Author Topic: Car broken down in store car park  (Read 1506 times)

0 Members and 726 Guests are viewing this topic.

Car broken down in store car park
« on: »
On the 2nd of September 2025 a car was parked in what was assumed to be Currys car park.
The driver went to Currys, had a couple of demos and made a purchase.

Upon returning to the car, it completely failed to power up. After several attempts the driver gave up and went to find a taxi to go and seek help.

As the owner of the car it fell to me to arrange recovery. I went to the local EV specialist, who agreed to attend as soon as he could. I left the key with him. Several hours later he went in his truck to fetch the car, but was apparently able to work some magic with his diagnostic programmer thingy that fixed the issue on site. He returned the key to me and I ordered an Uber to take me to fetch the car.

At no point did any of us realise this was any kind of managed car park until the 18th September when I received the notice to keeper. It states an issue date of 10th September.

I assume it is irrelevant that the driver’s blue badge was displayed throughout.



                           NTK-F              https://ibb.co/278GTBcY
                           NTK-R              https://ibb.co/nst74hrd
                           Sign1              https://ibb.co/PZc4Pjr4
                           Tariff             https://ibb.co/F4Wp5WhM
                           T&C                https://ibb.co/wZ9qjxsm



Any advice gratefully Received.

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Car broken down in store car park
« Reply #1 on: »
The Notice to Keeper simply says that it has been issued because the vehicle remained for longer than the free parking period and they have no record of payment. The contractual terms require that a payment of Ł2 be made if the driver wants to extend the stay to 6 hours, which is the maximum allowed. Also, any parking "overnight" which appears to be between the hours of 2200 and 0430 can be purchased for Ł5.

You say the driver did not realise that it was a managed car park. However, you have show an entrance sign that clearly states the car park is private land and that tariffs apply etc. The fact that he driver did not read the signs is not really relevant, especially if the signs are conspicuous.

Do you have a breakdown report from the mechanic? You will require that, even if only to try and mitigate any claim.

The initial appeal will never be accepted but it may be won at POPLA. If that does not work, this would be won if they issue a claim. These are technicalities which would likely win:

1. No keeper liability – PoFA 9(2)(h) not met:
• NtK is headed/issued by “GroupNexus”.
• Signage footer names “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”.
• “GroupNexus” also exists as a separate limited company.
• The creditor is not identified with the required clarity and certainty.

2. No enforceable driver contract due to ambiguity of the contracting party:
• The identity of the principal/creditor on the signs conflicts with the NtK.
• Contra proferentem applies; any ambiguity is construed against the drafter.
• An agreement cannot be enforced where the contracting party is not clear.

3. No standing:
• Put to strict proof of a contemporaneous landowner contract expressly granting the named legal entity (the same entity identified as creditor) the right to enter contracts and to pursue charges in its own name.
• A contract in the wrong entity’s name, or relying on a trading style without clarity, is insufficient.

Evidence required:
• Photo of the NtK showing “GroupNexus” as issuer and the absence of a clear creditor identification.
• Photos of the signs showing “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” in the footer.

Why the creditor is not identified:
• GroupNexus Limited — Company No. 15560549, incorporated 13 March 2024.
• CP Plus Limited — Company No. 02595379 (long-standing entity used on signage as “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”).

The NtK is branded ‘GroupNexus’, whilst the signage states ‘CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus’. ‘GroupNexus Limited’ (company number 15560549) was incorporated on 13 March 2024. The creditor is not identified as required by PoFA para 9(2)(h), and the contracting party is ambiguous.

For now, simply appeal with the following:

Quote
Subject: PCN [reference] – Vehicle [VRM] – Castle Marina Retail Park, NG7 – 02/09/2025

I am the keeper 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 Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, specifically paragraph 9(2)(h), because it fails to identify the creditor, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. The NtK is branded “GroupNexus”, whereas the site signage states “Managed and operated by CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”. GroupNexus Limited (company no. 15560549) is a separate legal entity, incorporated on 13 March 2024. Your paperwork and signage do not make clear which legal person is the creditor to whom any sum would be owed.

This ambiguity is fatal to 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 and cannot transfer liability to the keeper where PoFA is not strictly met.

As keeper, I will not be identifying the driver. No adverse inference can be drawn. You have relied on alleged contract breach against the driver only and cannot transfer liability to the keeper where PoFA is not strictly met.

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. [Operator] have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Separately, any alleged contract was frustrated. The vehicle suffered an unexpected immobilising fault and could not be moved while assistance was arranged. A mechanic attended the site the same day and restored the vehicle without recovery. A copy of the mechanic’s report is enclosed. A Blue Badge was displayed. Penalising unavoidable breakdown time is unreasonable and inconsistent with your duty to make reasonable adjustments.

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.

Come back when that appeal is rejected.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Car broken down in store car park
« Reply #2 on: »
Many thanks for that.

I submitted it, and have now received the 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 4 hours between 4:30-22:00
with the option to extend with payment up to 6 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.

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 Ł100.00 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.

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): **********

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

Re: Car broken down in store car park
« Reply #3 on: »
SO you now have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit an appeal to POPLA. Have a search of the forum for other recent POPLA appeals to get a feel for how to format it.

When you have something you think is ready, show it to use here and we will advise on any changes that you may need to make. I have already given you the main points to argue.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: Car broken down in store car park
« Reply #4 on: »
My attempt at a draft
https://ibb.co/fVLC0ZHL

Re: Car broken down in store car park
« Reply #5 on: »
Very nice and succinct. Do you have any receipt/evidence of the mechanic for the services provided? Including that as additional evidence of breakdown would assist.

As the driver is not identified, and relying on PoFA failures to show that you cannot be liable as the Keeper is good. Whilst you have identified as the driver who recovered the vehicle, it is only the person who drove the car and parked that can be the liable party.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: Car broken down in store car park
« Reply #6 on: »
I submitted my appeal to POPLA on time, got confirmation and waited for the operator to reply.
After about 3 1/2 weeks I got an email from POPLA, simply informing me that my appeal has been withdrawn.
I went to the POPLA site and there is a note from the operator stating "After further investigation we have decided to cancel this Charge"

All credit and many thanks to b789 for all the help, guidance and patience without which this result would not have been achieved.
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Re: Car broken down in store car park
« Reply #7 on: »
Well done. However, you should also send the following complaint to POPLA at info@popla.co.uk and CC enquiries@flexibleresolutionservices.co.uk; info@trustalliancegroup.org:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – Incoherent and Unprofessional “Appeal Withdrawn” Correspondence

Dear POPLA Team,

I am writing to raise a formal complaint about the extraordinarily poor standard of the template email issued when an operator cancels a Parking Charge Notice before an appeal is assessed. The communication I received is so lacking in clarity, logic, and basic literacy that it calls into question the intellectual capability and procedural understanding of the person or team responsible for drafting it.

The phrase “the operator has withdrawn your appeal” is, on its face, nonsensical. An operator cannot withdraw an appellant’s submission, and no competent writer would use wording that implies otherwise. The fact that this has been adopted as standard text suggests that whoever authored it did not understand the process they were meant to be describing, or lacked the linguistic ability to articulate it accurately. Either possibility is deeply concerning.

The rest of the letter is equally inelegant. It is clumsily structured, contradictory in places, and written in such a muddled fashion that it reads like a hastily assembled paragraph from someone intellectually out of their depth. Basic sequencing, grammatical consistency, and coherence are all missing. The message lurches between confused hypotheticals and ill-fitting explanations, none of which reflect how the process actually works.

It is not merely embarrassing; it is an indictment of the level of internal oversight within POPLA. Any halfway competent professional would have sent this back for correction. Instead, it has been allowed to stand as an official communication from an organisation that claims to assess evidence, interpret procedures, and apply reasoning in a quasi-judicial setting.

If the standard of written communication is this poor, it raises a legitimate question: how can the public have confidence that POPLA is capable of the analytical, evidential, and reasoning-based work expected of an appeals service? A body that cannot draft a coherent template letter cannot reasonably be assumed to possess the competence required to evaluate appeals with fairness and intellectual rigour.

I request confirmation that this complaint will be logged and reviewed, and I expect a response addressing:

1. How this wording was approved;
2. Whether POPLA acknowledges that the current text is inaccurate, misleading, and grammatically deficient; and
3. What steps will be taken to correct the template and improve internal quality control.

I look forward to your prompt and considered response.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]

Just puts on record how inept they are.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain