-
Use logic here, please. If their reminder is dated before you submitted your POPLA appeal, then of course your complaint doesn't apply.
I also suggest you redact all your personal info such as your name, address, PCN number and VRM from that evidence pack before you shoe it to the whole world. -
-
What exactly did you send as your POPLA appeal? Did you include a copy of the byelaws I linked to?
I don't see your actual POPLA appeal, only a copy of your formal complaint to the operator.
This is such a slam dunk case if the byelaws evidence was provided in the POPLA appeal.
Anyway, you can submit your response to the operators evidence pack on their webform. They have not shown that the land is relevant land for the purposes of PoFA and so cannot hold you liable as the Keeper.
Post the following in the POPLA response webform. It is under the 10,000 character limit:QuoteRebuttal to GroupNexus’ Evidence Pack – POPLA Appeal Reference: [Your POPLA Reference]
Introduction
This rebuttal challenges the flawed assertions in GroupNexus’ evidence pack and their continued misrepresentation of PoFA liability. They have failed to refute the fundamental legal point raised in my appeal: the land at Hicks Lodge is indisputably subject to statutory control under the Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982, which means it is not relevant land for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Consequently, the operator cannot lawfully hold the registered keeper liable for any charge.
1. The Operator’s Evidence Pack Ignores the Statutory Control of Hicks Lodge
GroupNexus has ignored the fact that Hicks Lodge is managed by Forestry England and covered by the Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982 (SI 1982/648), established under the Forestry Act 1967. These byelaws regulate vehicle use, including parking, on Forestry England land. This alone makes the land not relevant land under Schedule 4, Paragraph 3(1)(c) of PoFA 2012.
Relevant Byelaw Extract:
- Byelaw 5(1): "No person shall, without reasonable excuse, drive or ride a vehicle or cause or permit a vehicle to be driven or ridden on any land of the Commissioners except on a road or place where there is a right of way for vehicles or on a way or place indicated by a notice erected by the Commissioners as being available for vehicular traffic."
- Byelaw 5(3): "No person shall drive or ride a vehicle or cause or permit a vehicle to be driven or ridden or to stand on any land of the Commissioners in contravention of any notice erected by the Commissioners."
These byelaws confirm that Forestry England has sole statutory authority over parking regulations at Hicks Lodge. As PoFA applies only to land that is not subject to statutory control, GroupNexus' claim that the NTK was issued in compliance with PoFA is demonstrably false.
Definitive Legal Evidence:
The Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982 (SI 1982/648) are definitive legal proof that Hicks Lodge is under statutory control, meaning PoFA does not apply. The operator has provided no counter-evidence, instead attempting to mislead POPLA with irrelevant claims about signage and contractual authority, which are not disputed and do not override statutory control. Their complete failure to address this issue confirms their intent to deceive: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/648/pdfs/uksi_19820648_en.pdf
2. GroupNexus' NTK is Non-PoFA Compliant and in Breach of the PPSCoP
GroupNexus has failed to rebut the fact that their NTK is not PoFA compliant and is in direct breach of the PPSCoP. Their evidence pack remains silent on this, demonstrating that they cannot dispute their misrepresentation of PoFA liability.
Under Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP, operators must not serve a Notice to Keeper that states the keeper is liable under PoFA where they cannot be held liable. Hicks Lodge is under statutory control, meaning PoFA does not apply. GroupNexus has knowingly issued an NTK falsely implying keeper liability, in direct breach of the PPSCoP.
- They have provided no evidence that the land is 'relevant land' under PoFA because they cannot.
- Instead of addressing this, they attempt to mislead POPLA with distractions about signage and contractual authority.
- Their NTK unlawfully states that the keeper is liable, despite this being factually and legally incorrect.
The operator’s refusal to acknowledge this violation is an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading it. They are hoping this misrepresentation will go unnoticed so they can wrongfully enforce a charge with no legal basis. This alone is another compelling reason why this PCN must be cancelled.
3. The Operator’s Evidence is Non-Responsive to the Core Issue
The operator's evidence fails to address the fact that the land is under statutory control:
- Contractual Authority: The appeal did not dispute whether GroupNexus has a contract to issue PCNs. The issue is their attempt to unlawfully impose keeper liability under PoFA when the land is not relevant land.
- Signage Compliance: The appeal did not dispute the existence of signs. The issue is that signage does not override statutory control, and PoFA does not apply regardless of how many signs are present.
- PoFA Compliance: GroupNexus claims their NTK is PoFA-compliant but fails to address the fact that PoFA cannot apply on this land.
No amount of sidestepping will change the fact that Hicks Lodge is under statutory control, making their entire case for keeper liability null and void.
4. Conclusion – This Appeal Must Be Allowed
GroupNexus has failed to:
- Provide any evidence that Hicks Lodge is not under statutory control.
- Justify their reliance on PoFA when it is legally inapplicable to this location.
- Address their blatant non-compliance with Section 8.1.1(d) of the PPSCoP.
- Acknowledge their misrepresentation of keeper liability.
As PoFA cannot apply to land under statutory control, the registered keeper cannot be held liable. The appeal must be upheld, and this Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled immediately.
It is patently obvious that GroupNexus has deliberately misrepresented PoFA liability, assuming the POPLA assessor will be too incompetent to notice. Their entire evidence pack avoids addressing the statutory control of Hicks Lodge, which they know full well excludes the application of PoFA. This is an attempt to pull the wool over POPLA’s eyes, relying on repetition of irrelevant arguments in the hope that the assessor does not grasp the fundamental legal point at hand.
Final Request to POPLA:
Given the operator’s complete failure to address the key issue, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal without further delay and instruct GroupNexus to cancel this unlawful charge. -
-
The above is good but before you send it, as b789 asks above, can you show us your POPLA appeal?
-
-
B789 that was what I trying to say in my post on Feb 21st at 10.37 that I shouldn't make any complaint due to the timings but thanks for confirming, apologies if that wasn't clear. I'm doing this on my phone so I'll delete the file for now and then reload once I can get in front of my computer at work to redact details, I'm not in the office on a laptop very often. I'll put what I sent to popla in my original appeal in here before sending any response
-
-
The below was sent as a pdf.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle ****** and have received the Notice to Keeper (NTK)
from CP Plus. I note that the operator has not identified the driver. I understand that I have no
legal obligation to disclose the identity of the driver.
My primary ground for this appeal is that the 28-day warning within CP Plus’s NTK misleadingly implies that I, as the keeper, can be held liable for this charge under the provisions of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This is legally incorrect because the location in
question—Hicks Lodge, National Forest Cycle Centre—is land owned and managed by Forestry
England, which operates as part of the Forestry Commission, a statutory body.
The Forestry Commission operates under the Forestry Act 1967 and has established byelaws
that regulate activities on the lands it manages. These byelaws, known as the Forestry
Commission Byelaws 1982, apply to all lands under the Commission’s management or control
where the public has, or may be permitted to have, access. As such, Hicks Lodge is not
'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, meaning that the keeper cannot be held
liable for any parking charge if the driver is not identified.
CP Plus’s NTK appears to suggest otherwise, misleadingly omitting any acknowledgment that
PoFA does not apply in this case. This constitutes a misrepresentation of legal authority,
making the demand for payment against the keeper wholly invalid.
I have summarised these points based on the Forestry Commission Byelaws below and
included a link to the government legislation:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/648/pdfs/uksi_19820648_en.pdf
• Statutory Control – The byelaws confirm that vehicle use, including parking, is subject to
rules set by the Forestry Commission, a statutory body operating under the Forestry Act 1967.
This suggests that the land is under statutory control.
• Not 'Relevant Land' under PoFA – Since PoFA 2012 only applies to land that is not under
statutory control, the presence of enforceable byelaws indicates that this location does not
meet the definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of PoFA.
• No Explicit Keeper Liability Mechanism – The byelaws do not specify any mechanism
allowing a private parking operator to impose liability on the registered keeper. This further
supports the argument that CP Plus has no legal authority to pursue the keeper under PoFA.
Given that CP Plus have not identified the driver, that I am not willing nor obliged to provide
such information, and that CP Plus have no legal basis to hold me liable as keeper due to the
statutory control of this land, I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld and that the PCN
be withdrawn.
Yours faithfully
******
(Registered keeper of vehicle *****) -
-
Just wanted to say a big thank you to you both for your help, I've had popla email this morning confirming my appeal has been upheld and I no longer need to pay them 🙌
-
-
@Hinckleycb, please post the POPLA appeal response in full, including the assessors name and the POPLA reference number. You can, of course, break up the wall of text that a POPLA response is sent as, to make reading it a bit easier for us.
We need to see on which point of your appeal the POPLA assessor decided to hang their decision on. -
-
There you go
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Jason Cookson-Dean
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) as there is no record of a payment for parking on the date in question.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the registered keeper of the vehicle, and the driver has not been identified. • The operator cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the land is under statutory control, operating under the Forestry Act 1967. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a link to the Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982 as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant as there is no record of a payment for parking on the date in question. The appellant’s case is that the operator cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the land is under statutory control, operating under the Forestry Act 1967. Looking at The Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982 the Byelaws could be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, that there are Byelaws covering parking, so it is land under statutory control. Or, that paragraph 2 (a) (ii) says the relevant Byelaw does not apply to an area the commissioners have set aside for parking. It is for the parking operator to rebut the appeal by making its argument as to the interpretation of these Byelaws. For example, they could have explained or provided evidence that the relevant area has been set aside for parking by the commissioners and is therefore not subject to the Byelaws. But it has not done so, therefore, as the operator has not rebutted the appellants grounds, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these. -
Winner x 2
View List
Like x 1
View List