Unclear signage

Unclear signage
Posted by Tetreg on 06 Aug, 2025 18:15
Dear all, I recently got two private parking notices a week apart for parking in what looked to me like an ordinary stretch of road. Whilst the sign was present I assumed it referred to the parking spaces immediately behind it rather than the road itself.
The parking fine says I wasn't in a marked bay, but from what I understood unmarked roads are free to park on generally. The double yellow lines are on the other side of the road.
It appears nexus group uses legal repesentaion from DCBL, which seem to have a habit of writing a lot of threatening letters then not actually bothering to turn up to CCJ.
I was considering either appealing or simply ignoring this, but would like some advice on the matter.
If it did reach CCJ would I stand a reasonable change of winning

N.b this is a repost after the other was removed because it has my address visible
Someone asked if had appealed yet. I have not, would there be any utility in doing so?

#1 Reply
Posted by jfollows on 06 Aug, 2025 18:42
It’s not a fine, but the parking charge notice does not comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 to hold you, the registered keeper, liable in place of the driver, who will not be identified. In particular, what is the “period of parking” specified?
Quote
9(1)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.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

That’s probably not the only PoFA failure.

#2 Reply
Posted by Tetreg on 06 Aug, 2025 19:40
It was left on the road in the picture for about 5 hours on one Sunday and 12 on another

#3 Reply
Posted by jfollows on 06 Aug, 2025 22:01
To be clear, I wasn’t asking how long you were parked for but observing that since the PCN makes no mention of the period, you should appeal on the basis of non-compliance with PoFA 2012, rather than on signage, although when it comes to POPLA you should use all appeal points.

#4 Reply
Posted by Tetreg on 07 Aug, 2025 11:44
Is there any participles bit of that legislation I should quote in my appeal?

#5 Reply
Posted by Tetreg on 07 Aug, 2025 11:45
*particular I meant to say

#6 Reply
Posted by jfollows on 07 Aug, 2025 11:52
No, they’ll reject any appeal anyway, you just want a POPLA code, so look for a generic non-compliant appeal on the forum.

I quoted Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) above (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4).

#7 Reply
Posted by Tetreg on 10 Aug, 2025 09:01
I’ve tried looking for a generic one but they all seem to be tailored for a particular appeal. Does anyone have a generic appeal I could use please

#8 Reply
Posted by b789 on 10 Aug, 2025 12:43
Forget the "unclear signage". This will be an easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown driver’s identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

In particular, the NtK fails the mandatory requirement of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) to “specify the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked”. “Liverpool Docks” is not a single, clearly defined site but a vast and sprawling area covering over 7 miles of waterfront, numerous car parks, roads, and areas of land under different ownerships and operators. The location is so vague that it is akin to alleging a contravention at “London” or “Manchester”. This makes it impossible for the keeper to verify signage, terms, or even if the operator had authority over the exact spot.

“Liverpool Docks” plainly fails to specify any relevant land and is evidence of the utter incompetence of this operator. Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

In particular, you have failed to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) on two separate points, the first one being that by failing to specify the relevant land — “Liverpool Docks” is an absurdly vague term that does not meet the statutory test and does not identify a single, specific car park, road or site. The second point is that there is no "period of parking" stated. As noted in the persuasive appellate court case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], without a defined "period of parking", the notice is incapable of holding the Keeper liable.

Additionally, just to prove your firm's utter incompetence, without a specified period of parking, you have failed to evidence that the vehicle remained parked for longer than the minimum consideration period, which means no contract was formed. Good luck with that should you be so stupid as to try and continue with this farcical PCN.

There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Group Nexus has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Group Nexus have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

#9 Reply
Posted by Tetreg on 10 Aug, 2025 16:09
Thanks

#10 Reply
Posted by Tetreg on 15 Aug, 2025 08:13
Would mods mind removing this post? The first message may be an issue if it ever goes to ccj

#11 Reply
Posted by b789 on 15 Aug, 2025 10:59
Stop worrying. This will NEVER go as far as a court claim. Even if it did, do you really imagine that these scamming firms who issue over 40,000 PCNs every single day, have the time and resources to scan the internet for a particular case? Of course they don't.

It's not a "CCJ" if a claim is made. Do you have any understanding of how someone gets a CCJ? Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.

Quote
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:

1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued

• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.

2. Opportunity to Appeal

• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.

3. Debt Collection Letters

• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.

4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)

• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.

5. County Court Claim Issued

• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.

6. Court Process

• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.

7. Judgment & Payment

• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.

Conclusion

CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:

• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.

If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.

#12 Reply
Posted by Tetreg on 26 Aug, 2025 15:53
So I’ve appealed both fines, and had them rejected. Do I write the same points again about the errors in the letter or is there anything else I should say for POPLA?

#13 Reply
Posted by jfollows on 26 Aug, 2025 16:08
Quote from: Tetreg on 26 Aug, 2025 15:53
So I’ve appealed both fines, and had them rejected. Do I write the same points again about the errors in the letter or is there anything else I should say for POPLA?
You need to use the same points but lead POPLA by the nose, spelling out the exact contraventions one by one.
So it’s a longer and more exacting appeal.
You will probably get input here with more advice, there’s no hurry.

#14 Reply
Posted by DWMB2 on 26 Aug, 2025 16:46
One of the key advantages of the forum format is that you can look at other similar cases - do some searching for other POPLA appeals with similar case points, draft something up and show us and we can offer feedback.