Group Nexus overstay at Roadchef Maidstone Services

[b789]

I would simply submit the following as your response to the operators evidence pack:

COMMENTS ON THE OPERATOR’S EVIDENCE

1. The operator has completely failed to answer the principal ground of appeal

The central ground of this appeal is that the Notice to Keeper does not identify the creditor as required by paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The operator has produced a 68-page evidence pack, including dozens of photographs of signs, but has not answered this point at all.

No quantity of signage photographs can cure the statutory defect. The question is not whether signs existed, whether CP Plus managed the site, or whether a parking charge was displayed. The question is whether the Notice to Keeper itself clearly identified the legal person who was the creditor.

It did not.

2. “GroupNexus” is not merely an unambiguous trading name of CP Plus Ltd

The NtK is prominently branded “GroupNexus” and contains a small-print reference to:

“CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus”

That wording does not identify the creditor with the certainty required by paragraph 9(2)(h).

GroupNexus is not simply an informal label whose meaning can only be CP Plus Ltd. GroupNexus Limited is a separately incorporated legal entity:

CP Plus Limited
Company number: 02595379

GroupNexus Limited
Company number: 15560549
(Incorporated: 13 March 2024)

Those are two separate limited companies and therefore two separate legal persons.

The NtK does not state whether the creditor is:

   (a) CP Plus Limited;

   (b) GroupNexus Limited;

   (c) Roadchef, as the landowner; or

   (d) some other principal on whose behalf CP Plus is acting.

The words “CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus” do not resolve that ambiguity because a separate company called GroupNexus Limited now exists. A recipient seeing the prominent GroupNexus branding cannot know whether “GroupNexus” refers to the trading style asserted by CP Plus or to the separately incorporated company bearing that legal name.

Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the notice to “identify the creditor”. That requirement exists so the keeper knows precisely which legal person claims the alleged debt. The operator has failed to do so.

3. The previous POPLA decision is directly applicable

POPLA is specifically requested to retrieve and consider its recent decision:

Assessor: Paul E Walker
Case: ET6121/001

That appeal concerned the same CP Plus/GroupNexus creditor-identification defect. The assessor concluded:

“The operator’s information pack/response did not answer the appellant’s point under PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(h) about identification of the creditor; it follows that I cannot be satisfied that the Notice to Keeper fully complied with PoFA. I allow the appeal.”

Precisely the same failure has occurred here.

The appellant expressly raised paragraph 9(2)(h) and explained the legal ambiguity caused by the existence of CP Plus Limited and the separately incorporated GroupNexus Limited. CP Plus has not addressed that argument, has not identified which company is the creditor, and has not explained why the NtK supposedly satisfies paragraph 9(2)(h).

The operator has simply ignored the issue.

There is no proper basis upon which this assessor could reach a different conclusion from Assessor Paul E Walker in case ET6121/001.

4. PoFA requires complete compliance, not approximate compliance

The operator repeatedly asserts that the charge was “issued under PoFA”. Merely saying that does not create keeper liability.

Schedule 4 is not a “mostly compliant”, “substantially compliant” or “close enough” regime. The statutory conditions are cumulative. The NtK must comply with every applicable mandatory requirement before liability can be transferred from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper.

Including wording derived from paragraph 9(2)(f) does not cure the failure to comply with paragraph 9(2)(h).

The operator may have reproduced one statutory warning, but that does not mean the remainder of the NtK is compliant. Failure to identify the creditor is sufficient by itself to prevent keeper liability from arising.

The driver has not been identified. The operator must therefore demonstrate complete compliance with Schedule 4. It has not done so.

5. The operator’s purported posting and delivery reasoning is defective

The operator states:

“We can confirm that the Charge was issued on 26/05/2026 and therefore deemed to be delivered on 28/05/2026, the contrary has not been proven. As such, the Charge was issued within PoFa time limits. We have included in Section C a copy of the Parking Charge which states the ‘This Charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.’”

This does not establish compliance.

The operator has conflated the date printed on the NtK with the date on which the NtK was actually posted.

Paragraph 9(6) refers to presumed delivery on the second working day after the day on which the notice was posted. It does not say that delivery is automatically presumed two working days after whatever date the operator prints on the document.

The appellant put the operator to strict proof of posting. The operator has produced no certificate of posting, postal manifest, dispatch record, mailing audit trail or other evidence showing that this particular NtK entered the postal system on 26 May 2026.

Its statement that “the contrary has not been proven” does not relieve it of the need to establish the factual basis upon which it seeks to rely. Before the operator can rely upon a presumed delivery date calculated from the date of posting, it must establish what the date of posting actually was.

A self-generated “date of issue” is not, without more, proof of physical posting on that date.

Moreover, reproducing paragraph 9(2)(f) wording does nothing to answer the paragraph 9(2)(h) defect. It merely demonstrates that the operator included wording associated with one part of Schedule 4 while failing to comply with another mandatory part.

6. The last-minute landowner statement carries limited evidential weight and does not identify the creditor

The operator’s Evidence Checklist is dated 23 July 2026. The purported landowner witness statement at page 68 is also dated 23 July 2026, the same day the evidence pack was completed and submitted.

That timing strongly suggests that the statement was produced specifically for this POPLA appeal rather than being a contemporaneous record of any pre-existing authority.

The appellant does not allege fabrication. However, the assessor should attach limited weight to a short, generic statement apparently created on the day the evidence pack was assembled, particularly where the underlying contract has not been produced.

More importantly, the statement still does not answer the paragraph 9(2)(h) issue. It describes Roadchef as the landowner and CP Plus as the operator, but does not state which legal person is the creditor.

It therefore reinforces rather than resolves the uncertainty:

• Roadchef is described as the landowner;
  
• CP Plus Ltd is described as the operator;
  
• the NtK is prominently branded GroupNexus; and
  
• GroupNexus Limited is a separate incorporated company.
  

Nowhere does the NtK clearly identify which of those legal persons is entitled to recover the parking charge as creditor.

7. Conclusion

The driver has not been identified.

The operator can therefore pursue the appellant only if it proves complete compliance with Schedule 4. It has failed to identify the creditor, failed to answer the appellant’s paragraph 9(2)(h) ground, and failed to distinguish this case from the directly applicable decision of Assessor Paul E Walker in case ET6121/001.

The extensive signage evidence is irrelevant to that statutory failure. Photographs cannot retrospectively amend the NtK or identify a creditor that the NtK itself left uncertain.

The appeal must be allowed.

Finally, the operator has transposed two digits of the vehicle registration mark on the first page of its Evidence Checklist. While this is not the principal ground of appeal, it provides a further example of the lax processing and lack of care evident in the operator’s submission.

[SamedayCourier]

Thank you. Submitted verbatim.

[SamedayCourier]

Appeal unsuccessful.

As I expected I suppose, but I did have some hope given the Moto Kendal case.

Here is the full response:


Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining at the car park for longer than the free parking period and no record of a payment being made.


Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • No keeper liability. The notice to keeper does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e) and PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h). • The operator has not shown that the appellant was the driver. • The operator has not shown a valid period of parking as required for keeper liability. • The operator has not shown that the contractual terms were clearly brought to the attention of the driver. • The operator has not shown that it holds valid landowner authority. • ANPR evidence is insufficient without strict proof of accuracy and calibration. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant comments on the operator’s response saying it has failed to answer the principal ground of appeal in regard to PoFA, Paragraph 9(2)(h). They comment further on the trading name and refer to prior POPLA decision. They state PoFA requires complete compliance and not approximate compliance. The operator’s purported posting and delivery reasoning is defective. The last-minute landowner statement carries limited evidential weight and does not identify the creditor. The driver has not been identified. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.


Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The notice was posted within 14 days of the event and specified the date, time, and location of the infringement. I am satisfied the operator has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA. 2012). I acknowledge the attached judgement in the case of ParkingEye vs Ghansah the appellant has raised, however I am satisfied the notice to keeper does comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e). As such, I am considering the appellant ’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise ‘Charges apply for all vehicles after 2 hours’ and refers users to see separate signs in the car park for full details. Additional signage provides details of the tariffs that apply based on type of vehicle for 24hrs parking. Terms and conditions for parking on site are also shown on the signage. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided photographs of the signage and a site map to demonstrate that the signs were clearly visible and located throughout the car park. The operator has also provided ANPR photographs showing the appellant entered the site at 15:16 and left at 18:10, a total stay of 2hrs 54mins, exceeding the maximum allowed free period. The operator has provided a copy of their payment logs which shows the appellant’s vehicle had not paid to park beyond the free period. The appellant has stated that the operator has not shown that the contractual terms were clearly brought to the attention of the driver. I have assessed the signage in relation to the relevant codes that apply. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows clear entrance signage which tells motorists the car park is privately owned land and that there are terms and conditions attached to the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. In this case the operator's evidence clearly demonstrates the signage complies with the code and clearly communicated the terms and conditions to the appellant and that a valid parking contract could be formed. The appellant has stated the operator has not shown a valid period of parking and that the notice to keeper relies on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. They also state that the ANPR evidence is insufficient without strict proof of accuracy and calibration. As the site operates ANPR cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park, this will be used for the car park management and enforcement rather than time parked in a bay. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and if a vehicle has remained on the site for longer than authorised, or without payment located for the vehicle registration, a parking breach of the terms is identified. It is the responsibility of the parking operator to show it has issued the PCN correctly, and if it does this by providing ANPR images to support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant. If the appellant provides a version of events or evidence that then casts doubt on the legitimacy of the ANPR technology, it is then up to the POPLA assessor’s judgement as to whether this is sufficient to show the technology is unreliable. In this case, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the cameras are not reliable in this specific case. In the absence of any evidence to support otherwise, I am satisfied that the evidence provided by the parking operator is sufficient and the ANPR is reliable. The appellant has stated the operator has not shown that it holds valid landowner authority. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator, CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus, has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. I note the appellant has expressed concerns regarding how the operator responded to their initial appeal. POPLA is an appeals service and as such we do not become involved with complaints of this nature. However, the appellant can raise a complaint with the operator, the details of the operator’s complaints process can be found on their website. Once it has issued a response letter the complaint can then be escalated to the BPA. Whenever a motorist uses a private parking facility, it is their responsibility to ensure they comply with the terms of the site being used. This includes making the correct payment for their duration of stay. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

[b789]

@SamedayCourier, this is unfortunately a good example of why POPLA can be so useless. The assessor actually recorded your central PoFA 9(2)(h) argument, recorded that CP Plus had failed to answer it, and then simply failed to determine it. Instead, they dealt with 9(2)(e), signage, ANPR etc., none of which answers the separate mandatory requirement to identify the creditor.

The important thing is that you are not bound by POPLA's rejection. It is not a court judgment and does not create any enforceable liability. You now simply move to the next stage.

Expect the usual stream of powerless debt-recovery letters demanding inflated sums. Those can be safely ignored. What you must not ignore is an actual Letter of Claim (LoC)/Letter Before Claim (LBC) or, eventually, a County Court claim.

If CP Plus ever does issue proceedings, the points that this POPLA assessor failed to deal with are precisely the points that would have to be considered properly by a District Judge: whether the NtK actually identifies the creditor as required by PoFA 9(2)(h), whether "CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus" is sufficient when GroupNexus Ltd is itself a separate incorporated legal entity, and whether they can prove the date of posting rather than merely asserting a date of issue.

Neither you nor a District Judge are bound by this POPLA decision and a judge would determine those issues independently on the evidence and the law. On what CP Plus have produced so far, they have a very serious problem establishing keeper liability if the driver remains unidentified.