GroupNexus Moto Burton in Kendal

[Foxy01]

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by CP Plus Ltd t/as Group Nexus, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 02 March 1926. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 09 March 1926, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Moto Burton in Kendal.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 11 March 1926 (9 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Additional notes provided:
Vehicle registered to a Sole trader, with a T/As company name.
Driver on the night is resident in Northern Ireland.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

[b789]

Hi @Foxy01. Thank you for completing the PCN details form. Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper (NtK), I can see that it is not fully PoFA compliant as there is no invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge. This is a breach of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).

There was a recent case (December 2025) where ParkingEye lost in court precisely because of this exact same failure. I show you the judgment below. Whilst not binding, or even persuasive, it does show that failure to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) means that they have not fully complied with PoFA and as long as the driver is not identified, they cannot hold the Keeper liable.

   

Further, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(h) has not been complied with. The NtK does not identify the creditor. That defect is particularly acute because ‘GroupNexus’ is not merely a trading name used in branding, but is also the name of a separate incorporated company, GROUPNEXUS LIMITED (company no. 15560549), distinct from CP Plus Limited (company no. 02595379). A recipient of the notice is therefore left uncertain whether the alleged creditor is CP Plus Limited, GroupNexus Limited, or some unnamed client. PoFA requires the creditor to be identified clearly. It does not permit the keeper to be left to infer the creditor’s identity from branding or footer wording.

The practical effect of those failures is straightforward. If the driver is not identified, the operator can only pursue the Keeper by fully complying with PoFA. If the NtK does not comply with PoFA, keeper liability does not arise. In that situation they may only pursue the driver, and there is no obligation on the Keeper to name the driver.

So my suggestion is that your initial appeal should be kept short and should simply state that you are appealing as Keeper, that the driver has not been identified, that there is no obligation to name the driver, and that the NtK does not comply with PoFA, in particular paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(h). The aim at this stage is not to over-elaborate, but to preserve the point clearly for later.

A simple appeal would be along these lines:

I appeal this Parking Charge Notice [PCN reference number] as the registered keeper.

The driver has not been identified and I am under no obligation to name the driver.

If you intend to hold the keeper liable, you must fully comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This Notice to Keeper does not do so. In particular, it does not properly comply with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), and it does not correctly identify the creditor as required by paragraph 9(2)(h).

As you have not met the statutory conditions required to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, there is no keeper liability in this matter.

I therefore require you to cancel the Parking Charge Notice or issue the relevant POPLA code for independent appeal.

That is probably the cleanest way to deal with it at this stage. Once they reject and issue a POPLA code, we can elaborate.

[Foxy01]

Email response from CP Plus received today:


Dear Sir/Madam,


Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.


The representations stated in your correspondence have been noted and considered. Please forward to us the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred so that we can update our records accordingly.


We are placing this Charge on hold for 14 days from the date of this email to allow you to provide the details requested.


Yours faithfully,


CP Plus Ltd

[b789]

Hilarious, but entirely predictable. In substance, what CP Plus are saying is this: we cannot safely rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable, so please hand us the driver’s details instead so that we can pursue someone else. That is why they have not engaged with the actual appeal points at all. They are simply trying to bypass the PoFA defects by persuading the keeper to identify the driver for them. Unless the driver is identified, they have no proper route to keeper liability if the Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant, and they know it.

Respond with the following:

Subject: Parking Charge [insert reference]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your email.

The driver will not be identified. There is no obligation upon the keeper to provide the name or address of the driver.

My appeal was made on the clear basis that you cannot transfer liability to the keeper because the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including but not limited to paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(h).

Your response does not address those points at all. Instead, it merely requests the driver’s details. That request is declined.

Please now properly consider the appeal as submitted and either cancel the charge or issue a formal rejection together with the POPLA verification code.

Yours faithfully

[Name]