The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the registered keeper, Octopus Leasing, as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK). It was not addressed to you because you are not the registered keeper. You are the Hirer.
Octopus only provided your details as the Hirer to GroupNexus. They have no idea who was driving.
GroupNexus then sent you, the Hirer, a postal Notice to Hirer (NtH). You only had to appeal the NtH because that is the only document in your name. However, GroupNexus has not complied with all the requirements to hold you, the Hirer, liable for the charge. They have no idea who the driver is, unless you blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.
All you had to do is appeal the PCN as the Hirer and tell them that you cannot be liable. Only the driver can be liable and, as long as they don’t know the drivers identity, there would be nothing they can do about it.
However, you didn’t appeal on that basis and you assumed two identical PCNs for the same alleged contravention had been issued. The feckwit POPLA assessor didn’t pick up on that either. Never mind, their decision is not binding on you.
There are several very serious legal and procedural errors made by GroupNexus (GN) that you must deal with. Before I go into too much detail, check with PALS and if they are not prepared to get the PCN cancelled, tell them that the NHS Trust is jointly and severally liable for the serious breaches by their agent.
The first breach by GN is that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued to the lease company and the subsequent Notice to Hirer (NtH) issued to the hirer should have the same PCN reference number.
The parking operator is required to follow the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4, which sets out the process for transferring liability from a lease company (keeper) to the hirer. When the lease company provides the hirer’s details and a copy of the relevant lease documents, the parking operator must issue a fresh Notice to Hirer (NtH), but it should be linked to the same PCN reference number as the original Notice to Keeper (NtK).
That is a serious procedural error by GN and is also a breach of PoFA if they are trying to hold the hirer liable.
Key Issues with This 'NtH':1. Incorrect PCN Reference Number:• The NtH should retain the same PCN number as the original NtK. Issuing a different reference number implies they are treating it as a new charge, which is not permitted under PoFA.
• If they have assigned a different PCN number, they appear to be attempting to restart the process incorrectly.
2. Failure to Identify the Notice as an 'NtH':• PoFA explicitly requires that a Notice to Hirer (NtH) should make it clear that it is being issued to the hirer after receiving their details from the lease company.
• The notice must not falsely claim that the operator obtained the hirer's details from the DVLA. That is a lie—they got the details from the lease company, not from the DVLA.
3. Misrepresentation of Liability Transfer Process:• The statement: “
We have checked YOUR vehicle details with the DVLA” is factually false because:
• The operator cannot obtain the hirer's details from the DVLA, only the lease company’s details.
• The lease company does not and cannot identify the driver.
• This is misleading and is grounds for a formal complaint to the BPA.
• Under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14, to hold the hirer liable, the operator must:
• Issue a valid NtH within 21 days of receiving the hirer's details from the lease company.
• Include mandatory documents, such as a copy of the lease/hire agreement.
• Correctly inform the hirer of their potential liability under PoFA.
• If the notice fails to meet these requirements, they cannot hold the hirer liable.
Even though you are not the registered keeper, as the Hirer, you can and should lodge a formal complaint with the DVLA because GN falsely stated that they obtained the Hirer’s details from the DVLA. This is a serious misrepresentation of data access rights and breaches DVLA regulations governing access to vehicle keeper data.
As this warrants both a formal complaint to GN and the DVLA, here are the main point for each formal complaint:
DVLA Complaint:1. False Claim of Data Access• The Notice incorrectly states that the operator obtained the Hirer’s details from the DVLA.
• In reality, the operator obtained the Hirer’s details from the lease company, not the DVLA.
• This misrepresentation of how personal data was obtained is a breach of DVLA's data protection policies.
2. Misuse of DVLA-Provided Keeper Data• The operator originally accessed the DVLA database to get details of the lease company.
• The lease company then provided the Hirer’s details separately.
• The operator should not claim that they accessed the Hirer’s details via the DVLA when they did not.
• This is a deliberate misrepresentation to falsely assert direct DVLA verification.
3. Breach of the BPA/IPC PPSCoP and DVLA’s KADOE Agreement• Parking operators must follow the DVLA's Keeper at Date of Event (KADOE) contract when accessing vehicle keeper data.
• Misrepresenting the source of data undermines public trust and breaches the terms under which GroupNexus is allowed to access DVLA records.
• The DVLA takes a dim view of operators who misuse or misrepresent how they obtained personal data.
GroupNexus Complaint:You, the Hirer, should write a strongly worded complaint demanding:
1. An explanation for the procedural errors, including:• Why the Notice to Hirer was not identified as an NtH.
• Why the PCN reference number changed between the NtK and the alleged NtH.
• Why the notice falsely claims the operator accessed the Hirer’s details from the DVLA, when it is impossible for them to do so.
2. Confirmation of a Serious Error in Process• If the Notice sent to the Hirer was actually a duplicate of the NtK rather than a compliant NtH, then PoFA has not been followed.
• The operator cannot hold the Hirer liable because they did not issue a valid Notice to Hirer under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14.
• The issuance of a new PCN reference number suggests an attempt to restart the process, which is not permitted.
3. Confirmation of what steps they will take to rectify the situation• The Hirer should demand that GroupNexus acknowledges their error in writing.
• The Hirer should also insist on a response regarding whether similar errors have occurred with other motorists.
4. Escalation Warning• If GroupNexus does not provide a satisfactory response, the Hirer will escalate the matter to the BPA, DVLA, and possibly the ICO for data misuse.
If you want, I can draft a formal complaint letter for GroupNexus and a separate complaint email to the DVLA to ensure everything is properly worded and structured. Let me know how you'd like to proceed.
