Group Nexus - Overstay - Borehamwood Shopping Park

Hi,

I would appreciate comments on this. Unfortunately driver overstayed the Maximum Stay of 3 hours at this retail park.

Notice sent to registered keeper.

Letter and signage photo included below.

Thanks in advance

https://ibb.co/xqk7sgXY

https://ibb.co/TDX20WZ6

https://ibb.co/DHTb9XCH

There is no period of parking stipulated time of arrival and departure.On first photograph there is a vehicle which is a Peugeot which is prominent but the Skoda is barley visible behind. The reg plate is blurred but probably can be enhanced. Perhaps it would be a better option to contact landowner to try and get it cancelled as a customer using facilities.

The NtK is not compliant with POFA schedule 4.

The creditor is not clearly identified.

The wording required by 9(2)(e) is not present - no invite to the keeper and a misrepresentation of the legislation regarding the supply of driver details.

Many thanks.

Following your comments I have searched the forum and see that the notice doesn't comply with Paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(h) of the Act. Is the following appeal sufficient at this stage, or should I be more specific?

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle.

I challenge this Parking Charge Notice.

The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, you cannot transfer liability for the parking charge from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.

I am under no obligation to identify the driver and decline to do so.

Therefore, please cancel this Parking Charge.

I don't think you need to be more specific because they will reject your appeal regardless of what you say - you need to keep the specifics for the defence to the county court claim which may well follow.

In the meantime an appeal to POPLA would be justified but don't worry if it is also rejected.

It's all a game to them, most people pay up, so if you don't eventually they'll give in.

I think this will win at POPLA due to the issue with the creditor.

As expected, this appeal has been rejected and a POPLA code provided. I would be grateful for thoughts on this draft for POPLA appeal:-

I am the registered keeper's authorised representative. The registered keeper has not identified the driver. I have authority to conduct this appeal on the keeper's behalf and do so on the following grounds.

Ground 1: The Notice to Keeper does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4
The operator relies upon keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
In particular, paragraph 9(2)(e) requires the Notice to Keeper to invite the keeper either to pay the unpaid parking charge or, if the keeper was not the driver, to provide the driver's name and current address for service.
The notice instead states:
"As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this to them."
I put the operator to strict proof that this wording satisfies paragraph 9(2)(e) and all other applicable requirements of Schedule 4. If it does not, the conditions for keeper liability under Schedule 4 have not been met.

Ground 2: The creditor is not properly identified — paragraph 9(2)(h)
Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the Notice to Keeper to identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.
The notice identifies CP Plus Ltd T/A Group Nexus but also refers repeatedly to "our Client's property". The site signage states that the car park is "managed and operated on behalf of Savills by CP Plus Ltd", indicating an agency relationship.
I put the operator to proof that the Notice to Keeper properly identifies the creditor as required by paragraph 9(2)(h), and that the entity identified as creditor was entitled to recover the charge on 14 July 2026.

Ground 3: The contractual basis for the charge has not been demonstrated
The operator's rejection merely asserts that clear signage was present.
I require the operator to provide evidence of the contractual signage and terms applicable on 14 July 2026, including the entrance signage, the positioning of the signs relied upon, and evidence that they were in place in that form on that date.
I also put the operator to proof that it had authority from the landowner or other party with sufficient interest in the land to enter into parking contracts, issue charges and pursue them in its own name on that date.

Ground 4: ANPR evidence
The charge relies upon ANPR evidence.
I require the operator to demonstrate that the ANPR equipment was maintained and that the relevant timestamps were accurate and synchronised on 14 July 2026, in accordance with the applicable Code of Practice.

Conclusion
The driver has not been identified.
The operator has not demonstrated that its Notice to Keeper satisfies the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, in particular paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(h).
I therefore ask POPLA to allow the appeal unless the operator can demonstrate that keeper liability has been established and that the charge was otherwise properly issued.
I reserve the right to comment on the operator's evidence pack and request the opportunity to do so before determination.

This was a successful appeal point against GroupNexus from another case relating to 9(2)(h);

Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the Notice to Keeper to identify the creditor. That means the legal person said to be entitled to recover the parking charge.

This Notice to Keeper does not clearly identify the creditor. It uses GroupNexus branding, refers in the footer to CP Plus Limited (company number 02595379) t/a GroupNexus, and elsewhere refers to “our Client’s property”. That wording is not clear identification of the creditor. It leaves the recipient to infer the alleged creditor’s identity rather than stating it expressly.

That defect is particularly serious here because GroupNexus is no longer merely a trading name used by CP Plus Limited. GroupNexus Limited (company number 15560549) is now itself a separate incorporated legal entity. That is the crucial point. Historically, an operator might have argued that “GroupNexus” was simply branding for CP Plus Limited and nothing more. That is no longer safely arguable once GroupNexus Limited exists as a distinct company in its own right.

Accordingly, when this Notice to Keeper uses “GroupNexus” branding, refers in the footer to CP Plus Limited (company number 02595379) t/a GroupNexus, and also refers to “our Client’s property”, the recipient is left uncertain as to which legal person is allegedly the creditor. Is it said to be CP Plus Limited? Is it said to be GroupNexus Limited (company number 15560549)? Or is it some unnamed client or principal? The Notice does not say.

That is not a trivial technicality. The whole purpose of paragraph 9(2)(h) is to ensure that the recipient knows the identity of the creditor. PoFA requires the creditor to be identified clearly within the Notice to Keeper itself. It is not enough for the recipient to be left to guess from branding, trading styles or vague references to a client.

POPLA is therefore invited to understand the precise implication here: once GroupNexus Limited exists as a separate legal entity, the old casual use of “GroupNexus” as if it were merely a harmless trading label is no longer sufficient for PoFA purposes. The Notice must make clear which legal person is the creditor. This Notice fails to do so. Paragraph 9(2)(h) has therefore not been complied with.

POPLA decision (Assessor: Paul E Walker. Case: ET6121/001) confirmed that the pro forma notice did not meet the requirements of POFA - your notice is identical save for the parking details.


I would lead the Assessor by the nose to this case after using the above appeal point verbatim.

Great. Thanks.