Here are a list of points you can argue at POPLA:
1. PoFA Sch. 4 ¶9(2)(a) – No specified “period of parking”The Notice to Keeper merely states that the vehicle “remained at MOTO Wetherby Services on 24/09/2025.” It relies on a single still image taken by an individual rather than any timed record of when the vehicle was parked or for how long.
PoFA ¶9(2)(a) requires the notice to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” A lone photograph evidences only a moment in time when the picture was taken; it cannot establish a parking period. Without start-and-finish times, or any observation record showing that the vehicle was stationary for a measurable duration, the statutory requirement is not met.
This failure is particularly significant where the allegation concerns “causing an obstruction.” To prove such a claim, the operator must show that the vehicle was stationary and obstructing for a sustained period, not just present momentarily. The absence of any recorded timeframe means the operator cannot prove the essential facts of the alleged contravention, nor can it invoke keeper liability under PoFA.
2. PoFA Sch.4 ¶9(2)(g) – Creditor not identifiedThe NtK nowhere states who “the creditor” is. Merely displaying a trading style (“CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”) is insufficient. POPLA and courts have repeatedly held that the creditor must be clearly identified as the legal entity entitled to recover the charge. Without this identification, the Notice is defective and fails to transfer liability to the keeper.
3. Corporate identity defect – Inconsistent and misleading legal entityThe NtK purports to be issued by “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus.” However, GroupNexus Ltd was incorporated as a separate legal entity more than a year ago. A limited company cannot simultaneously be the trading style of another. Consumers are entitled to know which legal person is the contracting party and the alleged creditor. This fundamental confusion renders the NtK invalid under PoFA ¶9(2)(g) and breaches consumer law transparency requirements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. POPLA must consider that if “GroupNexus” now exists as its own company, CP Plus Ltd cannot lawfully describe itself as “trading as” that separate entity, nor can POPLA ascertain who owns the alleged debt or contractual rights.
4. No keeper liability – Driver not identified; PoFA non-compliantYou, as the registered keeper, have not admitted who the driver was (hopefully), and the operator has no evidence. Since the NtK fails key PoFA conditions (no parking period and unclear creditor), it cannot hold the keeper liable. Only the driver could be pursued, and their identity remains unknown. POPLA has no lawful basis to assume keeper liability.
5. Paid-for service not delivered – Failure of consideration and unfair termThe driver paid £33 to MOTO for overnight HGV parking, which MOTO accepted. However, the HGV area was full, forcing the driver to park immediately adjacent to it, without causing obstruction. The service paid for — a lawful place to park overnight — was not provided. Penalising a paying customer constitutes a failure of consideration and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires traders to act fairly and transparently. The fair remedy for MOTO’s capacity failure would be to allocate a space or offer a refund, not impose a £100 penalty through its agent.
6. Allegation of “obstruction” is prohibitive, not contractualSignage that prohibits obstructive parking cannot form the basis of a contract. It is a prohibition (“do not obstruct”), not an offer (“you may park here for £100 if you obstruct”). This means no contract was formed, and no parking charge can be due. Any alleged obstruction would at most constitute trespass, for which only the landowner (not the parking company) could seek nominal damages. POPLA has routinely allowed appeals on this basis where the signage is prohibitive.
7. No evidence of obstruction or reasonable mitigationThe photos simply show the vehicle parked near the HGV area and do not depict any actual obstruction to other road users. There is no record of complaints or of any attempt by staff to ask the driver to move — the reasonable first step if obstruction truly existed. In contract law, parties must mitigate alleged loss. Since no such action occurred, the operator’s claim of obstruction is unsubstantiated.
8. Consideration and grace periods – Non-compliance with PPSCoPThe Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP, v1.1, Feb 2025) requires:
• A consideration period to allow drivers to read the terms before deciding whether to park; and
• A grace period at the end to allow time to leave.
With manually taken photos spanning roughly 90 seconds, the operator cannot show that these Code requirements were respected. This failure supports cancellation on procedural and fairness grounds.
9. Inadequate signage – Lack of clarity at overflow or adjacent areasThe operator must demonstrate that the exact area where the vehicle was parked had clear, prominent, and legible signage explaining that parking there was prohibited and would incur a £100 charge, even for paying customers. If signs are ambiguous, unlit, or fail to specify overflow restrictions, no binding contract can exist. Under the contra proferentem rule and CRA 2015, unclear or hidden terms cannot be enforced against consumers.
10. Landowner authority – Strict proof required for the locus and alleged “obstruction”The operator must provide an unredacted, contemporaneous contract showing:
• That they are authorised by the landowner (MOTO or the landholding entity);
• That this authority extends to the precise area where the vehicle was photographed; and
• That it covers enforcement for “obstruction” (a non-standard contravention).
A generic or redacted witness statement is insufficient under BPA and PPSCoP rules. POPLA often upholds appeals where operators cannot produce the full landowner agreement.
11. Charge disproportionate and not commercially justified (Beavis distinguished)Unlike
ParkingEye v Beavis, this is not a free car park where deterrence serves a legitimate commercial interest. The driver paid £33, and MOTO’s capacity failure forced alternative parking. Imposing an additional £100 charge is punitive and bears no relation to any loss. The
Beavis rationale does not apply, and the charge remains a penalty.
12. Evidential insufficiency – Manually taken photos do not prove breachBecause the images were taken by a person rather than an automated system, there is no timestamp audit trail, no proof of observation period, and no independent record of obstruction or duration. POPLA should reject such unverified photographic evidence as insufficient to meet the civil standard of proof.
13. Lack of fairness and proportionality – Better alternative remedy availableThe fair response would have been to relocate the vehicle or issue a refund, not to pursue a penalty charge. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, disproportionate remedies that penalise rather than rectify are unenforceable. POPLA may consider fairness in the round, particularly where the motorist acted reasonably and paid for the service in good faith.
14. Misleading representation and data accuracyThe Notice to Keeper names “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”. However, GroupNexus Ltd has been incorporated as a distinct legal entity for over a year. A limited company cannot lawfully “trade as” a name that is itself the registered name of another incorporated company. This creates material uncertainty as to who the contracting party and creditor actually are, and whether CP Plus Ltd has any current right to use “GroupNexus” as a trading style.
PoFA ¶9(2)(g) requires the Notice to identify the creditor—that is, the legal person entitled to recover the unpaid parking charge. Where two different corporate entities exist (CP Plus Ltd and GroupNexus Ltd) but the Notice uses a hybrid of the two, the creditor is not properly identified. The operator must prove which company holds the landowner contract and which is authorised to pursue payment. Absent that proof, the Notice fails PoFA and no keeper liability can arise.
Additionally, this ambiguity breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.68 requirement for transparency: consumers must be clearly told who they are contracting with and to whom money is owed. The combination of an obsolete trading style and a separately incorporated company name is inherently misleading.
15. Strict compliance burdenUnder PoFA, the burden of proof rests entirely on the operator. Every required element must be met exactly. Since this NtK fails multiple mandatory paragraphs (no period of parking, unclear creditor, confused entity identity), and the alleged contravention is unproven, POPLA must conclude that the operator has not met the statutory standard for keeper liability or contractual enforcement.
