Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks DWMB2, I'm here to learn. So your point is well taken 😅

Well, we did it 🥳🍾

The predatory scumbags at GroupNexus have given up and withdrawn the parking charge.

Big shout out to jfollows, b789, and everyone else who contributed to this momentous (at least for me) decision. I didn't even think this was possible, really, but I've learned a lot and can't wait to sound like a boffin down the pub next time someone says they've got an unlawful parking charge.

Peace ✌🏼

Next up, this is the POPLA appeal I've drafted based on examples I've found. Any feedback more than welcome. I have about a month to submit it.

---

Evidence to upload:

• Hertz email forwarding the PCN
• GroupNexus’ original document sent to Hertz (the original NTK quoting para 9)
• The notice they sent to me (re-addressed, with no hire docs)

---

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. The appeal is allowed on the following grounds.

1. No keeper/hirer liability under POFA 2012 schedule 4 (hire vehicles)

GroupNexus has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 paragraphs 13–14. What I received is plainly a re-addressed copy of the original Notice to Keeper to Hertz that still purports to rely on paragraph 9. For a hire vehicle, a valid Notice to Hirer must be served with all of the prescribed documents:

• a copy of the hire agreement
• a statement of liability signed by the hirer
• a copy of the original notice

None of these documents were enclosed. In addition, the operator has provided no evidence that any Notice to Hirer (with all enclosures) was delivered within the statutory timescale in para 14(2)(a). POPLA will be able to see from the operator’s own rejection letter that they assert “we are holding the registered keeper liable”. The registered keeper is Hertz, not me. In the absence of full compliance with Sch 4 paras 13–14, the operator cannot transfer liability to the hirer/keeper. I am not naming the driver.

This ground alone requires that the appeal be allowed.

2. No evidence of landowner authority

The operator is put to strict proof of a current, unredacted contract with the landowner (not merely a site agreement with an agent) that:

• grants CP Plus/GroupNexus authority to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue charges to POPLA/court, and
• covers this specific site and the material period

If such authority is not produced, the charge is invalid under the BPA Code of Practice (section 7).

3. Inadequate and non-prominent signage, including at EV charging bays

The terms relied upon (free 2-hour limit and tariff thereafter) were not prominently brought to the attention of drivers using the EV charging area. The operator must supply a contemporaneous signage plan and dated photos showing: entrance signage legibility from a moving vehicle, the font sizes of the core terms, and the signs positioned at the EV chargers. Under the BPA Code (sections 19 & 21), 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”. That standard is not met here.

4. No evidence of a compliant “period of parking” and failure to allow grace/consideration periods

The times shown are ANPR entry/exit times, not the mandatory “period of parking” required by PoFA Sch 4. They will include circulation, queueing for a charger, connecting/disconnecting, and exiting. The BPA Code requires both a reasonable consideration period on arrival and a minimum 10-minute grace period on leaving. The operator is put to strict proof that both were allowed and that the alleged overstay is not merely ANPR timestamp padding.

5. Unfair/unclear consumer terms

If the operator relies on any alleged contractual term, it must be transparent and prominent. Given the EV-charging context and the absence of prominent warnings at the chargers themselves, any purported agreement to pay £100 is not transparent or fairly incorporated (Consumer Rights Act 2015). The operator is put to strict proof.

Conclusion

Because GroupNexus failed to comply with PoFA Schedule 4 for hire vehicles, they cannot transfer liability to me as hirer/keeper. The remaining points (authority, signage, and grace periods) give further independent reasons to allow the appeal. I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct the operator to cancel the charge.

Legend, thank you that's more concise and it's gone straight over to the Hertz Collections team.

Somebody has put a quid in GroupNexus because their responses are flying out. Here's the latest response to my previous email which includes a POPLA code. I will look up next steps/templates, but assuming I now start the appeal with POPLA?

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

I've received a reply from GroupNexus (who are still signing off as CP Plus Ltd).

It's almost like... they didn't read my email—which very explicitly stated I would not be supplying any names.

They are giving me 14 days. Will they automatically reject the appeal after that and provide the POPLA code?

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

That’s a Notice to Keeper, not to Hirer. You were not the Registered Keeper at the time of parking, as claimed.

Do you know why GroupNexus has just sent the same thing they sent to Hertz (NtK) rather than a NtH, which I expected to be the next step in the process?

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?

Mind you, this is exactly what a GroupNexus asset would say...