As these omissions mean GroupNexus has not met the strict requirements of PoFA 2012, only the driver can be held liable. I am the registered keeper and there is no evidence or admission as to who was driving. Therefore, liability cannot be transferred to me, and the charge must be cancelled.2. No Evidence That the Keeper is the Driver – Burden of ProofAs GroupNexus has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper. Therefore, the operator is put to strict proof that the person they are pursuing is the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.GroupNexus is required to provide evidence that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver. They cannot simply assume or infer that the keeper and driver are the same person. Mere assumptions are not sufficient grounds for liability.In the absence of clear, compelling evidence that the registered keeper was the driver at the time, GroupNexus has no legal basis to pursue this charge. Therefore, I put GroupNexus to strict proof that the person they are pursuing was indeed the driver. Failing this, the charge must be cancelled.3. No Evidence of Landowner AuthorityGroupNexus is required to provide strict proof that they have the authority to issue parking charges on this land. The BPA Code of Practice (Para 7.1) requires operators to have written authorisation from the landowner. As a third-party operator, GroupNexus must demonstrate that they have a valid contract with the landholder, giving them the right to manage parking and pursue charges in their own name. I request that GroupNexus produce an unredacted copy of their contract with the landholder, demonstrating that they have the legal authority to issue PCNs and enforce parking charges. This contract should clearly outline:- The boundaries of the land they are authorised to manage.- The restrictions and conditions on parking enforcement.- Who is responsible for signage and its maintenance.If GroupNexus cannot provide this evidence, they have no legal grounds to issue or enforce this PCN.4. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of PracticeGroupNexus, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), must comply with its Code of Practice (CoP). Several breaches of this Code have occurred in this case:Section 18.1 – Clear and Prominent Entrance Signs:The BPA Code of Practice requires that entrance signs clearly convey that the car park is managed and that terms and conditions apply. In this case, the signage at the entrance was inadequate and did not provide a clear indication of any charges. This means that no contract could have been formed upon entry, as the driver would not have been informed of the essential terms governing their use of the site.Section 18.3 – Prominent Display of the Parking Charge:The BPA Code of Practice, Section 18.3, specifically states that signs “must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read, and understand.” Furthermore, the Code requires that any parking charges, such as the charge for breaching terms and conditions, “must be in a font size large enough to be easily seen, read, and understood by drivers.”•   Terms and conditions were not clearly visible or legible on entry or throughout the car park.•   The signs are poorly lit and positioned, preventing drivers from reading and understanding the terms before parking.•   If ANPR cameras are in use, the signs also fail to explain how data will be processed, breaching Paragraph 21.1.Because the terms were not properly communicated, no contract could have been formed, and any charge based on contractual breach is invalid.5. Failure to Provide a Clear Complaints Procedure (BPA Code of Practice – Paragraph 20.5)Under Paragraph 20.5 of the BPA Code of Practice, operators must have an accessible and transparent complaints procedure.GroupNexus’s Notice to Keeper and subsequent correspondence did not include any details on how to submit a formal complaint regarding the handling of this charge.This is a further breach of the BPA Code and demonstrates procedural unfairness.6. The Charge is Unfair and UnenforceableThe £100 charge (or £60 discounted rate) is excessive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.The ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case does not apply because:•   The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA,•   The signage is unclear, and•   No legitimate interest has been demonstrated.The charge is therefore an unenforceable penalty.ConclusionIn light of the above points, it is clear that:•   GroupNexus does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and it breaches Para 9(2)(e)(i) and Para 9(2)(h).•   GroupNexus failed to form a valid contract with the driver due to inadequate and unclear signage.•   GroupNexus cannot transfer liability to the keeper as they have not complied with PoFA.•   GroupNexus has no evidence that the registered keeper was the driver.•   GroupNexus’s signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.•   GroupNexus has not provided evidence of their authority to issue parking charges on the land.Given these significant failings, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct GroupNexus to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.Signed:[Name][Date]

GroupNexus rejected my appeal and sent me a POPLA code. I’ll post my POPLA appeal here for your advice before submitting it.

Thank you. I have submitted my appeal online exactly as you advised.

The driver is a member of The Gym Group and parked at the Northampton Central Gym Group premises to go to the gym on 15th September. The driver may or may not have entered the car registration number into the terminal inside the gym, but they do have proof of their gym visit via the Gym Group mobile app.Last week, I (the registered keeper of the car) received a PCN from GroupNexus dated 23/09/2023. I asked the driver to contact The Gym Group's customer service to request assistance with cancelling the PCN. However, customer service said they do not have jurisdiction over the parking operator’s decisions, as they don’t manage the parking themselves. They explained that the parking facilities are managed either directly by the parking company or by them on behalf of the leaseholder of the premises/land.Since the parking area is within The Gym Group's premises and is for gym members only, I believe the parking operator is acting on behalf of the leaseholder. I asked the driver to request contact details for the leaseholder from customer service. When the driver followed up, customer service refused to share that information, stating it was confidential and not something they could disclose. They advised using the appeal process and submitting a screenshot from the app as proof of a genuine gym visit.I tried to research the landlord details online, but had no luck—only found sale details for a different Gym Group site in Northampton.Is it okay to use the advice mentioned in the following link along with the app screenshot, as evidence in the appeal? https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/groupnexus-penalty-charge-no-validation-the-gym-group-ilford-romford-road/msg84647/#msg84647 In this thread the OP said "Update - parking charge has been cancelled after sending 1st appeal!   I sent the appeal template that you provided and added that the gym management have been made aware and the manager instructed that the parking company be provided with a screen shot to show that the driver was authorised to park there (screenshot was attached to appeal)."Could sending the screenshot now cause issues later in legal proceedings if GroupNexus rejects the appeal and I decide not to pay the PCN?https://www.imagebam.com/view/GAG9JPHope I have not redacted too much.