Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA verification number: [1753445551]
Parking Charge Notice: [2000064523643]
Operator: CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus
Vehicle: OY26 VKY
Site: Moto Blyth Services
Date of event: 27/10/2025

I am the Hirer of the vehicle. I deny any liability. This appeal is made on the following grounds.

1. No Hirer/keeper liability under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 (hire vehicles) – fatal to the charge

GroupNexus has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

What I received is plainly just a re-addressed copy of the original Notice to Keeper sent to Hertz, still purporting to rely on PoFA paragraph 9 (a notice to the registered keeper) rather than a compliant Notice to Hirer under PoFA paragraph 14. For a hire vehicle, a valid Notice to Hirer must:

• be served on the Hirer within the mandatory timescale at paragraph 14(2)(a); and
• be accompanied by all of the prescribed documents at paragraph 13(2), namely:

– a copy of the hire agreement,
– a statement of liability signed by the Hirer, and
– a copy of the original notice.

None of these documents were enclosed with the notice sent to me. The operator has also provided no evidence that any fully compliant Notice to Hirer with all enclosures was ever delivered within the statutory deadline.

Further, in their rejection letter GroupNexus state that they are “holding the registered keeper liable”. The registered keeper at the time of the event was Hertz, not me. I am the Hirer only. PoFA Schedule 4 creates a very narrow exception to the general rule that only the driver can be liable. For a hire vehicle, that exception only applies if the operator strictly complies with paragraphs 13 and 14. If they do not, then only the unknown driver could be liable and there is no lawful route to transfer liability to the Hirer.

I am under no obligation to name the driver and I will not be doing so. In the absence of full and strict compliance with Schedule 4 paragraphs 13–14, GroupNexus cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Hirer and cannot rely on any presumption, inference or “assumption” that the Hirer was also the driver. That is precisely what PoFA was enacted to prevent.

Because the operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012 for a hire vehicle, there is no Hirer or keeper liability. This point alone is fatal to their case and this appeal must be allowed.

2. No evidence of landowner authority and mismatch of contracting entity

The operator is put to strict proof of their standing. They must produce a current, unredacted written agreement with the landholder (not merely an agreement with an agent) that:

• identifies the land to which it applies (including Moto Blyth Services and this EV charging area);
• is in force for the material period; and
• expressly authorises the same legal entity that issued this PCN to:

– manage parking on the land,
– issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name, and
– pursue those charges through POPLA and, if they choose, the courts.

The PCN and correspondence are issued in the name “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”. However, GroupNexus is now itself a separate limited company. CP Plus Ltd and GroupNexus Ltd are distinct legal entities. “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” is not, in itself, a company that can hold a contract with the landowner. Any landholder agreement will be with either CP Plus Ltd or GroupNexus Ltd (or some other entity), not with a hybrid trading description.

The operator is therefore put to strict proof that:

• the landowner contract is with the same legal person that issued this PCN; and
• if the contract is with a different entity (for example CP Plus Ltd only, or GroupNexus Ltd only), there has been a clear, properly executed assignment or novation of rights that permits the PCN-issuing entity to enforce charges in its own name.

The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires operators to have written authorisation from the landholder covering the relevant land and specifying the correct operator identity. If the operator cannot produce such authority, or if the agreement is with a different company to the one issuing this PCN, then they have no locus standi and the charge cannot be enforced.

3. Inadequate and non-prominent signage, including at the EV charging bays

The terms relied upon (a “free” 2-hour limit and tariff thereafter) were not clearly and prominently brought to the attention of motorists using the EV charging area.

The operator is put to strict proof, with contemporaneous evidence, of:

• a site plan showing the locations of all signs,
• dated photographs of each sign in situ at the material time,
• the text on those signs, and
• the font sizes of the “core” terms (time limit, charge level) on any signs visible from the EV bay used.

In particular, they must show that:

• there is a clear and legible entrance sign that can be read from a moving vehicle; and
• there are clear, prominent tariff/terms signs positioned at or immediately adjacent to the EV chargers, such that a driver using the chargers would have the key terms drawn to their attention before or while parking.

Under the BPA Code of Practice (for signage) core terms must be clear and prominent. In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court stressed that charges are only enforceable where the signage is “clear and prominent” so that the motorist is fully informed. That standard is not met if the EV-area terms are buried in small print or not clearly displayed at all.

4. No evidence of a compliant “period of parking” and failure to allow the mandatory grace period

The operator appears to rely solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. Those record only the times the vehicle drove past the cameras (time on site), not the “period of parking” required by PoFA Schedule 4.

These timestamps will inevitably include non-parking time such as:

• circulation while looking for a space or charger,
• any queueing for a charger to become free,
• time spent manoeuvring, connecting and disconnecting the vehicle, and
• driving to the exit and waiting to leave.

PoFA Schedule 4 requires that the operator identifies a “period of parking”, not merely the total time between passing cameras. The operator is put to strict proof that they have:

• identified a true period of parking in accordance with PoFA, excluding all non-parking time; and
• then applied the mandatory post-parking grace period required by the applicable Code of Practice before issuing a charge.

If they cannot demonstrate both a properly defined period of parking and a correctly applied grace period at the end, they cannot show that any breach of a parking term has actually occurred.

5. Unfair and unclear consumer terms

If the operator seeks to rely on any contractual term requiring payment of £100, that term must be transparent, prominent, and fairly incorporated into any alleged contract with the driver, particularly in the specific context of EV charging.

Given:

• the EV-specific layout,
• the lack of clearly-prominent warnings at the chargers themselves, and
• the operator’s failure (to date) to show that any driver using the EV charger would have seen and accepted a clear offer to pay £100,

any purported agreement to pay this sum is not transparent or fairly incorporated, and is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The operator is put to strict proof that the alleged contractual term satisfies the requirements of transparency and prominence.

Conclusion

GroupNexus has failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 for hire vehicles and therefore cannot transfer liability to me as Hirer. The driver is not identified, and without strict PoFA compliance there is no lawful basis to hold the Hirer or keeper liable or to presume that the Hirer was the driver. That is a complete defence and this appeal should be allowed on that ground alone.

In the alternative, even if POPLA were to look beyond that fatal defect, the operator has also failed to demonstrate landowner authority, adequate and prominent signage (especially at the EV chargers), a properly defined “period of parking” with a mandatory post-parking grace period, or fair and transparent consumer terms.

For all of these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and direct the operator to cancel the Parking Charge.