Free Traffic Legal Advice

Rebuttal 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.