Free Traffic Legal Advice

Used Millwall Dock for a car photo shoot on 06 October.

Entered 14:20, left 15:16.

I never left the car and have photos from the shoot to prove the shoot happened.

Does this count as "parking"? Should I appeal?

Any help greatly appreciated.

Looks like I should use this defence?:

Subject: Formal Appeal – PCN Ref No. [Insert Reference Number]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle: [Registration Number]

This is a formal appeal for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Group Nexus has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, and as such, I am not liable for the charge. I will outline the key failures below:

1. Incorrect Assumption of Ownership:

In the Notice to Keeper (NtK), Group Nexus has relied on PoFA 9(2)(f) and incorrectly stated:

"We have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you, the vehicle’s owner, under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012..."

This is a clear breach of PoFA. The law allows for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper, not the owner, unless the conditions outlined in PoFA Schedule 4 are met. Moreover, the V5C Registration Certificate explicitly states on its front page that it is not proof of ownership. Group Nexus has therefore made an incorrect assumption that the registered keeper is automatically the owner, which is both factually and legally incorrect, resulting in a breach of the Act.

2. Breach of the BPA Code of Practice:

The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) also requires that operators follow the legal framework (PoFA) and use clear, unambiguous language in their communication with the registered keeper. By using "owner" instead of "registered keeper" or "driver," Group Nexus has breached Section 21 of the BPA CoP, which requires that any Notice to Keeper sent to the registered keeper must comply with PoFA 2012 if they intend to hold me liable.

3. Failure to Include an Invitation to Pay [PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)]:

The NtK fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, which requires the NtK to include an explicit invitation for the keeper to either pay the charge or, if they were not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver. Group Nexus has omitted this key requirement. Without such an invitation, the NtK is non-compliant, and therefore, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to me, the registered keeper.

4. No Keeper Liability:

Since Group Nexus has failed to fully comply with the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, there can be no keeper liability in this case. As the registered keeper, I am under no legal obligation to provide the identity of the driver to an unregulated private company and I decline to do so.

Expectation of Cancellation or POPLA Code:

Please do NOT try the usual Group Nexus trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA. As there is no keeper liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to me, the keeper, and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw.

Indeed - we can't comment on whether a proposed appeal is suitable, without seeing the parking charge notice it is appealing.

Either post a photo of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) or else provide all the dates and times showing on the NtK. Show us exactly how the address of the location is shown on the NtK.

What do the signs say at the car park? Why did the driver think they were exempt from any permit requirements? Are you sure that Group Nexus have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) at the location?

If you want help and advice, please provide the requested information. Nobody pays GroupNexus if they are getting advice here.

You can only verify if they have a valid contract by putting them to strict proof that they do.

Please, just post pictures of the NtK so we can review it. You are not helping by failing to provide the visual evidence we require.

I still don't know exactly where this alleged contravention took place. Entering Millwall Dock car park into Google maps shows at least 5 different car parks.

You haven't answered this earlier question either:

I didnt want to clog up the site or faff with downloads but will do now.

What do the signs say at the car park? Not sure, sorry.

Why did the driver think they were exempt from any permit requirements? Because they were not parking and leaving the vehicle unattended

On the appeal page, which option as I have to choose one:

Tick here to confirm that you were the driver and that the PCN you have received contains the correct information
Tick here to confirm that you were not the driver or that the PCN you have received contains incorrect information