Free Traffic Legal Advice

Response summary to the operators evidence:

GroupNexus never engages with the pleaded PoFA defects. Instead, they wave the statute around as a talisman, quote 9(2)(f), and hope keeper liability materialises by incantation. It doesn’t. Keeper liability under Schedule 4 is all-or-nothing. Their NtK flunks mandatory content, so the keeper cannot be liable. Everything else (signs, bays, photos) is a driver-only dispute and legally irrelevant once PoFA fails.

1) Keeper liability under PoFA is strictly conditional

Schedule 4 requires full compliance with every mandatory element (including all limbs of para 9(2), plus 9(4)–(6)). “Close enough” or “we mentioned PoFA” is legally meaningless. GroupNexus nowhere demonstrates complete compliance; they merely assert it. Threadbare assertion is not evidence.

2) Fatal 9(2)(a) defects: relevant land and period of parking

a) a) Relevant land
The NtK’s “Liverpool Docks” label is comically vague. “Liverpool Docks” corresponds to the Port of Liverpool waterfront—an enclosed dock system stretching about 7.5 miles along the Mersey, from Brunswick Dock to Seaforth Dock (and mirrored on the Wirral)—not a single car park, road, or site.

It comprises dozens of named docks and waterfront districts, penetrated by numerous public highways and flanked by major commercial and civic buildings. Even UNESCO’s former waterfront inscription (revoked in 2021) defined just a central slice of this area as six separate locations extending ~4 km north–south and ~1 km east–west, covering ~136 hectares (~0.5 sq miles), encompassing landmark buildings such as the Three Graces and dense city streets.

Over two centuries Liverpool built more than 50 docks across roughly seven miles; modern sources still describe around 40+ docks. Describing the location as “Liverpool Docks” is the antithesis of “specifying the relevant land” required by PoFA 9(2)(a). If the operator cannot pinpoint one identifiable car park or site within an urban dock estate spanning miles of waterfront, streets and buildings, the keeper cannot be pinned with liability.

b) Period of parking
GroupNexus’ evidence performs Olympic-level evasion. Faced with a black-letter requirement in PoFA 9(2)(a) to “specify the period of parking”, they serve up… nothing. Not a period, not even a pretence of one. Instead they pad the file with still photos and timestamps of instants, as if POPLA won’t notice that a snapshot is the exact opposite of a period.

This is not a minor nicety; it is a gateway condition for keeper liability. The operator carries the burden to specify an actual span of time the vehicle was parked. They have not even tried.

Their reliance on images and “observed at” notations is legally useless for PoFA 9(2)(a). A single moment does not establish how long a vehicle was parked, whether the driver was in a consideration window reading terms, or whether the vehicle left promptly before a contract could be formed. That is precisely why appellate reasoning in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions mattered: instants are not periods.

GroupNexus knows this, which is why their “rebuttal” carefully avoids the point altogether. Silence is not compliance. Put bluntly: if GroupNexus could state a period, they would. They didn’t, because they can’t. And if they can’t, Schedule 4 transfer fails as a matter of law. All the bluster about bays and signage is driver-only noise. Without a stated period of parking on the NtK, keeper liability does not even get out of the starting blocks.

3) Waving 9(2)(f) around does not cure 9(2)(a)

They trumpet the presence of a 9(2)(f) warning (“subject to the conditions of Schedule 4”). But that clause depends on all other conditions being met. It’s a warning, not a cure-all. You cannot plaster a 9(2)(f) sentence over a 9(2)(a) hole and call it compliant.

4) PoFA 9(2)(h) failure: creditor not identified

For completeness within the same PoFA ground: the NtK fails 9(2)(h) because it does not identify the “creditor”. The notice is branded “GroupNexus” and says that is a trading name of CP Plus Ltd, yet since March 2024 “GroupNexus Ltd” exists as a separate legal entity. The NtK does not state which legal person is the creditor: CP Plus Ltd (02595379) or GroupNexus Ltd (15560549). Ambiguity between two distinct companies (same directors, same address) is a material failure of 9(2)(h). If they cannot even identify who the creditor is, keeper liability cannot arise.

5) Their “deemed delivery” mantra and 9(2)(f) name-dropping are legally worthless

GroupNexus parrots: “issued 17/07/2025, deemed delivered 21/07/2025... given under 9(2)(f).” That’s not a rebuttal; it’s a confession that they don’t understand how PoFA (or service by post) actually works.

First, timing is a sideshow. Keeper liability lives or dies on content compliance. Even if their deemed-delivery date were spot-on, the NtK still flunks mandatory content under 9(2)(a) (no relevant land; no period of parking) and 9(2)(h) (creditor not identified). You cannot “arrive on time” with the wrong document and expect Schedule 4 to bite. Timing cannot resuscitate a fatally defective notice.

Second, “deemed delivery” is a rebuttable presumption, not a magic stamp. It only arises if the sender can first prove proper posting (correctly addressed, prepaid, posted). If challenged, the burden swings back to the operator to prove posting and, if necessary, actual delivery. Chanting “the contrary has not been proven” is backwards. It is their job to evidence posting; it is not the keeper’s job to prove a negative. This is black-letter: the presumption of service under ordinary post is contingent and collapses when credible evidence of non-receipt is raised or when the sender can’t prove posting. Their staff should know this before lecturing POPLA about “deemed delivery”.

Third, their fixation on 9(2)(f) is legally illiterate. 9(2)(f) is merely a warning clause that keeper liability may follow “subject to the conditions of Schedule 4”. It does not cure missing elements elsewhere. Quoting 9(2)(f) while failing 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(h) is like waving a boarding pass for a flight you never booked. Name-dropping a paragraph is not compliance with it.

Bottom line: (i) They haven’t proved posting; (ii) “deemed delivery” is rebuttable and, in any event, irrelevant to the fatal content defects; (iii) reciting 9(2)(f) doesn’t paper over missing 9(2)(a)/(h) requirements. Their submission on timing and 9(2)(f) doesn’t just miss the point—it advertises that they don’t understand the statute they’re trying to hide behind.

6) Misconceived pivot to signage and bay markings

They devote pages to “clear signage”, “no parking on pavements”, and “not within a bay”. Those are driver-only issues. GroupNexus expressly says it does not know the driver and is “pursuing the registered keeper”. That route exists only if PoFA is strictly met. It isn’t. Once keeper liability collapses, their signage sermon is legally irrelevant to the keeper.

7) Photos are not proof of a period, nor proof of contract formation

Even indulging their diversion: a couple of photos of a stationary vehicle prove neither a period of parking nor contract formation. The consideration period and grace principles (now industry-standard) exist precisely because a driver may pause briefly to read terms and leave. If there is no evidenced period, there is no contract and no breach—quite apart from the PoFA issue already being dispositive.

“We say PoFA applies” is not how statutes work

The operator’s entire keeper case is a confidence trick: “PoFA applies because we wrote the words ‘under PoFA’ on our NtK.” Quoting a statute is not compliance with it. Their approach is intellectually malnourished: assertion in, liability out. Schedule 4 demands specifics; they offer slogans.

9) Bottom line

- No specified relevant land (9(2)(a))
- No stated period of parking (9(2)(a))
- Creditor not identified (9(2)(h))
- 9(2)(f) warning cannot cure missing 9(2)(a)/(h) content
- Signage/bay rhetoric is driver-only and irrelevant to keeper liability

Therefore, Schedule 4 transfer fails. The operator cannot hold the keeper liable. POPLA must allow the appeal on PoFA grounds alone.

10) Remedy sought

Allow the appeal. The operator’s evidence does not rebut the pleaded PoFA defects; it merely repeats its own conclusions. Keeper liability is not engaged.