Author Topic: Group Nexus PCN  (Read 46 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

privates

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Group Nexus PCN
« on: March 21, 2024, 08:58:15 am »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Group Nexus PCN
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2024, 09:15:20 am »
You will note that on the NtK it says the the charge is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA and is subject to them complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of the Act. Whilst it is unlikely that the operator will cancel the PCN for the following reason, POPLA have and should cancel it, as long as you only appeal as the keeper. Do not identify the driver or dob yourself in it by saying things like "I drove...".

They have failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA by omitting the following element of paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

Quote
A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

The notice must - state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

Read it for yourself here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

By having failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA, they cannot hold the keeper liable. Only the driver is liable and they have no idea who is the driver unless the keeper admits to having driven or provides the actual drivers details (throw the real driver under the bus).
« Last Edit: March 21, 2024, 09:18:03 am by b789 »
Like Like x 1 View List

The Rookie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Warwickshire
    • View Profile
Re: Group Nexus PCN
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2024, 09:30:24 am »
'Charge has been issued as you either did not validate your parking through the parking terminals'
This language is designed to entrap, clearly 'you' here is the keeper and it was the driver who failed to do as alleged.
There are motorists who have been scammed and those who are yet to be scammed!
Agree Agree x 1 View List

privates

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Group Nexus PCN
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2024, 12:38:44 pm »
You will note that on the NtK it says the the charge is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA and is subject to them complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of the Act. Whilst it is unlikely that the operator will cancel the PCN for the following reason, POPLA have and should cancel it, as long as you only appeal as the keeper. Do not identify the driver or dob yourself in it by saying things like "I drove...".

They have failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA by omitting the following element of paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

Quote
A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

The notice must - state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

Read it for yourself here:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

By having failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA, they cannot hold the keeper liable. Only the driver is liable and they have no idea who is the driver unless the keeper admits to having driven or provides the actual drivers details (throw the real driver under the bus).

Draft:

To whom it may concern,

I challenge this PCN on the basis that on the NtK it says it is given to me under paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA and is subject to them complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of the Act. You have failed to fully comply with the strict requirements of PoFA by omitting the following element of paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).


Shall I send this draft through?

b789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Group Nexus PCN
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2024, 01:17:48 pm »
No. That is not worded appropriately. Additionally, you have not included a question about the ambiguity of their reasonable cause of action. What evidence do they have that the driver didn't validate a parking session through the parking terminals, or why they cannot evidence a payment to cover full duration of a parking session. Is it one or the other?

You should start the appeal stating that you are appealing as the keeper:

1. I appeal as keeper. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so.

2. You have purported to invoke the statutory procedure for keeper liability under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, you have failed to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) which states:

Quote
A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met:

The notice must - state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.

3. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver (as opposed, for example, to being a passenger) on any particular occasion, GroupNexus is unable to pursue me as driver.



4. GroupNexus have not evidenced any reasonable cause for requesting the keepers data from the DVLA. An ambiguous allegation that the driver did not validate a parking session through the parking terminals or why GroupNexus cannot evidence a payment to cover full duration of a parking session does not satisfy the criteria for a reasonable cause of action according to the KADOE rules. I will be making a complaint to the DVLA about this.

5. Furthermore, GroupNexus has failed to including evidence of the signage that is purported to have given rise to a contract by conduct. Neither has GroupNexus shown that it has landowner authority to issue PCNs in its own name.

6. The inadequate signage and lack of evidence of landowner authority evidence shows that GroupNexus have failed to adequately prove that the driver is liable. As the keeper, I reserve the right to expand on these points at POPLA should GroupNexus fail to cancel this PCN.
Love Love x 1 View List