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]

[Foxy01]

As expected a rejection email from C P Plus:

"Dear Sir/Madam,


Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.


The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations.


Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers of the requirement to pay for parking in excess of the free 2 hour period, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal.


We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As no driver details have been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable.


In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.


We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If no payment is received within this period, and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate and further costs may be added.


Please find below the payment options:


Online: www.groupnexus.co.uk/pcn

By Telephone: Credit/Debit cards via our automated payment line: 0844 371 8784

By Post: Cheques or Postal Orders to: PO BOX 14836, London, NW3 1WT

----------

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This correspondence represents our final stance on the matter and we will therefore not enter into any further correspondence.


CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR EXTEND THE DATE IN WHICH PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE.


Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.  POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge.  To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website http://www.popla.co.uk and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork.


Your POPLA reference number is: *********


Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. POPLA will not consider any cases where payment has been made. You must pay the charge or appeal to POPLA, you cannot do both.


By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.  However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.


Yours faithfully,


CP Plus  Ltd"

[b789]

No problem. I will get back to you later today. You have 33 days (not 28) from the date of the appeal rejection to submit the POPLA appeal, so no rush.

[b789]

@Foxy01, entirely predictable. They have now done exactly what was expected. Rather than properly addressing the PoFA defects raised in the appeal, they have issued a stock rejection and simply asserted that they are relying on Schedule 4 to hold the keeper liable because no driver details were provided. That is fine for our purposes, because it sharpens the issue for POPLA.

They are now expressly putting keeper liability in issue. POPLA can therefore be invited to decide the simple point: if the driver has not been identified, and if the operator wishes to hold the keeper liable, has the Notice to Keeper fully complied with PoFA? Our position remains that it has not, particularly in relation to paragraph 9(2)(e) and paragraph 9(2)(h). Their rejection does not cure those defects

You can use the following as your POPLA appeal:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I appeal against this Parking Charge Notice.

The driver has not been identified and I am under no obligation to identify the driver. The operator has expressly stated in its rejection that it is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the keeper liable. It may only do so if the Notice to Keeper fully complies with the strict requirements of Schedule 4. It does not. Accordingly, no keeper liability arises and the appeal must be allowed.

I also attach a copy of the sealed order in ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, claim number M4FC56Q6, dated 29 December 2025. Whilst not binding authority, it is directly relevant because the court expressly held that a claim against a keeper failed where the notice to keeper did not include the invitation to pay required by PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e). It demonstrates that this is a real statutory defect with real legal consequences, not a matter that can properly be brushed aside.

1. No keeper liability. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e).

Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires the Notice to Keeper to state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to invite the keeper either to pay the unpaid parking charge or, if the keeper was not the driver, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice to the driver.

This Notice to Keeper does not properly give that statutory invitation to the keeper. Instead, it refers to the driver being liable and seeks the driver’s details, but it does not properly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge in the form required by PoFA. Keeper liability is purely statutory. If the operator wishes to rely upon it, it must comply strictly with the statute. It has not done so.

This is not a trivial or academic point. I attach a recent county court order, ParkingEye Ltd v Ghansah, claim number M4FC56Q6, dated 29 December 2025, in which the court expressly dismissed the claim because the claimant pursued the defendant as keeper, not driver, and the claimant’s notice to keeper “does not include the invitation to pay required by POFA paragraph 9(2)(e)”. That is not cited as binding authority, but as a clear example of a court recognising that this exact defect is fatal where keeper liability is being asserted. POPLA is not being asked to treat that order as precedent, but it is invited to recognise the obvious point it illustrates: paragraph 9(2)(e) is a mandatory statutory condition, not an optional form of words.

The operator’s rejection letter makes its position plain. It states that the charge was issued under Schedule 4 of PoFA and that, because no driver details were provided, the registered keeper is being held liable. That is an express reliance on PoFA. It therefore remains for the operator to demonstrate full compliance with paragraph 9(2)(e). It cannot do so.

As the Notice to Keeper does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(e), the operator has failed to establish any right to recover the charge from the keeper.

2. No keeper liability. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(h).

Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the Notice to Keeper to identify the creditor. That means the legal person said to be entitled to recover the parking charge.

This Notice to Keeper does not clearly identify the creditor. It uses GroupNexus branding, refers in the footer to CP Plus Limited (company number 02595379) t/a GroupNexus, and elsewhere refers to “our Client’s property”. That wording is not clear identification of the creditor. It leaves the recipient to infer the alleged creditor’s identity rather than stating it expressly.

That defect is particularly serious here because GroupNexus is no longer merely a trading name used by CP Plus Limited. GroupNexus Limited (company number 15560549) is now itself a separate incorporated legal entity. That is the crucial point. Historically, an operator might have argued that “GroupNexus” was simply branding for CP Plus Limited and nothing more. That is no longer safely arguable once GroupNexus Limited exists as a distinct company in its own right.

Accordingly, when this Notice to Keeper uses “GroupNexus” branding, refers in the footer to CP Plus Limited (company number 02595379) t/a GroupNexus, and also refers to “our Client’s property”, the recipient is left uncertain as to which legal person is allegedly the creditor. Is it said to be CP Plus Limited? Is it said to be GroupNexus Limited (company number 15560549)? Or is it some unnamed client or principal? The Notice does not say.

That is not a trivial technicality. The whole purpose of paragraph 9(2)(h) is to ensure that the recipient knows the identity of the creditor. PoFA requires the creditor to be identified clearly within the Notice to Keeper itself. It is not enough for the recipient to be left to guess from branding, trading styles or vague references to a client.

POPLA is therefore invited to understand the precise implication here: once GroupNexus Limited exists as a separate legal entity, the old casual use of “GroupNexus” as if it were merely a harmless trading label is no longer sufficient for PoFA purposes. The Notice must make clear which legal person is the creditor. This Notice fails to do so. Paragraph 9(2)(h) has therefore not been complied with.

The operator may not cure that defect later by assertion in its rejection letter. The statutory notice itself must comply.

3. The operator has not shown that the appellant is the driver.

I am the registered keeper. I am appealing only as keeper. The driver has not been identified.

There is no lawful presumption that the keeper was the driver and I am under no obligation to name the driver. If the operator cannot rely on PoFA, it cannot recover the parking charge from the keeper merely because the keeper has not named the driver.

The operator’s own rejection confirms that it is not alleging that it knows who the driver was. Instead, it seeks to rely on Schedule 4. Once that reliance fails, the appeal must succeed.

4. The operator has not shown a valid period of parking as required for keeper liability.

PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant period of parking.

Operators using ANPR commonly record only entry and exit timestamps. Those are not the same thing as a proved period of parking. They merely show the times a vehicle passed cameras at the perimeter. They do not show when the vehicle was parked, whether the vehicle was queuing, manoeuvring, waiting for a space, reading signage, or exiting the site.

To the extent that this Notice to Keeper relies on ANPR entry and exit times, that is not the same as specifying an actual period of parking. The burden rests on the operator to prove that the period relied upon is in fact a period of parking and not merely site circulation time.

This is particularly important where the operator seeks to impose keeper liability under PoFA, because PoFA requires a period of parking, not simply two timestamped images showing the vehicle in motion.

5. The operator has not shown that the terms were clearly brought to the attention of the driver.

The operator asserts that there are clear signs at the entrance and throughout the site. That is not evidence. It is merely an assertion.

The operator is put to strict proof of the signage in place on the material date, including clear contemporaneous photographs and a site map showing the location of each sign, the wording on each sign, and the route by which a driver would encounter and be able to read them before any contract could be formed.

The operator’s rejection also mischaracterises my appeal as if it were based on mitigation. It was not. The appeal challenged keeper liability under statute. The stock rejection referring to “mitigating circumstances” suggests that the operator did not properly consider the actual grounds raised.

If the operator wishes to rely on signage to establish contractual liability, POPLA is invited to require strict proof that the signage was sufficiently prominent, legible and positioned so that the driver was given a fair opportunity to read and understand the terms before any contract could be formed.

6. The operator has not shown that it has landowner authority.

The operator is put to strict proof of full contemporaneous landowner authority for the material site and date.

A mere witness statement or redacted agreement is not enough unless it clearly shows that the operator was authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and to pursue them in its own name. POPLA is invited to require production of the contemporaneous contract or chain of authority showing exactly who contracted with the operator and what rights were granted.

This is particularly relevant where the Notice to Keeper refers to “our Client’s property” rather than clearly identifying the creditor. That wording itself raises a question as to the legal basis on which the operator says it is entitled to recover the charge.

7. ANPR evidence is not sufficient without proof of accuracy, synchronisation and compliance.

If the operator relies on ANPR, it is put to strict proof that the system was working correctly on the material date, that the cameras were properly synchronised, that the images relate to the same single visit, and that the timestamps are accurate.

ANPR images of a vehicle entering and leaving a site do not, of themselves, establish the terms accepted, the point of contract formation, or the actual period parked. Nor do they prove that the driver saw, read and accepted any terms.

The operator should therefore be required to produce strict proof of the ANPR system’s reliability, calibration and audit trail for the material date.

For all of those reasons, the operator has failed to establish keeper liability and has failed to prove its case. I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal.

Attach the sealed order to the appeal.

[Foxy01]

Thank you, the vehicle is registered to a sole trader business. So persons name, T/A persons name contracting. Does this need to be amended in the POPLA appeal? As the registered keeper therefore could not have been the driver?

[b789]

@Foxy01 a sole trader business is not a separate legal person from the individual. So if a vehicle is registered to “John Smith t/a John Smith Plumbing”, the registered keeper is still John Smith in law. The trading style does not create a separate legal entity. Because of that, you cannot run an argument that the Keeper could not have been the driver simply because the vehicle is registered in a sole trader style. That point would go nowhere.

However, that does not assist the operator either. The fact that the vehicle is registered to you as a sole trader does not prove that you were the driver on the material date. Vehicle registration is not evidence of driver identity. Plenty of people are insured to drive other vehicles with the owner’s permission, including under third party cover. So the operator cannot simply point to the V5C details and pretend that this proves who was driving.

The Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. If the operator wants to say that the Keeper was the driver, the burden is on them to prove it. Unless the Keeper identifies themself as the driver, the operator will generally have no proper way of doing so.

That is why PoFA matters. If they cannot prove who the driver was, their only route to pursuing the Keeper is full compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA. They have not achieved that here. So the important point is not whether the Keeper could theoretically have been the driver. The important point is that the operator has not shown who the driver was and cannot transfer liability to the Keeper because the Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant.

[Foxy01]

POPLA appeal submitted verbatim.